This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Martin Correa. Correa, who leads foresight work at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Correa’s job is not to predict the future of IP, but to consider what futures are possible so WIPO and Member States can be better prepared for whatever eventuality does materialize. And since there is no data about the future—as he puts it—his work uses signals of change, horizon scanning and competing scenarios to expose assumptions and identify the decisions that could push the IP system in one direction or another.

Recent amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 did not invent the trial judge’s gatekeeping obligation, nor did they transform economic analysis. They did, however, sharpen the focus on the burden of establishing admissibility and whether an expert has reliably applied a valid methodology to the facts. Combined with the Federal Circuit’s increasingly demanding review of patent damages opinions, the practical message is unmistakable: the economic case must be engineered from the beginning, or you will surely suffer the consequences only after it is too late.

In any patent dispute, the strength of the patent still matters. But increasingly, it is not the only thing that matters—or even, in some cases, the thing that matters most. That means where a patent dispute takes place cannot be a tactical afterthought or viewed as a choice of federal district courts in the United States alone. This is true today more than ever because despite patents ostensibly being property—at least according to the Patent Act—which tribunal and which judges make the ultimate decisions affecting the patent often matter most of all because patents and patent enforcement have become driven by ideology and the type of fervor normally reserved highly emotionally charged discussions, like religion and politics.