Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I'm going to talk about an issue of enormous importance. The U.S. patent system feels to me an awful lot like the Titanic right now, and it feels like we're fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent.

The Trump Administration is making major changes to reduce the size of government to address the $37 trillion federal debt, including withdrawing employment offers to patent examiners and firing patent examiners still within their probationary period. Meanwhile, as the number of examiners is being cut, the backlog of unexamined patent applications is at an all-time high, with some sources saying there are now at least 1.2 million unexamined patent applications pending. And against this backdrop the Federal Circuit has developed an unhealthy obsession with the doctrine of prosecution laches, which creates a presumption that patents are unenforceable if it took longer than 6 years to obtain.

With fewer patent examiners and an historic backlog it will be difficult if not impossible for the Patent Office to issue most patents within 6 years. So, it feels a lot like the U.S. patent system is the Titanic headed for an iceberg, with disaster imminent. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we take a dive into the world of university technology transfer with Laura Peter, who is the Executive Director of the University of North Carolina Charlotte Office of Research Commercialization and Partnerships and is a former Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during President Trump’s first term. 

We begin our conversation discussing how Peter found herself at the Patent Office when Andrei Iancu was Director. Peter tells us that years ago when she was general counsel for a publicly traded company, she hired Iancu’s firm to represent the company. Fast forward 15 years and Iancu has become Director, and he reached out to Peter to see if she was interested in helping him at the Patent Office.  

We pivot to discuss how Peter found herself in her current role as the head of the technology transfer program at UNC Charlotte. We also spend time discussing core patent issues surrounding law, policy and the business of innovation. And our wide-ranging conversation goes on to discuss how other countries engage price control tactics on drugs, which means the United States is subsidizing drugs for the entire world, which is a trade problem and not a patent problem. We proceed to discuss startups, patent eligibility reform, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and much more.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

 This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we take a look at the importance of data transparency and standards for artificial intelligence (AI) and standard essential patents (SEPs). Our guest is Tim Pohlmann, who is the Managing Director for the Americas at LexisNexis Intellectual Property Solutions. And before he joined LexisNexis, Tim was the founder and CEO of IPLytics. Tim has worked at the intersection of data and standard essential patents for a long time, and the themes of data integrity, data transparency and how data can be used to influence and inform decision-making was the focus of our conversation. 

We being our conversation talking about entrepreneurship and leadership from the perspective of a founder and owner of a company that has been acquired, which is a welcome and happy occurrence, but not without challenges. 

As we pivoted the conversation to begin discussing data, standard essential patents and artificial intelligence, we transitioned by discussing first how the industry continues to evolve and never stays the same for very long, how there is so much innovation in the industry, and how there are economic and national security implications with China understandably wanting Chinese companies to dominate the technology future and the United States understandably wanting American companies to dominate. This can lead to tensions, and China, the U.S. and Europe all seem to be jockeying to set the technology standards of the future.

We proceed to talk about the United States and China competing on technology lead us into a conversation about AI and the role standards will play, which was front of mind probably because we recorded this conversation right as news of DeepSeek, China’s allegedly new super-advanced AI, was breaking. 

As we pivoted away from AI and into more traditional standard essential patents, particularly focusing on telecommunications (i.e., 5G and 6G), I acknowledge that while there will be need for AI standardization, and there will be a lot of unique questions arise in that context, we still don’t have a lot of answers in a number of critical areas for well-known and well-established technologies. This paved the way for us to discuss FRAND and to tackle the question about whether a FRAND rate really exists in the first place.

Our conversation goes on to discuss implementers understandably wanting to pay only to license patents that cover technologies that are actually included in the adopted standard, the potential that the Federal Circuit will rule that lump sum license payments are not relevant to determining a fair and reasonable licensing rate, what considerations go into converging on a rate that is FRAND, bulk discounting, and the role data plays in lifting the curtain so implementers who are themselves competitors with other implementers can determine whether they are getting a rate that will make them uncompetitive, and much more.  

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we enter the world of innovation politics with a discussion about what to expect for the patent world during President Trump's second term, what to specifically expect from the Patent Office, what to expect in Congress relating to the patent reform bills that we can expect to be reintroduced, which are namely PREVAIL, which relates to reforming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which relates to reforming the law on patent eligibility to make it easier to patent software—including artificial intelligence—and to make medical diagnostics patentable again, and RESTORE, which relates to overruling the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange, which has made it virtually impossible to obtain injunctive relief even when patent owners win and prove ongoing infringement. 

The conversation that you will hear happened at the annual IPWatchdog PTAB Masters™ program, which was held at the end of January at IPWatchdog Studios. The panelists were Chief Judge Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, David Kappos, a partner with Cravath and a former Director of the Patent Office during President Obama's first term, and Chris Israel, who is a senior partner at American Continental Group and served in the George W. Bush White House as the first U.S. International Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. Also joining the conversation is Scott McKeown, who is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and was Chair of the PTAB program. Scott, as most of you know, is also one of the leading experts on PTAB practice in the United States. 

We discuss the almost certain reintroduction of PREVAIL, PERA, and RESTORE, as well as the odds of getting patent reform during this Congress—which no one thinks was very likely unless President Trump himself steps up and makes it a priority. We also discuss the “helter-skelter” nature of the U.S. patent system, where the pieces don't fit together, don't integrate, leads to low predictability, and innovation-killing reality that simply does not incentivize investment in innovation. We also discuss the Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the PTAB being ordered back to the Office, and what that will mean for the number of petitions challenging patents that could possibly be instituted. And we discuss how antitrust enforcement would be unnecessary if we had a strong patent system that let young companies compete fairly based on innovation merit, and how Elon Musk is almost dead-on correct when he says that patents are for the weak—although Chris Israel suggested it would make more sense to say that “patents are for the young”. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

On this episode of IP Watchdog Unleashed we speak with Scott McKeown, who is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield. Scott leads the firm’s post grant patent practice, and he is the author of PatentsPostGrant.com, which provides inside views and news pertaining to the Nation’s busiest patent court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  As many in the industry no doubt know, Scott is recognized as one of the leading authorities on PTAB practice, including inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, post grant review (PGR) proceedings, as well as reexamination and reissue proceedings, which often follow on PTAB proceedings. 

