Send us Fan Mail

Corporate IP departments are under growing pressure to do more with less. Budgets are tightening, leadership increasingly expects patents to deliver measurable business value, and artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how patent work can be performed. What does this mean for the future of in-house patent teams—and for the law firms that support them?

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn is joined by Sivon Kalminov, Director of Intellectual Property for Canon USA, and Fran Cruz, Senior Vice President of IP Solutions at JuriStat, for a wide-ranging discussion on how modern corporate IP departments are adapting to a rapidly changing environment.

The conversation explores several major trends shaping patent strategy today, including the shift toward quality over quantity in patent portfolios, the growing emphasis on maintenance fee pruning and portfolio discipline, and the evolving relationship between in-house counsel and outside patent law firms. The panel also examines how companies are using competitive intelligence, patent analytics, and emerging AI tools to guide filing strategy, manage costs, and identify licensing and enforcement opportunities.

Finally, the discussion tackles one of the biggest questions facing the IP profession: What can AI realistically do for patent practitioners today—and what can’t it do yet? While AI is proving valuable for tasks like patent searching, competitive landscape analysis, and data-driven strategy, it is far from a “magic button” that replaces human expertise.

For anyone working in patent law, intellectual property strategy, or corporate innovation management, this conversation offers an inside look at how leading companies are navigating the new economics of patent practice.

Topics discussed include:

• How budget pressure is reshaping corporate patent strategy
• Why companies are focusing on patent quality instead of quantity
• Maintenance fee pruning and portfolio management strategies
• How in-house teams are restructuring relationships with outside counsel
• Where AI is actually useful in patent practice today

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we focus on an issue that has been quietly reshaping the patent industry for years but has gained new momentum over the last year or two. 

Patent budgets are shrinking, expectations are rising, and nobody seems willing to admit what that combination actually means. 

Companies continue to say that patents remain essential to protecting innovation and supporting long-term business strategy. But if priorities are truly reflected in budgets, the message coming from corporate patent spending tells a different story. 

Rather than confronting this tension directly, many organizations are trying to solve the problem by asking outside counsel to deliver more for less. They want stronger patents, deeper technical disclosures, broader claim support, and prosecution strategies designed to withstand litigation scrutiny—all while expecting preparation and prosecution costs to remain flat or even decline. 

Layered on top of these pressures is a growing assumption that artificial intelligence should dramatically reduce the cost of patent work. And while AI can significantly enhance quality the productivity gains many expected from AI have not yet materialized.

So, this week we discuss whether client actions suggest patents still matter.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

What does it mean to be a prolific inventor in an era of corporate retrenchment, weakened patent rights, and risk-averse innovation culture?

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, host Gene Quinn explores that question with Fred Shelton—an engineer who has accumulated more than 3,000 patents over roughly two decades, primarily during his career at Johnson & Johnson. Shelton describes himself not as an IP professional, but as an engineer who “documents engineering through patents.” That distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a philosophy of invention that is structured, disciplined, and deeply contextual.

Fred Shelton’s career illustrates that prolific invention is not the product of luck or raw creativity. It is the result of disciplined problem identification, constraint-driven ideation, market realities, and intentional IP architecture.

Innovation does not happen in a vacuum. It happens where engineering rigor meets business reality and where invention is documented not as an afterthought, but as a strategic foundation. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn speaks with Deborah Farone, founder of Farone Advisors and former Chief Marketing Officer of Cravath, Swain & Moore, about how lawyers—particularly in highly technical fields like intellectual property—can build thriving practices through disciplined, strategic business development. Farone emphasizes that effective marketing for lawyers begins with strategy, should not be transactional and is something that should not be outsourced. Lawyers must define their niche, understand their market positioning, and align business development efforts with their personal strengths, interests, and economically viable opportunities. 

