Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Anthony Del Monaco, David Goose, Josh Hartman and John White about one of the most important strategic decisions in patent disputes: choosing the right battlefield. In today’s patent environment, outcomes are shaped not only by the strength of the patent, but by where the dispute is fought, how the forum operates, and what leverage each side can create.

The conversation covers the shifting role of the PTAB, the rise of discretionary denials, the renewed interest in ex parte reexamination, and the continuing strategic importance of district court venue. The panel also explores when the International Trade Commission can provide patent owners with a powerful path to exclusionary relief, and why arbitration or mediation may sometimes offer a more practical route to resolution.

The discussion then moves global, with particular attention to standard-essential patent disputes and the growing competition among China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Unified Patent Court to shape worldwide patent licensing outcomes. The result is a candid, practical conversation about forum selection, uncertainty, leverage, remedies, and how sophisticated patent owners and accused infringers should reverse-engineer strategy from the business outcome they need to achieve.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Dean Geibel and Karl Maersch. The conversation explores what patent owners must do before they can credibly monetize, license, sell, finance, or enforce a patent portfolio. Before any revenue strategy can succeed, companies first need to understand what they actually own, which assets are core, which are defensive, which may have value to others, and which patents may be consuming budget without advancing business objectives or portfolio value.

Geibel and Maersch discuss the hard, often uncomfortable diligence required to separate valuable assets from deadwood. They examine how patent portfolios should be mapped against products, competitors, market direction, business units, revenue opportunities, and litigation risk. The discussion also addresses the importance of building portfolios with the end in mind, including claims that cover commercial products, claims that competitors will take seriously, and assets that can survive scrutiny from potential licensees, buyers, lenders, and litigation adversaries.

The episode also highlights practical portfolio-building lessons, including the role of picture claims, design patents, prior art searching, patent landscapes, trade show intelligence, and ongoing communication with inventors, engineers, business leaders, and outside counsel. Ultimately, the conversation makes clear that patent monetization does not begin with litigation or licensing outreach. It begins much earlier, with disciplined prosecution strategy, market-informed portfolio management, and a clear-eyed assessment of whether the portfolio you have can survive due diligence when revenue opportunities emerge.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with former USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu. The conversation begins with Iancu’s path from engineering at Hughes Aircraft to intellectual property law, including his early years at the IP boutique Lyon & Lyon and his later experience as a leading patent litigator and law firm managing partner at Irell & Manella. From there, Quinn and Iancu examine the cyclical nature of IP practice, the migration of patent litigation into large general practice firms, and the growing commoditization of patent litigation work. 

The discussion then turns to the structural imbalance facing patent owners in today’s enforcement environment. Quinn and Iancu address Section 101 motions to dismiss, PTAB challenges, routine litigation stays, Federal Circuit scrutiny, and the practical erosion of injunctive relief after a patent owner has already run the litigation gauntlet and proved infringement. Iancu explains that defendants now have many more pathways to victory than patent owners, who must prevail repeatedly across multiple forums and legal standards before securing meaningful relief. The result, they suggest, is a system that often no longer operates like a patent is an exclusive property right as was contemplated by the Constitution.

The conversation ultimately broadens into a first-principles discussion about what the U.S. patent system should look like in the 21st century. Iancu argues that the current framework, rooted in 18th-century statutory realities, is struggling to accommodate software, artificial intelligence, data, biotechnology, and other information-driven innovations. Quinn and Iancu explore whether a one-size-fits-all patent system still makes sense, whether sui generis rights may be necessary for emerging technologies, and how any future innovation framework must balance two core objectives: incentivizing investment in risky innovation while ensuring meaningful public disclosure.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us Fan Mail

This episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, features the closing panel conversation from IPWatchdog’s recent Patent Masters program. 

Gene Quinn opens the conversation by arguing that the U.S. patent system is no longer functioning as a coherent innovation framework, but instead has become a fragmented mix of overlapping tribunals, inconsistent standards, procedural inefficiencies, and doctrinal barriers that make it harder to obtain, defend, and enforce meaningful patent rights. Rather than focusing on existing bills, USPTO rule packages, or incremental fixes, Gene explains that IPWatchdog will facilitate a year-long conversation in search of a first-principles blueprint for the U.S. patent system that restores predictability, protects investment, and reestablishes patents as critical to the innovation infrastructure. 

To kick-off this project, our conversation this week brings together Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader, Scott McKeown, John White, and Colin Sandercock for a wide-ranging discussion of the structural failures now undermining patent reliability, investment, commercialization, and technological leadership. The participants identify patent eligibility, injunctions, post-grant review, Federal Circuit review, venue, judicial expertise, and the uncertain status of patents as property among the core issues requiring serious reconsideration. A recurring theme is the need for clarity, predictability, and institutional alignment so that innovators, investors, implementers, courts, and agencies can operate within a system that is fair, efficient, and commercially rational.