Scott is not only a good friend, but he is also the Chair of our annual PTAB program, which took place this year from January 27 to January 29 at IPWatchdog Studios. This conversation with Scott took place before a live studio audience as a part of our PTAB Masters™ 2025 program.  

He's one of the most prolific representatives in the PTAB arena, dealing with IPR, PGR. He also handles reexaminations and the like. And he's also a very good friend of mine, and he's the chair of our PTAB program every year, which we're doing this, actually is live.

Our conversation was wide ranging but was dominated by discussion of patent reform efforts and whether the PTAB is working as intended. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed I had the opportunity to speak with my good friend Louis Foreman. Louis is the Chief Executive Officer of Enventys, which is a full-service product launch company that handles all aspects of product development, crowdfunding and ecommerce marketing. In addition to Enventys, Louis is a prolific inventor himself, he is also an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Wake Forest University, and as if that isn't already enough, Louis was the creator of the Emmy award-winning PBS TV show Everyday Edison that so many people in the community remember.  I've counted Louis as a friend for close to 20 years, so it was good to sit down for a conversation, even if that conversation took place remotely.

As our conversation unfolded it became clear pretty quickly that the focus would be on entrepreneurship, particularly the trials and tribulations of entrepreneurs looking to dive into the startup world with an innovative product. 

“There's three P's that I like to share with all entrepreneurs and all inventors,” Foreman said. “The first P is passion. If you're not passionate about what you're doing, find something else… The second P is patience. Inventors and entrepreneurs don't have a whole lot of it, but you need to because it's going to take longer than you expect. You're not going to become a billionaire overnight. It's going to take longer than what you expect to just be ready for the long haul. And the third P is persistence because life is going to throw all sorts of obstacles in front of you. There's going to be all these roadblocks or detours, and you're going to question whether or not you should even go forward… But if you really believe in what you're doing, you'll eventually succeed.”

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we talk about pharmaceutical patents, pharmaceutical patent policy, and innovation. 

 As you may recall, back in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act passed. And as part of that law, it gave the federal government the opportunity for the first time to “negotiate” drug prices for Medicare. The Biden Administration has viewed this as fantastic. It has allowed them to control drug prices and drug costs for Medicare. The problem is it's not really a negotiation in any fair sense of the word. What happens is the federal government identifies the drugs on which the U.S. government spends the most amount of money, and then they tell the drug companies that you will either take our offer or you will be fined, and the fines are ruinous—in the billions of dollars. So, the IRA negotiation nothing more than a price fixing, price controlling scheme.

 So why is this an issue for us to consider today if the IRA passed in 2022? Literally on the way out the door, last week Health and Human Services identified 15 more drugs that are now going to be forced into this price fixing “negotiation” scheme. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed I speak with my long-time friend, John White. Many in the patent community no doubt already know John quite well. Over 30 years ago he created the PLI Patent Bar Review Course that upwards of 40,000 patent practitioners have successfully used to study for the Patent Bar Exam. Today, John continues to teach the patent bar review, but he is also Special Counsel with Harness IP, where he represents clients all over the world and provides expert witness services.

I’ve known John since 1999 when I first started teaching the PLI Patent Bar Review Course, and we have been great friends ever since.  Our conversation this week was much like any number of conversations we have had over the years over dinner or drinks.

What prompted me to ask John to speak with us this week was an article he recently wrote, which we published on IPWatchdog. It was styled as an open letter to Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the co-leaders of the Department of Government Efficiency. In that article John explains that “the patent system is currently foundered”, but that it can be fixed with “focus and ongoing commitment to see the fixes through to results.” So, that is where we start our conversation, like so many we have had over the last 26 years—what is wrong with the patent system and how should it be fixed. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed I speak with Heath Hoglund, who until several years ago was Vice President of IP and Standards for Dolby. About 3 years ago Heath left Dolby and became President of Via Licensing Alliance, which we discuss in some detail in our conversation. And truth be told he really didn’t leave Dolby. Via administers patent pools and has historically been heavily invested in the audio arena, and with Dolby being one of the premiere audio innovators of all time it is hardly a surprise that Dolby has been a long time participating and is one of the major patent owners who participates in the patent pools administered by Via. 

One of the first things Heath did as President of Via was to work on merging with MPEG-LA, which was a patent pool administrator that was primarily focused on video related technologies. So, today, Via Licensing is a major player in both audio and video technologies. 

During our conversation we discuss wide ranging issues, from the inevitability that there will be some implementers who do not want to take a license and will require patent owners to litigate, to the changing landscape, particularly in China where companies have evolved from merely needing a license to also being a licensor, to the European Union working toward regulating SEPs, and much more. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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

Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we speak with Arthur Daemmrich, who is the Director of the Consortium of Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. Arthur is a historian who was previously director of the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution. We speak with Arthur this week about the role patents have played in innovation, dating back to the Industrial Revolution. We also discuss the invention of the video game by Ralph Baer, Samuel Colt and his mass produced six-shooter known as the gun that won the West, Henry Ford and the assembly line, how and why Elon Musk succeeded with Tesla, and much more.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

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