Episodes
-
Send us Fan Mail
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Ben Greenberg. An engineer and product-development specialist, Greenberg works with independent inventors, startups, and small businesses to transform early-stage concepts into functional prototypes, manufacturable products, and commercially viable opportunities. The conversation examines why obtaining a patent is only one component of a successful strategyâand why technical feasibility, market demand, and economic reality must be evaluated together.
Quinn and Greenberg explore the critical sequencing of patent protection, prototyping, testing, and market validation. They discuss the value of small-batch manufacturing, proof of sales, crowdfunding, and customer feedback, as well as the risks of securing patent claims before determining whether the claimed product can actually function or be manufactured competitively. The discussion also highlights the need for coordinated input from engineers, patent counsel, manufacturers, marketing professionals, and financial decision-makers.
The episode offers a candid assessment of licensing, commercialization, and the low success rates associated with bringing new products to market. Greenberg explains why even a better, faster, or less expensive product may not make financial sense for an established company, while Quinn emphasizes disciplined market-size analysis and incremental investment. Their central takeaway is straightforward: inventors must validate the product, the market, and the business case at every stageâand continue investing only while the evidence supports moving forward.
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 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 todayâs 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. -
Missing episodes?
-
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 Iancuâs 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 todayâs 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 IPWatchdogâs 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 todayâs 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 reformâone 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 Abbottâs 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 todayâs 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 competitionâthey 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-directedâmore 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 Osengaâs 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 âpatent trollâ 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 âfreeâ 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 worksâand 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 metricsâespecially average office actions, RCE rates, appeal strategy, 101 rejection outcomes, and cost per patentâare 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 âbest bang for your buckâ 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 Brentâs 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, Alzheimerâs, Parkinsonâs, 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 developmentâthey 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. -
Send us Fan Mail
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice. Preston outlines her evolution from a general litigator into a leading IP strategist, highlighting how deep technical fluencyâgrounded in her physics backgroundâbecame a competitive differentiator in high-stakes disputes. The discussion traces structural shifts in patent litigation over the past two decades, including venue realignment, the rise of specialized judicial expertise, Judge Alan Albrightâs tenure in the Western District of Texas, and the likely impact Albright's resignation will have on patent litigation for years to come.
The conversation then pivots to what Preston characterizes as âinnovation governanceââa holistic operating model that integrates risk assessment, mitigation, licensing strategy, and, when necessary, litigation. Rather than positioning herself as a âsportsâ or âmediaâ lawyer, Preston explains her practice as technology-centric problem solving across industries, which include the sports and entertainment industries. She details how legal teams must move upstreamâanticipating IP risk in streaming platforms, content delivery architectures, and digital ecosystemsâwhile maintaining alignment with core business objectives. Quinn and Preston converge on a critical insight: high-value counsel is defined less by discrete legal outputs and more by the ability to diagnose underlying business problems and deliver actionable, forward-looking solutions.
Finally, the discussion addresses emerging pressure points shaping the next phase of IP and technology. Preston identifies artificial intelligence not just as a software issue, but as an infrastructure challengeâdriving massive investment in data centers, energy systems, and associated IP frameworks. This shift is already catalyzing new ownership disputes and litigation vectors. Looking ahead, both Quinn and Preston spotlight unresolved policy tensions, particularly around injunctions and their role in balancing innovation incentives against market competition. The takeaway is clear: as technology complexity scales, the IP function is transitioning from reactive enforcement to strategic governanceârequiring practitioners who can operate at the intersection of law, engineering, and enterprise strategy.
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 Matteo Sabattini about the structural forces shaping todayâs global patent ecosystem. Sabattini discusses his return to Sisvel and his progression from engineering into intellectual property strategy, licensing, and policy advocacy. The conversation frames a core imbalance in the innovation economy: companies that invest in foundational technologies are consistently outnumberedâand often out-voicedâby implementers in policy debates, creating systemic pressure on the long-term sustainability of innovation incentives.
The discussion then drills into licensing dynamics and enforcement realities, with a focus on how delayed licensing and âholdoutâ behavior distort market outcomes. Sabattini quantifies the downstream effectâreduced effective royalty rates and uneven competitive conditions that penalize compliant licensees while advantaging non-paying market participants. Both speakers underscore a critical point: without credible enforcement mechanisms, particularly the availability of injunctions, the patent system loses negotiating leverage and invites strategic delay. The episode also reframes litigation funding and patent assertion as necessary tools that enable smaller innovators to compete in capital-intensive disputes, rather than as systemic inefficiencies.
The episode concludes with a forward-looking assessment of patent pools as a scalable, pro-competitive solution to licensing friction. Sabattini explains how aggregation models reduce transaction costs, enhance transparency, and streamline access to standard essential patents. He also highlights Sisvelâs collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization to expand SEP visibility through PatentScope integration, alongside targeted initiatives designed to lower barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. The bottom line: aligning policy, enforcement, and market-based solutions is essential to preserving a functional innovation ecosystem and sustaining investment in next-generation technologies.
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 Gene Quinn has a candid conversation with Melissa Silverstein about both IP strategy and human side of IP, pivoting to discuss the struggles that some attorneys have with substance abuse.
