The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Wenkman affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that upheld the rejection of all pending claims in a pro se applicant’s patent application directed to a computer-implemented method for bartering groceries and other goods for silver and gold. The CAFC agreed with the Board that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
The Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) issued a statement Tuesday expressing concern about a rule recently proposed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to enact the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act, which was itself enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act.
For most of professional history, experience could not be separated from the professional who acquired it. Forms, manuals, and software captured portions of professional judgment, but the judgment itself remained human. That practical limitation preserved two distinctions the law depends on: the distinction between an employer’s property and an employee’s knowledge and skill, and the distinction between one client’s confidences and the next client’s matter. However, modern artificial intelligence (AI) removes this limitation.
Several owners of Elvis Presley compositions filed a lawsuit against Anthropic on October 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company copied copyrighted lyrics without authorization to train its Claude large language models (LLMs) and that Claude generated infringing versions of the songs. The complaint asserted claims for direct copyright infringement, circumvention of technological protection measures under Section 1201 of Title 17, and removal or alteration of copyright management information (CMI) under Section 1202.
The USPTO deserves some credit for recognizing that applicants may at times need an opportunity to explain technical improvements that examiners have failed to appreciate, but there is real risk associated with filing a SMED that should cause practitioners to pause rather than race forward without serious consideration. And despite some difference of opinion, we all agreed on an essential point: Filing a SMED should not be the first line of defense against an eligibility rejection; it should should be treated as a last resort. Filing a SMED requires serious consideration of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives. Examiner interviews, arguments grounded in the existing specification, appropriate claim amendments, and appeals all deserve careful consideration before ever adding sworn statements to the prosecution history. The question must be whether the declaration supplies something genuinely necessary to advance the case, and even then must be intentionally specific and narrow.
A patent’s economic value and the price it commands in a licensing negotiation can be very different things. The technology may deliver substantial commercial benefits, yet the amount a patent owner can capture depends on legal risk, enforcement costs, negotiating leverage, and each party’s business objectives. This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we ask how much a patent is really worth, and how to prove it at a negotiating table or in court. This conversation, which occurred as part of IPWatchdog’s 2026 Women’s IP Forum, examines how sophisticated licensors, licensees, counsel, and valuation professionals assess patent value in real-world transactions and disputes. The conversation explored royalty structures, comparable licenses, portfolio strength, litigation and validity risk, damages principles, standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing, and the practical factors that drive parties toward—or away from—a deal.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Nancy Braman. Recorded before a live audience at IPWatchdog’s 2026 Women’s IP Forum, our conversation explores how practitioners create opportunities, develop professional relationships, and build the skills necessary to succeed in patent law. From taking PLI patent bar review course before law school, to attending Franklin Pierce Law School, to spending more than three years writing and researching for IPWatchdog and now litigating high-stakes patent and intellectual property disputes for life sciences and technology companies. She has already had quite the journey, and I sense it is really just beginning.
The USPTO deserves some credit for recognizing that applicants may at times need an opportunity to explain technical improvements that examiners have failed to appreciate, but there is real risk associated with filing a SMED that should cause practitioners to pause rather than race forward without serious consideration. And despite some difference of opinion, we all agreed on an essential point: Filing a SMED should not be the first line of defense against an eligibility rejection; it should should be treated as a last resort. Filing a SMED requires serious consideration of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives. Examiner interviews, arguments grounded in the existing specification, appropriate claim amendments, and appeals all deserve careful consideration before ever adding sworn statements to the prosecution history. The question must be whether the declaration supplies something genuinely necessary to advance the case, and even then must be intentionally specific and narrow.
Last week, the entrepreneur advocacy organization Alliance for U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court filed by patent owner Centripetal Networks challenging late changes to claim construction wrought by the district court without notice or opportunity to be heard in its patent infringement case against Cisco Systems. The USIJ’s filing follows one week after inventor advocacy group US Inventor filed its own amicus brief in support of Centripetal’s petition, arguing that a modest remedy to the deprivation of Centripetal’s due process rights would improve fairness for both patent owners and accused infringers alike.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center released the first edition of its Trade in Unsafe Medicines Index today, a report prepared with Pugatch Consilium that benchmarks 12 economies on their propensity to contribute to trade in unsafe and illicit medicines and their ability to deter it. Eight of the 12 economies scored below 50%, and the overall mean score was 43.03%.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, IPWatchdog President Renée C. Quinn spoke with Coke Morgan Stewart. Formerly Acting Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Stewart is now president and CEO of the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP). Their conversation, recorded at IPWatchdog’s 2026 Women’s IP Forum, examines what she learned while leading the agency, why she believes the patent system needs legislative reform, and how her experience has shaped her approach to leadership and advocacy.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Fran Cruz and Marlene Valderrama. Recorded before a live audience following IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, our conversation explored how professionals build relationships that lead to business, career opportunities, and better ways of doing their jobs. Drawing on their perspectives at Juristat and Halliburton, respectively, Fran and Marlene returned to a fundamental point: earning someone’s attention begins with understanding what matters to them. That requires asking questions and actually listening.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Steve Caltrider, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and a former General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly. The discussion also examined patent quality and the role of examination. Caltrider’s view is that the best time to establish confidence in a patent is when the USPTO examines it—not years later through PTAB review or district court litigation, after investment decisions have already been made. He recognized the need for an error-correction mechanism, while cautioning that review should not become so extensive or unpredictable that it undermines the value of issued patents.
This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.
Get Email Updates