The panel ultimately frames patent reform not as a narrow legislative exercise, but as a national innovation imperative. While the panelists acknowledge the practical difficulty of achieving Congressional action in today’s political environment, they also emphasize that meaningful change is feasible if stakeholders are willing to engage in sustained, candid, first-principles thinking. The episode closes with a call to build a broader coalition of practitioners, judges, industry leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders capable of developing a serious blueprint for reform—one that restores confidence in patent rights, strengthens incentives to invest in technology, and better aligns the U.S. patent system with the needs of the modern innovation economy.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Rama Elluru, who is Senior Advisor for the Special Competitive Studies Project, which is a bipartisan non-profit initiative, which makes recommendations to strengthen America's long-term competitiveness for a future where AI and other emerging technologies reshape our national security, economy, and society. Rama brings a rare cross-disciplinary perspective to the conversation, having worked as a computer scientist, patent attorney, Administrative Patent Judge at the USPTO, and national security policy advisor. The discussion begins with her unconventional path into intellectual property, including her early work on embedded software tools for F-16 fighter jets, her clerkships at the ITC and Federal Circuit, her private practice experience, and her work at the USPTO as AI began to emerge as a strategic policy issue. 

The conversation then turns to the accelerating intersection of AI, patent law, and national competitiveness. Quinn and Elluru discuss whether the current U.S. patent system adequately incentivizes AI-related innovation, particularly as generative AI evolves toward more autonomous, agentic capabilities. They explore the hard questions policymakers will soon face around AI-assisted inventorship, patent eligibility, drug discovery, scientific research, and whether existing legal frameworks can keep pace with technologies that are advancing far faster than Congress, agencies, and courts typically move.

Finally, Quinn and Elluru address the broader national security implications of intellectual property policy. They discuss AI-enabled fraud, workforce disruption, the need for guardrails and meaningful penalties for malicious uses of AI, and why IP must be understood as a core pillar of economic and national security strategy. Elluru explains why policymakers often fail to connect patent policy with strategic competition, despite the fact that countries like China already treat IP as a lever of national power. The episode closes with a clear takeaway: if America wants to lead in AI and emerging technologies, intellectual property policy cannot remain an afterthought.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Alden Abbott, who is Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission. Abbott brings a rare combination of antitrust, intellectual property, administrative agency, and law-and-economics experience to a wide-ranging conversation about innovation policy, competition, and the practical consequences of government intervention in markets.

The discussion traces Abbott’s career across government, academia, and public policy, including his work on issues at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. Together Quinn and Abbott examine how patents, licensing, and competition law should work together to promote innovation rather than undermine it. They also discuss how policy frameworks such as Bayh-Dole and standard essential patent protections helped shape the modern innovation economy, and why the wrong economic assumptions can distort how policymakers view patents, licensing, and market power.

The conversation then turns to today’s policy environment, including the risks created when antitrust rhetoric treats intellectual property rights as suspect rather than as pro-competitive assets. Quinn and Abbott also explain why weakening patent rights and pushing innovators out of business negotiations and into litigation can damage the innovation ecosystem. The conversation closes by focusing on the core issue for patent owners and policymakers alike, namely that a functioning innovation economy requires predictable property rights, disciplined antitrust enforcement, and a clear recognition that patents are not obstacles to competition—they are often the foundation that makes competition possible.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with a panel of experts. This conversation was a part of the recent IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters program, and featured Carlo Cotrone, founder and principal consultant of Quartal IP, Robert Plotkin, author, patent attorney and founding partner with Blueshift IP, and John Rogitz, managing attorney at Rogitz & Associates and a member of the IPWatchdog Advisory Committee. Together, the panel examined the future of patent law firms in an AI-driven marketplace, where in-house legal departments are internalizing more work, expecting greater efficiency, and increasingly questioning traditional outside counsel fee structures.

The discussion focused on the operational realities behind the AI hype. While AI can improve research, drafting, analysis, and overall work product quality, the panel emphasized that it is not a magic button and cannot replace expert legal judgment. The most effective use of AI in patent practice is incremental, targeted, and lawyer-directed—more co-pilot than autopilot. Panelists explored the risks created when inventors, clients, or law firms over-rely on AI-generated disclosures, patent application critiques, or claim strategy recommendations, including the potential for increased attorney workload, inventorship complications, technical inaccuracies, and downstream litigation vulnerabilities.

The conversation ultimately framed AI as both a market disruptor and a strategic opportunity for patent law firms. Firms that respond defensively or compete solely on price risk being pushed into an unsustainable race to the bottom. Firms that lean into client education, workflow redesign, transparent billing expectations, disciplined AI usage, and higher-value counseling will be better positioned to compete. The panel made clear that AI will not eliminate the need for sophisticated patent counsel; it will expose which firms are genuinely strategic partners and which are merely labor providers.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Kristen Osenga, who is the Julie & John Nowak Faculty Research Scholar & Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Richmond School of Law. Osenga discusses her path from engineering to patent law, including her time at Finnegan and her clerkship with Judge Richard Linn of the Federal Circuit, and explains how those experiences shaped her strong appreciation for patent owners, innovators, and the real-world consequences of patent policy. 

