IPWatchdog Unleashed

This week my conversation is with Leo White, who is Chief IP Counsel and Associate General Counsel for The Duracell Company. Leo is a patent professional by training, first starting out as an engineer, then like so many in the patent field have done he became a patent agent, then went to law school, and thanks to hard work, good mentoring and being in the right place at the right time he became an IP attorney for The Duracell Company, ultimately rising to become the top IP attorney for this American Manufacturer with one of the more iconic brands in the world.  During our conversation we begin by briefly talking about patent strategy, but then move quickly to brand protection, trademarks, trade dress and effectively working with customs agencies around the world. While Duracell does patent its various battery technologies, and while White is responsible for maintaining a worldwide patent portfolio for the company, the company’s trademark and trade dress portfolio are the IP tools of choice used most often when working to fight the never-ending battle against counterfeiters and copycats, and to also protect against gray market imports. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we speak with Brian Hinman, who is one of the leading IP executives and investors in the world. Brian has held senior executive positions at leading technology companies, such as IBM, Philips and Verizon. And after spending more than 6 years as the Chief Innovation Officer for Aon, today he is Chief IP Officer for Cote Capital. During our conversation Hinman explains how Cote provides capital for scaling manufacturing and operations, with IP assets backing the investment. The way Hinman describes this IP asset-backed investment strategy sounds lot more owner-friendly and startup-friendly than a typical venture capital round of investment, which often requires owners to give up more than half the company in order to receive an investment.During our conversation we also discuss pending legislation, particularly the RESTORE Act, which would effectively overrule eBay and create a presumption than a permanent injunction is the proper remedy, with Hinman explaining that the legislation places the burden on the infringer to demonstrate that a permanent injunction is not warranted, which according to Hinman is the way it should be.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

On the heels of the PREVAIL Act passing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the very next day USPTO Director Kathi Vidal wrote on the Director’s Blog about how wonderful the PTAB has been, saying in part: “Since AIA proceedings began over a decade ago, almost 70% of challenged patents have been upheld at the PTAB.”This claim by Director Vidal initially made me speechless. Simply stated, she is wrong. It is absolutely false for anyone to say or suggest that 70% of challenged patents have been upheld at the PTAB. This claim is not true. It is pure fiction.PTAB stats admit that out of those patents that reach a final written decision 85% lose at least one claim and 70% lost all claims. That is the reality for patent owners. If the PTAB issues a final decision you are virtually certain to lose, and these statistics have largely remained unchanged, with only minimal fluctuation since the inception of the PTAB in 2012.So, exactly who is fooling who? The way the rules are structured, and the way we have actually witnessed the PTAB operate, confirms that no patent is safe ever. And this is not meant as any indictment of PTAB judges—they are just doing the job as defined in the staute passed by Congress and the rules created by the PTO. This is, however, a scathing indictment of those laws and rules, which are in desperate need of reform. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week I speak with Josh Harlan, who is the founder and managing partner of Harlan Capital Partners, which is a privately held investment firm based in Palm Beach, Florida, and which focuses on asset-based investments, including investments backed by media and intellectual property rights, and specifically the monetization of streams of revenue back by intangible assets. During our conversation we speak about various investable streams of revenue in the media, sports and IP universe, and then we also make a hard pivot to discuss artificial intelligence, and what those looking to invest in AI should be considering, the viability of fair use as a defense to the ongoing lawsuits brought by copyright owners against AI developers, and the likely future marketplace for the monetization of training data and AI outputs. Harlan sees the possibility of “some pretty big damages awards on a one-time basis” for content creators in their copyright lawsuits against large AI developers but doesn’t see these legal issues as an existential threat to the AI industry. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Walt Copan joins us for a conversation about the role of science, technology and innovation in U.S. competitiveness and for U.S. national security. As many of you no doubt know, Walt is a former Undersecretary of Commerce and served as the 16th Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a position for which he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate during the Trump Administration. Today, Walt is the Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. I invited Walt to join us for our annual life sciences program this year. My pitch was that we would have a one-on-one conversation that would not only make up the final segment of the program, but which would also be used for our IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast. He graciously accepted my invitation, and we sat down for this conversation on Wednesday, October 30. During our conversation we discuss the ongoing Bayh-Dole march-in rights drama being caused by his old agency—NIST—which has published a framework that would allow the government to strip patent rights away from exclusive licensees if the government believes the product covered by a patent is too expensive. We also discussed the diverging approach to commercialization between universities who can own and license patent rights and federal agencies, which operate under an entirely different statutory structure that makes it virtually impossible to get innovations made by federal government employees to the marketplace and commercialized for the good of society. We also discuss the upward trajectory of China vis-à-vis innovation and intellectual property, and the stagnation within the U.S. innovation ecosystem, which has been primarily led by uncertainty and dismantling of the U.S. intellectual property laws. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week we have a special guest—the Honorable Pauline Newman, Circuit Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Newman spoke at our annual Life Sciences program at IPWatchdog Studios on Tuesday, October 29. Her remarks were largely unscripted, although she did have some notes that she consulted from time to time during her nearly 45 minute presentation. Judge Newman told her story, and the story of the Federal Circuit, in her own words. So powerful were her comments that at least several in the audience were seen shedding a tear, and she received a hearty standing ovation. Judge Newman is being wrongfully persecuted by her colleagues on the Federal Circuit. She has taken and passed with flying colors the three different mental evaluations she has submitted to, all conducted by different, highly regarded evaluators. And in addition to the final mental evaluation she was given a cutting edge CT scan of her brain, which showed no signs of cognitive decline, and in fact rather remarkably showed a healthy brain that looked to be the scan of someone in their 20s. Faced with all the inaccurate statements in the complaint, which have never been correct despite their falsity, the Federal Circuit persists in excluding Judge Newman from hearing cases, which every day is becoming a more significant constitutional crisis. So, against this backdrop we are pleased to present the Honorable Pauline Newman. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, we discuss patent prosecution with the director of intellectual property at one of the top five filing companies in the world. Sivon Kalminov is the Director the Intellectual Property Division at Canon USA, where he is responsible for managing the Division’s day-to-day patent prosecution work, which includes overseeing both the patent prosecution and administration departments. He also provides support on patent litigation matters, contract matters, and general U.S. patent law-related advice to various domestic and international Canon companies and subsidiaries. He is a current member of the California State Bar Intellectual Property Section, and a past Chair of the Section.Our wide-ranging conversation took place in person on October 1, at IPWatchdog LIVE, shortly after Sivon spoke on a panel about strategies for getting to yes when working with patent examiners.During our conversation, we discuss the unique set-up of the Canon intellectual property department, which sees Sivon and his team representing Canon USA, but also representing various Canon entities from around the world as they enter the United States to obtain patents on previously filed applications. We also discuss the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) switching from EFS-Web to Patent Center, the unceremonious death of the After Final Consideration 2.0 program, examiners raising Section 112 and Section 101 issues for the first time in a Notice of Allowance, strategies for working with examiners, the importance of interviews to get on the same page with examiners, when and whether it is appropriate to appeal examiner rejections to the Board, and much more.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week we explore small and medium sized enterprises, often referred to simply as SMEs. And in particular, we take a look at how two different countries are working with their own small businesses to assist them with respect to innovation and intellectual property. To accomplish this, I turned to two friends – Mike McLean and Joe Doyle, who work to assist SMEs in Canada and Ireland respectively. Both Mike and Joe were in the United States at the end of September to speak at IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, on a panel titled Empowering SME Growth by Leveraging IP. During our conversation we learn about the ways both the Canadian and Irish governments are supporting SMEs, which is something that we in the United States should be doing to a much greater and coordinated degree. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we have a special episode. At the end of September we held our annual all-topics conference, which we call IPWatchdog LIVE. This conference brings together some of the top thought leaders and newsmakers from the entire industry, with a variety of different backgrounds and people who focus on various different niche verticals within the IP community. So, while the conference was ongoing, Eileen McDermott, our editor in chief, asked some of the industry leaders in attendance what they thought was the most important issue facing the intellectual property industry.“What is critically important and every leader in government needs to focus on is to make sure that the IP system is stable, it's predictable, and it's subject to fewer fluctuations,” said Andrei Iancu, former Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and Director of the USPTO during the Trump Administration. “We need to work towards a stronger, more consistent, more predictable intellectual property system, whether it's patents, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets.”