The first half of the conversation centers on a clear market correction in intellectual property strategy: portfolios are being forced to operate like business assets rather than legal inventory. Companies are increasingly questioning legacy filing habits, global coverage assumptions, and automatic maintenance practices. Budget pressure is driving more disciplined decision-making, including regular portfolio reviews, tighter alignment with product roadmaps, and a willingness to let non-performing assets lapse. The underlying shift is from accumulation to optimizationâwhere every patent must tie directly to product protection, enforcement leverage, or forward-looking commercial value.
The conversation then pivots sharply to the human dimension of the profession, where Melissa Silversteinâs current work is focused. Drawing on her own experience, she addresses the prevalence of substance abuse, burnout, and mental health challenges among high-performing attorneys. A central theme is that the legal profession has historically failed to create space for these issues, reinforcing a culture of perfectionism, silence, and alcohol-centric social norms. Silversteinâs workâthrough coaching individuals and advising organizationsâaims to normalize these conversations, reduce stigma, and provide practical frameworks for both those struggling and those in long-term recovery who may feel excluded from traditional law firm culture.
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, the conversation between host Gene Quinn and patent broker Louis Carbonneau centers on a fundamental breakdown in the economic engine that has historically driven innovation. While innovation itself has not disappeared, the incentive structure that once enabled a repeatable cycleâinnovate, patent, monetize, reinvestâhas eroded. Large market participants increasingly operate under a âuse now, pay later (if ever)â model, which disproportionately disadvantages individual inventors and smaller entities. As a result, many innovators are unable to sustain continued development beyond an initial breakthrough, leading to a systemic drag on long-term innovation output. This shift is reinforced by a broader cultural normalization of âfreeâ access to intellectual property, which has migrated from the copyright into the patent and innovation industry.
From a market standpoint, Carbonneau offers a cautiously optimistic outlook. The patent monetization environment is showing signs of recovery, driven primarily by changes in PTAB dynamics that have reduced the reliability of inter partes review as a low-cost, reliable invalidation tool. This has begun to rebalance negotiation leverage, making licensing discussions more viable. However, structural challenges remainâmost notably the unresolved uncertainty surrounding patent eligibility under §101 and the absence of meaningful legislative reform. At the same time, large technology companies continue to benefit from a system that weakens enforceability for smaller players while preserving their own advantages through scale and cross-licensing, creating a persistent asymmetry in the market.
Artificial intelligence emerges as the key disruptive force with the potential to reshape both patent quality and monetization strategy. AI is already enabling faster, more cost-effective analysis of large portfolios and improving drafting precision, which could elevate overall patent quality and shift valuation toward more data-driven approaches. However, this introduces new economic tensions, as clients increasingly demand fee reductions based on perceived efficiency gains. The likely outcome is a bifurcated market where high-value work continues to require expert human input, while lower-tier tasks become increasingly automated. In this environment, competitive advantage will accrue to those who can effectively integrate AI into their workflows while maintaining strategic and legal rigor.
Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.
You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. -
Send us Fan Mail
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been undergoing a quiet but meaningful transformation over the last 5-plus years. From a more traditional UN-style body into a service-driven, operationally focused global IP platform, WIPO is helping the entire global IP community. As Lisa Jorgenson, who is a Deputy Director of WIPO, explained in her recent conversation with Gene Quinn, the organizationâs fee-based funding model fundamentally reshapes its prioritiesâforcing it to operate with a customer-centric mindset more akin to a business than a government agency. This shift is driving changes across the organization, including modernization of internal systems, a stronger emphasis on user engagement, and a move toward tailored, country-specific support rather than one-size-fits-all policy prescriptions.
At the core of this evolution is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which WIPO is repositioning not just as a filing mechanism, but as a strategic tool for managing uncertainty in a rapidly changing global economy. Both Quinn and Jorgenson emphasized that companies continue to underutilize the flexibility the PCT providesâparticularly the 30-month window to evaluate markets, adjust supply chains, and make more informed investment decisions. In response, WIPO is investing in outreach, addressing user misconceptions about cost and complexity, and redesigning its service model to better support high-volume users through more direct and proactive engagement.
Looking forward, WIPO is aligning itself with the major forces reshaping the innovation ecosystem, including artificial intelligence, data governance, and the increasing complexity of global IP transactions. The organization is embedding AI into its own operations, expanding its role in areas such as standard essential patents (SEPs) and dispute resolution, and developing new infrastructure initiatives like a global patent assignment system. Taken together, these efforts reflect a broader strategic objective: positioning WIPO not just as a facilitator of international IP frameworks, but as a forward-looking platform capable of helping stakeholders navigateâand capitalize onâstructural change in the global 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
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 teamsâand 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 todayâand what canât 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 âmagic buttonâ 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 strategyWhy companies are focusing on patent quality instead of quantityMaintenance fee pruning and portfolio management strategiesHow in-house teams are restructuring relationships with outside counselWhere AI is actually useful in patent practice todayVisit 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 scrutinyâall 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 Sheltonâan 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 âdocuments engineering through patents.â That distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a philosophy of invention that is structured, disciplined, and deeply contextual.
Fred Sheltonâs 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 lawyersâparticularly in highly technical fields like intellectual propertyâcan 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-buildingâbefore, during, and after conferences or meetingsâis central. Preparation demonstrates empathy and builds trust; follow-up sustains momentum. The most effective rainmakers operate with a âsoft sellâ mindset, positioning themselves as problem-solvers and trusted advisors rather than transactional vendors. Consistent habitsâscheduled follow-ups, thoughtful notes, leveraging speaking engagements into written content, and strategic use of LinkedInâcreate 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. - Show more