The discussion underscores that business development is a skill, not an innate personality trait. Even introverted attorneys can succeed by taking incremental steps, practicing authentic communication, and focusing on listening rather than selling. Relationship-building—before, during, and after conferences or meetings—is central. Preparation demonstrates empathy and builds trust; follow-up sustains momentum. The most effective rainmakers operate with a “soft sell” mindset, positioning themselves as problem-solvers and trusted advisors rather than transactional vendors. Consistent habits—scheduled follow-ups, thoughtful notes, leveraging speaking engagements into written content, and strategic use of LinkedIn—create compounding long-term value.

Finally, Farone and Quinn highlight the importance of early-career development. Associates should begin cultivating networks from day one, maintaining law school and professional relationships that may later become client pipelines. Firms that invest in marketing training and provide even modest development budgets for associates strengthen long-term institutional resilience. Those that fail to train lawyers in business development risk producing technically excellent but commercially underdeveloped partners. 

The central takeaway: Sustainable practice growth requires intentional strategy, authentic engagement, disciplined follow-up, and a long-term relationship mindset.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we discuss whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the  Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). PTAB practitioners Matt Phillips and Kevin Greenleaf join host Gene Quinn for an examination of how patent owners and challengers should be strategically thinking about the shifting post-grant environment at the USPTO. The conversation highlights the growing reality that post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review (IPR), but that ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity, which requires careful evaluating timing, procedural dynamics, cost, and institutional realities. 

While IPR proceedings offer structured timelines, litigation-style advocacy, and strict scrutiny of petitions as drafted, reexamination provides prosecution-style flexibility, examiner interviews, and opportunities to refine claims through amendment. The trio emphasized that the low threshold for ordering reexamination makes institution statistics less meaningful than what happens in the first Office action. At the same time, PTAB proceedings can end quickly if institution is denied, offering efficiency advantages that reexamination cannot always match. These tradeoffs mean that neither forum is universally superior; each presents strategic advantages depending on the strength of the prior art, litigation posture, and business objectives. 

Ultimately, the discussion underscored that administrative patent review remains in a period of policy uncertainty. Changes in PTAB discretionary-denial practice, operational shifts within the CRU, and the absence of stable rulemaking create ongoing unpredictability for both patent owners and challengers. As post-grant challenges increasingly shift between forums, practitioners must focus on rigorous diligence, careful drafting, and adaptable strategy. The conclusion is that in today’s environment, success in post-grant proceedings depends less on forum preference and more on preparation, technical strength, and the ability to navigate a system still searching for long-term equilibrium.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed Gene Quinn speaks with Todd Walters and the two explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. Both emphasized that the most striking development in recent PTAB discussions is the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners alike, reflecting the high financial stakes and strategic importance of AIA proceedings. 

A central theme of the discussion was the lack of predictability in PTAB practice, driven largely by shifts in USPTO leadership and the exercise of Director discretion in administering AIA trials. Walters noted that changes in policies governing discretionary denials, real-party-in-interest rules, and parallel litigation considerations have made it difficult for practitioners to provide durable strategic guidance. Quinn and Walters agreed that without greater stability, the system will continue to experience “pendulum swings,” with each administrative transition reshaping PTAB access and outcomes in ways that undermine confidence in the patent system. 

The discussion also addressed broader structural issues in patent dispute resolution, including serial challenges to patents, the emerging concept of “settled expectations,” and the complexity created by parallel proceedings across the PTAB, district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. Both participants suggested that meaningful reform will require patent owners and petitioners to work together to develop a more predictable and balanced framework for post-grant review. While consensus may not satisfy stakeholders at the extremes, establishing clear and stable rules would strengthen confidence in the patent system and reduce the cycle of policy reversals that has defined PTAB practice in recent years.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn and Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Quinn and Johnson explain the viewpoint that the PTAB drifted from what many had initially expected, pointing to among other things the lengthy, merits focused institution decisions and serial challenges that eroded confidence among patent owners and raised serious questions about whether the PTAB functioned as a balanced error-correction mechanism. 

