In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with Judge Lourie writing, issued a precedential decision today affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment holding two patents invalid for omitting a coinventor. Fortress Iron LP owns U.S. Patents 9,790,707 (“the ’707 patent”) and 10,883,290, which are both titled “Vertical Cable Rail Barrier.” The final designs for the inventions covered by the two patents were conceived by two Fortress employees and two employees of Fortress’ quality control liaison, Quan Zhou Yoddex Building Material Co., Ltd (YD).
Brand-name drugmakers are manipulating the patent system to block cheap generics from reaching patients. At least, that’s what some lawmakers in Washington have been led to believe. But this narrative, which activist groups have pushed for nearly two decades, unravels under scrutiny. As I demonstrate in a recent study, the data that activists cite as evidence actually undermine their claims.
In modern Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice, aggressive procedural strategy is no longer the exception—it is the operating norm. As the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has increasingly relied on discretionary denials to constrain inter partes review (IPR), petitioners have adapted. One emerging tactic is the strategic use of ex parte reexamination as a fallback mechanism—deployed either after discretionary denial or, after an unfavorable IPR, or after the petitioner sees the handwriting on the wall and before a final written decision (FWD) is issued in an IPR.
Opponents of the “Pro Codes Act” are speaking out this week following its recent reintroduction in the U.S. Senate. The Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes (Pro Codes) Act of 2026, S. 4145, was reintroduced on March 19 by Senators Jon Cornyn, Chris Coons, Mazie Hirono, and Thom Tillis. According to the bill’s sponsors, the legislation “ensures safety standards do not lose copyright protection when they are incorporated into law by name so long as they are accessible for free on a publicly available website.”
In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, and we take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Johnson and I discuss the ongoing PTAB reset at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and suggest practical fixes for a better, reengineered PTAB. The majority of the conversation is devoted to concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, Johnson proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners.
In this week’s episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Megan Carpenter, who just recently stepped down as Dean of UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law after more than eight years. Our conversation was part personal journey and business philosophy together with a candid assessment of the IP ecosystem. We tackle emerging issues, including AI’s impact on legal practice and education. And we discuss the role of IP as essential to sustaining innovation in a rapidly evolving global economy, and fostering human creativity, innovation, and economic mobility.
In the latest episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with my good friends Brad Close, who is the Executive Vice President of Transpacific IP, and Jim Carmichael, a former judge on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and founder of Carmichael IP. Brad, Jim and I engaged in a candid conversation that provides our unvarnished assessment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where it started historically, where it is today, and where it may finally be headed. Bottom line: the PTAB is no longer the automatic execution squad it once was, but durable patent rights will require reform well beyond the agency level.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is deploying an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that will finally solve the problem of patent eligibility analysis for examiners.
On Sunday, March 29, National Public Radio’s (NPR) popular news broadcast All Things Considered featured a segment on Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s efforts to challenge her current suspension based upon Chief Judge Kimberly Moore’s allegations that Judge Newman is mentally unfit to continue serving on the Federal Circuit. The news segment follows a week of developments, including a ruling by the Judicial Conference of the United States’ (JCUS) Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability dismissing Judge Newman’s statutory and constitutional challenges to the Federal Circuit’s renewed suspension of new case assignments.
Since 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued multiple AI-specific guidance documents on inventorship and subject matter eligibility, including the February 2024 Inventorship Guidance, the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, and the November 2025 memo rescinding the February 2024 guidance. The pace of change has created a prosecution environment where the strategies that worked 18 months ago may actively undermine a patent application filed today. The inverse is true; applications drafted for today’s guidance may be structurally unprepared for the next revision.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with prolific inventor Gil Hyatt, exploring his innovative journey and aspirations to leave a lasting legacy. One of the key highlights of the conversation was Gil’s creation of a non-profit Pioneering AI Foundation, which is aimed at advancing AI technology and bolstering U.S. economic interests. This non-profit organization is set to hold Gil’s substantial portfolio of AI patent applications, which cover his pioneering work dating back to the 1980s, and includes groundbreaking claims in artificial intelligence that could revolutionize sectors like education, manufacturing, and trade.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with my business and life partner, Renee Quinn. In addition to telling Renee’s story about how she found her way into the intellectual property world, and through our sometimes-comical banter, we together explore what it really takes to build, sustain, and continuously reinvent an entrepreneurial company like IPWatchdog. What emerged was a practical roadmap for entrepreneurship, invention, navigating platform risk, and focused on the necessity of constantly being ready to pivot as old business models start to show signs of age and ultimately falter. From Renee’s journey from IP outsider to patented inventor, to firsthand lessons learned navigating Amazon’s reseller ecosystem, the discussion highlights how intellectual property operates in the real world, not the classroom.
Arnold & Porter is an international law firm with 16 offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia that provides sophisticated regulatory, litigation, and transactional services across multiple industries. Arnold & Porter has an opening for a Senior Manager of IP Administration in the Washington, DC office. The Senior Manager of IP Administration oversees the firmwide IP Prosecution (Patent and Trademark) practice.
This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.
Get Email Updates