“The most pressing issue is the lack of appreciation of the link between strong and effective intellectual property rights and innovation outcomes,” said David Kappos, former Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and Director of the USPTO during the Obama administration. To hear more from these thought leaders, and others including Judge Pauline Newman, Alden Abbott, Matteo Sabattini, Judge Susan Braden, Patrick Kilbride, Hans Sauer, Brian O’Shaughnessy, and others, listen to this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week our conversation takes us on an international journey, more or less. Andras JOKUTI is an intellectual property lawyer with domestic and international experience in public IP policy and university technology transfer. He is the former Director-General for Legal Affairs of the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, and he is a former Fulbright Scholar. Andras studied intellectual property and obtained his LL.M. in intellectual property law from The George Washington University. Thereafter, Andras worked with the Budapest University of Technology and Economics to strengthen its IP and technology transfer operations. And since January 2022, he has served as the Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at World Intellectual Property Organization. Andras came to the United States last week to speak at IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, which was hosted at the Renaissance Capitol View hotel in Arlington, Virginia. During our wide-ranging conversation we discuss a number of issues, from standard essential patents, to artificial intelligence, and to trade secrets, which is what brought him to IPWatchdog, to discuss the new WIPO trade secret guide, published in July 2024.  Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week we will change things up a bit. Until now our podcast has focused on conversations with newsmakers and interesting personalities. We won’t be giving that format up, but this week we will shift things to allow me to do a little ranting on a topic I’ve been thinking about more and more over the last several years; namely, do we still need, or even want, a Federal Circuit? I’ve been kicking this question around in my head for a while. There are a variety of reasons why the Federal Circuit seems to have outlived its usefulness, from panel dependency, to what at times appears to be utter disdain for certainty, predictability and even binding precedent, to the shocking, unfair and egregious treatment of Judge Newman. Why do we need a Federal Circuit? Why should we want this flawed institution to continue?What we know is very little of what the Federal Circuit does any more relates to patents, with only 15% of what has occupied the Federal Circuit over the last six months relating to opinions in patent cases. Meanwhile, what decisions the Federal Circuit does issue are panel dependent and show not a care in the world about the Court’s original mandate, which was to create a unified national patent law and recognize that at least some patents have to be valid and enforced. And now over the last 2 years we have an inexplicable usurpation of authority with the virtual impeachment of Judge Newman. If these judges are so unfamiliar with basic due process and the opportunity to be fairly heard why should anyone believe they are themselves competent to be judges on any level? Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Today we're going to tackle a question that has divided the patent innovation community for a generation. Depending on your perspective, patent trolls have been and continue to be a problem, or complaints about patent trolls have been greatly exaggerated.As is often the case when emotions are running high and there is so much money at stake, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.Unfortunately, the bad actors on both sides of patent litigation have so clouded the issues to the point where it's hard to look at patent owners and defendants as anything other than the caricatures they represent, which is the worst of the worst, really. So, let’s put some real facts on the table and meat on the bones and talk about what is really going on, both good, bad and ugly.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week the tables are turned. As many of you know Eli Mazour is the founder of the Clause 8 podcast, and the podcast is known by its tagline as “the Voice of IP.” Indeed, for years Eli has been just that… the voice of IP… interviewing numerous people in the industry, from Federal Circuit Judges to Chief IP Counsel and political leaders, I even had an opportunity to sit with Eli for a conversation when he first started Clause 8, which we discuss at the start of our conversation.So, once I started my own podcast it was only natural to sit down with Eli for my own discussion with him, to pick his brain in an unscripted, open-end conversation. And the resulting conversation did not disappoint. We discussed a great many things about patents and innovation, the Federal Circuit and why clients want and need patents, and patent strategy. We begin our conversation with discussion of how Eli got into the science and engineering world and ultimately into the patent profession, and we also discuss his new home at Foley & Lardner, which has embraced Eli’s work on Clause 8, which will continue. In retrospect our conversation wound up being largely about the key to writing and obtaining high quality patents, which is also the key to innovating in the first place. You need to have a purpose and a goal. You need to be addressing an identifiable problem with a real, concrete, technical solution. And you need to focus on something that will actually matter to the client. And while patent strategy and ensuring protection actually protects what the client is selling matters most for those clients who will have several dozen or even several hundred patents, it really matters for everyone. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week our conversation takes us in-house to discuss patent strategy and insights on how outside counsel can best work with in-house counsel to build a solid working relationship and actually deliver what the client wants and needs.My conversation is with Gary Lobel, who is currently senior patent counsel for Reckitt where he is responsible for global legal and intellectual property matters for several different business units within the Reckitt family. In this role Gary plans and implements global intellectual property strategies in the area of biotechnology, pharmacologic and nutritional formulations. He works with in-house constituencies, evaluates opportunities for potential partnerships and acquisitions, and he manages outside counsel working on both patent procurement and litigation. Prior to joining Reckitt, Gary was Chief Patent Counsel for Nestlé, and he also worked early in his career as a patent attorney at Novartis. I always enjoy my conversations with Gary. He is extremely bright and thoughtful, I find that every time I speak with Gary I learn something, and our conversations often go down paths I didn’t expect but which are always interesting and informative.  