The conversation zeroes in on structural flaws that distort outcomes rather than improve patent quality. Quinn and Johnson discuss obviousness determinations built on excessive combinations of prior art, warning that such analyses blur the line between legitimate hindsight reconstruction and genuine innovation assessment. They also highlight a systemic blind spot: nuisance “ankle-biter” assertions that exploit litigation economics while largely evading PTAB scrutiny. These cases have driven much of the political backlash against patents while remaining functionally untouched by the post-grant review process, leaving operating companies to absorb the cost as a tax on doing business and legitimate patent owners to be vilified as if they are the problem.

Johnson offers concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, he proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners. 

The takeaway is clear: the PTAB does not need to be dismantled—but it does need disciplined recalibration if it is to deliver fairness, predictability, and legitimacy going forward.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn speaks with Megan Carpenter following her decision to step down as Dean of UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law after more than eight years. Carpenter reflects on rebuilding the institution’s IP-focused identity, restoring alumni trust, increasing enrollment and driving engagement growth, while explaining why builders—such as herself—eventually need new challenges.

The conversation quickly broadens into a candid assessment of the IP ecosystem. Quinn and Carpenter discuss intellectual property as the legal infrastructure that enables and supports human creativity, innovation, and economic mobility—but acknowledge that intellectual property suffers from a serious messaging and credibility gap largely because the compelling argument for strong IP requires a story and explanation, while the misguided “weak IP is best” movement can fit its narrative onto a bumper sticker. Both Quinn and Carpenter also agree that weak enforcement, efficient infringement, and diminished remedies have distorted incentives, pushing innovators toward litigation instead of productive licensing and collaboration.

They also tackle emerging issues, including AI’s impact on legal practice and education. Both emphasize that AI is a powerful tool, not a replacement for human judgment, and warn that law schools and firms that fail to train lawyers in AI literacy and prompting skills are already falling behind.

The discussion concludes with a clear takeaway: IP professionals occupy a privileged and strategic position. Strengthening IP systems, rebuilding public trust, and expanding opportunity—especially for smaller innovators and underrepresented communities—are not optional. They are essential to sustaining innovation in a rapidly evolving global economy.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

In this edition of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn hosts a comprehensive discussion with Jim Carmichael, a former judge on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and Brad Close, Executive Vice President of Transpacific IP. The trio explores the current state of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), examining recent changes, the impact on patent owners and litigation, and the historical context of patent law and why the PTAB was created. They delve into the roles of non-practicing entities (NPEs), the integrity of the re-examination process, and the inefficiency of the patent litigation system. This detailed conversation sheds light on the complexities of patent enforcement, the economics of defending patents, and the broader legal landscape affecting innovators and patent practitioners.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn sits down with prolific inventor Gil Hyatt, exploring his innovative journey and aspirations to leave a lasting legacy. Gil, known for his significant contributions to the field of electrical engineering and microcomputers, shared insightful anecdotes about his early days, his pioneering work in artificial intelligence, and his ambitions to benefit future generations.

Throughout the discussion, Gene and Gil tackled the controversies surrounding the perception of inventors like Hyatt as "patent trolls." Clarifying this mischaracterization, Hyatt explained that while his patents were widely licensed, he never instigated lawsuits for patent infringement—rather the lawsuits he was involved in often came from companies seeking invalidation for strategic advantage. 

One of the key highlights of the conversation was Gil's creation of a non-profit AI Foundation, which is aimed at advancing AI technology and bolstering U.S. economic interests. This non-profit organization is set to hold Gil's substantial portfolio of AI patent applications, which cover his pioneering work dating back to the 1980s, and includes groundbreaking claims in artificial intelligence that could revolutionize sectors like education, manufacturing, and trade.

Throughout the conversation Gil discusses the spirit of the American dream, and how the Foundation, operating in consultation with the Trump Administration, intends to leverage AI in support of trade negotiations, offering favorable licensing to U.S. companies while using patent rights to block foreign imports that violate the AI manufacturing process patents at the International Trade Commission.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.