This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we discuss how a credible trial preparation supports settlement leverage. From the in-house vantage point, a litigation team’s ability to articulate a persuasive case matters even when the preferred outcome is an early resolution. For patent owners, accused infringers, and the counsel advising them, this conversation highlights why audience awareness, technical clarity, and case development belong within the same strategy. The episode offers a substantive look at how experienced practitioners make those judgments—and how the choices made throughout a case shape both courtroom advocacy and the options available outside it.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we have a discussion about the IP risks associated with AI use and adoption, with Stephanie Curcio, Marlene Valderrama, Kendra Ervin and Rinat Shangeeta. The discussion reveals a consequential gap with how businesses are deploying AI. Many companies are moving faster to adopt AI than their governance, contracting and IP review processes can accommodate. For those responsible for protecting innovation and confidential information, the challenge is ensuring that enthusiasm for AI adoption does not obscure the consequences of how these tools are actually used.

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.