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%.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed the dismissal of a pro se patent owner’s claims against Live Nation, Ticketmaster, Major League Baseball and several law firms, concluding that the plaintiff waived her appellate arguments by failing to oppose the defendants’ dismissal motions in district court.
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.
In patent damages, apportionment reflects the fundamental principle that a patentee may recover only the value attributable to the patented invention, not the value of unpatented features or components. In practice, this means that damages must be tied to the incremental contribution of the patented technology to the accused product. The entire market value rule (EMVR) is a doctrine in patent damages, in particular, reasonable royalty damages, that operates as a narrow “exception” to the apportionment principle.
For companies in many industries, their most valuable trade secrets reside not in a single formula or document, but in years of accumulated data, coordinated processes, and combinations of technical and commercial information from various internal sources. Engineering know-how (including negative know-how), integrated software features, and customer databases can reflect years of investment and work effort and give competitors a shortcut if acquired improperly and used. Compilation and combination trade secret protection helps safeguard that collective value, even when some individual components are publicly known or unprotectable standing alone.
This week in Other Barks & Bites: SpaceX reportedly seeks to build nationwide wireless carrier through purchase of 80,000 cellular sites; a joint study to which the European Patent Office contributed recommends strengthening tech transfer offices across the EU; the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal finds that printed Gucci leather products don’t infringe patent claims to methods of decorating leather; and more.
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