Gene Quinn

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, my conversation with patent broker Louis Carbonneau centers on a fundamental breakdown in the economic engine that has historically driven innovation. While innovation itself has not disappeared, the incentive structure that once enabled a repeatable cycle—innovate, patent, monetize, reinvest—has eroded. Large market participants increasingly operate under a “use now, pay later (if ever)” model, which disproportionately disadvantages individual inventors and smaller entities. As a result, many innovators are unable to sustain continued development beyond an initial breakthrough, leading to a systemic drag on long-term innovation output. This shift is reinforced by a broader cultural normalization of “free” access to intellectual property, which has migrated from the copyright into the patent and innovation industry.

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.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Lisa Jorgenson, who is Deputy Director at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Jorgenson had just attended IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 and spoke on our final panel along with former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director David Kappos, former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, and former International Trade Commission (ITC) Commissioner Scott Kieff. She joined me immediately following the conference at IPWatchdog Studios for a wide-ranging discussion that pulled back the curtain on an institution many in the IP community think they understand—but often do not really appreciate.

The current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leadership has made its position on serial patent challenges crystal clear. USPTO Director Squires warned that “even extremely strong patents” cannot survive repeated rounds of review. See NPRM Comments (10/16/2025)…. Once again, Director Squires and Deputy Director Stewart are right on the mark. Allowing excessive serial challenges to patents is unfair to patent owners and undermines the patent system.

The latest chapter in the long-running saga of inventor Gil Hyatt is beginning to unfold. The current fight is over prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists. In his last appeal to the Federal Circuit, Hyatt argued that prosecution laches is not available in Section 145 proceedings because it is inconsistent with the Patent Act of 1952, as confirmed by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2014) and SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products (2017). Whether Hyatt is correct about prosecution laches being inconsistent with the 1952 Patent Act, it is clear that the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled in both Petrella and SCA that laches simply does not exist when there is a statutorily prescribed timeframe to act.