The conversation turns to Osenga’s scholarship, which she describes as focused on identifying what patent law commentators, policymakers, and courts are missing or getting wrong. She discusses her current research into who is actually suing whom in patent litigation, why the “patent troll” narrative has distorted enforcement policy, and how treating non-practicing patent owners as inherently suspect has harmed universities, startups, individual inventors, and small innovators. Quinn and Osenga also examine how large technology companies have successfully framed the patent debate around implementer concerns, often at the expense of innovators whose business model depends on licensing or enforcement rather than manufacturing.

The episode also explores standard essential patents, FRAND licensing, injunctions, eBay, competition policy, and the recurring misconception that patents are monopolies. Osenga explains why many anti-patent arguments gain traction because they sound intuitive to the public, even when they are economically or legally incomplete. Quinn and Osenga emphasize that companies are in business to make money, that “free” licensing is rarely actually free, and that strong patent rights remain essential to sustaining innovation. The broader takeaway is that patent policy improves only when judges, policymakers, staffers, commentators, and academics take the time to understand how innovation actually works—and why weakening patent enforcement ultimately undermines the very innovators the system is supposed to protect.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Fran Cruz, who is Senior Vice President of IP Solutions for Juristat, about how data, AI, and changing corporate economics are reshaping patent prosecution business development. The conversation frames a critical market reality: in-house IP teams are under sustained pressure to reduce spend, consolidate outside counsel rosters, and direct more work to firms that can demonstrate measurable value. 

Cruz and Quinn examine recent prosecution-volume trends among the top 50 U.S. patent-filing assignees, with particular focus on whether IP boutiques are gaining ground against Am Law 200 firms. The data suggests the market is not simply shifting from large firms to boutiques, or vice versa. Instead, the dominant trend is client-specific consolidation: companies are moving more work to the best performers already on their existing rosters. The discussion highlights that efficiency metrics—especially average office actions, RCE rates, appeal strategy, 101 rejection outcomes, and cost per patent—are becoming increasingly important alongside allowance rates. Quinn emphasizes that law firms can no longer assume quality alone will carry the day; they need to understand what each client values, whether that is compact prosecution, strategic claim scope, portfolio value, or lower-cost patent-factory type execution.

The episode closes with a practical business development playbook for patent firms operating in a cost-sensitive, data-driven market. Cruz urges firms to move beyond generic credentials pitches and instead teach prospective clients something specific about their own portfolios, prosecution patterns, competitors, or cost-saving opportunities. Quinn and Cruz also discuss how AI can sharpen messaging, compress bloated pitch language, improve decks and emails, and help firms articulate a differentiated value proposition in terms that in-house counsel actually care about. The broader takeaway is clear: firms that combine credible data, targeted insight, high-value content, and relationship-driven outreach will be better positioned to win work as in-house teams continue to seek the “best bang for your buck” prosecution partners.

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, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Brent Bellows, a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies (KIPS) in Atlanta, Georgia, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in human genetics. Brent traces his path from graduate research in medical genetics and tumor-associated antigens to patent law, including his time at King & Spalding, a clerkship in the Northern District of Georgia, and his work today at KIPS on patent prosecution, portfolio strategy, litigation support, licensing, and expert witness matters. The conversation highlights how Brent’s scientific training and litigation-facing experience inform the way he drafts and prosecutes life sciences patents, with a clear focus on how those assets may ultimately perform in district court, ANDA litigation, and biosimilar disputes. 

Gene and Brent discuss what judges actually care about in patent cases, including why the story told in the patent application matters, why consistency from prosecution through litigation can be strategically important, and why some issues that loom large for prosecutors may carry less practical weight in court. Brent explains that district court judges often approach inequitable conduct allegations skeptically unless the conduct is truly egregious, and he offers insight into Markman practice, claim construction, and how life sciences disputes differ from many high-tech cases because the science often dictates the shape and value of the patent claims.

The conversation then moves into the policy and business realities of pharmaceutical innovation, which dominate more than half of the conversation. Brent discusses a variety of issues including Hatch-Waxman, Orange Book listings, paragraph IV certifications, skinny labels, generic entry, clinical trial costs, regulatory exclusivity, and the enormous financial risk associated with bringing new drugs to market. Gene and Brent explore the tension between public demand for lower drug prices and the need for durable incentives that make high-risk drug development economically viable, particularly for oncology, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and other difficult-to-treat conditions. The episode closes with a broader innovation-policy message: patents are not a peripheral feature of drug development—they are a core operating asset that enables private-sector investment, supports breakthrough therapies, and ultimately drives the availability of future generic medicines.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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