Gary has a knack for seeing all sides to every issue or problem as if he is constantly playing a game of 3D chess and is at least several moves ahead. In our conversation this week we had a wide ranging conversation on patent strategy, including working with patent examiners—including what to do when you are assigned to a difficult patent examiner with a low allowance rate—the importance of interviews, tips for getting past 112 rejections, and how outside counsel can build solid, working relationships with in-house counsel, and much more. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Last week we hosted our first annual Women’s IP Forum, which was a huge success. This program came about for several reasons.First, as many of you may know our “Masters Series” of events gets its name from the fact that those who are invited to speak on panels have true masters level knowledge and experience, often with speakers having at least a generation of industry experience, sometimes much more. And as much as I like the high level conversations we have at our Masters events, and while I don’t plan on making changes to the masters model, I’ve been bothered by not having some forum for rising stars to participate in.And then earlier this year when I was planning our patent litigation masters program I was having a difficult time finding women speakers. After doing a little digging I learned that only 10% of patent litigators are women. It was then that I started then to formulate a plan to at least do something.At about this same time I had a conversation with USPTO Director Kathi Vidal in which I shared my working thoughts about a Women’s IP Forum, which would include everyone from rising stars to those who are well established and at the top of the industry. I asked her what she thought of the idea. Director Vidal was immediately enthusiastic and supportive, which sealed the deal in my mind. And I decided we needed to move forward with all due speed and not to wait to add a new program as part of our 2025 calendar of events. After receiving more enthusiastic support from firms and many women in the industry we somewhat hastily put together the program we had last week, which despite the speed with which it all came together was the best attended program we have hosted to date at IPWatchdog Studios. The excitement and energy were palpable.We were honored to have Director Vidal join us to kick off the program—a program that featured 100% women. And while I was present running the technology, I did not speak and I did not moderate a single panel. So, the honor of sharing the stage with Director Vidal fell to Renee Quinn, my wife and our Chief Operating Officer.So, without any further ado, here is a portion of Renee’s conversation with Director Vidal from the IPWatchdog Women’s IP Forum.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week our conversation is with my friend John Rogitz, who is the managing patent attorney at Rogitz & Associates. John is a second generation patent attorney with more than 15 years worth of experience. He and his form work primarily in the software space, representing some of the largest video game companies in the world, which allows him to work not only on video games, but also on virtual and augmented reality technologies as well. And John also represents both well-established, large entities and start-up companies, with much of the rest of his work relating to Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. And in addition to his role managing the firm’s day-to-day operations, John also finds time to serve on the Executive Committee of the IP Section of the California Lawyers Association, teach as an adjunct professor at Trinity Law School, and occasionally write for us at IPWatchdog.com.Being one of the more thoughtful patent practitioners I know, and someone who has auditioned numerous available AI tools for practitioners, I invited John to join my last intro to patent practice class to discuss prosecution strategy with my students this summer. While he was in town for that purpose we recorded this podcast. Not surprisingly, our conversation heavily focused on all-things software, both from the perspective of a technologist and the perspective of a patent professional searching, drafting and ultimately working with patent examiners to get allowances. So, we spent time discussing both the 2019 patent eligibility guidance, as well as several of the more recent guidelines from the Patent Office, including the Office’s AI guidance. We also spent a good deal of time discussing obviousness, KSR, and how at least sometimes, perhaps even often depending on the wording of the rejection from the examiner, you really only need to argue a lack of teaching, suggestion and motivation to persuade examiners that the claims you seek are nonobvious and allowable.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week our conversation is with Josh Hartman, a partner at Merchant and Gould in the firm’s Washington, DC office, and the head of the firm’s ITC litigation practice. The International Trade Commission, or the ITC as it is commonly called, is an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency that fulfills a range of trade-related mandates. And one of the primary areas where the ITC has jurisdiction is with respect to unfair importation. Unfair importation practices, which are prohibited by Section 337, most often involve claims relating to intellectual property rights, such as allegations of patent infringement, various forms of trademark infringement or trade secret misappropriation. What makes the ITC such an important venue for intellectual property rights owners is the ability to rather quickly obtain injunctive relief in the form of an exclusion order, which prohibits the importation of infringing goods into the United States. And while there are other federal venues where injunctive relief can be obtained for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and trade secret misappropriation, since the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in eBay v. MercExchange in 2006, it is has been increasingly difficult, in fact absolutely impossible for many patent owners to obtain any form of injunctive relieve against infringers even after the infringer has been adjudicated as being liable as an infringer and the patent in question has withstood all challenges in all forums. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week we journey inside the beltway into the world of politics, legislation and rulemaking, discussing innovation and patent politics with Chris Israel. Chris is currently a senior partner with ACG Advocacy, which is one of the premiere bipartisan government affairs and strategic consulting firms in Washington, DC. During our conversation we explore much of what is happening in DC relating to patents and innovation, and specifically discuss matters ranging from proposed guidelines from the National Institute of Standards and Technology relating to use of march-in rights to control drug prices, to the recently introduced RESTORE Act, which is little more than one-page would largely if not completely overrule the Supreme Court’s eBay decision and create a presumption that victorious patent owners who have proved infringement and withstood all invalidity challenges would be presumed to be entitled to injunctive relief. We also spend time discussing whether and to what extent patent and innovation policy is or has become political in the traditional sense. Often you will hear people discuss how this is not political in the Republican vs. Democrat way, with members of Congress on both sides reaching across the aisle to agree, both in favor of more protections for creators and innovators, and others who reach across the aisle sharing positions more favorable to implementers. But are times changing and is the patent and innovation space becoming more political in the traditional R vs. D sense? There may be some reasons to believe that at least certain issues are becoming political, with progressive and populist policies and champions tending to favor regulation and legislation that is often portrayed as likely to lower costs of products and services, particularly those that relate to drugs, which has become a hotly debated topic within the patent and innovation community. Chris and I also spend time talking about the reality that everyone on Capitol Hill is in favor of innovation—and much more innovation—and everyone seems to agree that the U.S. is suffering from a so-called China problem as it relates to the theft of intellectual property rights and innovation generally. And while everyone wants more innovation, talks about how important innovation is, and how it is essential to do something about the growing threat of theft from China, there is little agreement about next steps, or even basic solutions that would move past the talking points and into the realm of action. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Our conversation this week takes us into the world of product licensing, and what we discuss will no doubt come as a bit of a shock to many patent practitioners and innovators in the high-tech and life sciences industries. This week I speak with Stephen Key, who is an inventor, entrepreneur, author and the founder of InventRight, which is a coaching company that helps independent inventors and startups learn how to license their inventions and ideas to industry. Unlike many who operate in the invention space and cater to independent inventors, Stephen has been and continues to be a successful inventor in his own right, having licensed many of his own inventions, and even having been forced to chase an infringer into a patent litigation case once upon a time.I always enjoy talking with Stephen because for so much of the generation the patent and innovation industry has fallen apart thanks bad policy decisions and increasingly bad decisions from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit. But as Stephen will tell us, there is a part of the industry that continues to work very well, and precisely as designed.  If you are an inventor of a consumer product there are reputable companies looking for inventions and ideas to bring to market, and their business model is built on taking products to market over and over again, and they are in constant need of new products and improvements. They also realize litigation is wasteful when you are dealing with products that often have a 1-, 2- or 3-year shelf life, so they are willing to do deals that allow them to quickly get products onto shelves and into the stream of commerce, and inventors get paid. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week our conversation is with Patrick Kilbride, who is a public policy expert with significant expertise at the intersection between market economics, innovation and intellectual property. A former Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative during the George W. Bush Administration, Kilbride has spent the last 15 years working on innovation policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce, most recently as Senior Vice President of the Global Innovation Policy Center. Several months ago, Kilbride decided to leave the Chamber to chart his own course, founding Kilbride Public Affairs, where he will continue to engage global policymakers in support of market economics, innovation and the rule of law. At the beginning of our conversation Kilbride explains that “one of the most remarkable things about the American economy is that what we have done historically does seem to be so unique.” He then pointed to five distinguishing features, which we spend the rest of our conversation discussing. According to Kilbride, what makes the U.S. unique is that the American economic approach enables risk taking and failure, fosters competition and ensures goods and services can cross state lines, provides property rights, is based on the rule of law, and establishes markets.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.