Gene Quinn

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.

Artificial intelligence could help deliver the next generation of lifesaving medicines. It could also weaken the economic foundation that makes discovering those medicines possible. Both propositions deserve serious attention, and neither is mutually exclusive. Celebrating faster discovery tells only part of the story if the same technology allows competitors to appropriate the commercial opportunity created by pioneer research or obtain patent claims that obstruct the innovator’s next steps.

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.

A brand protection program can remove thousands of infringing listings and still leave the business behind them largely intact. Sellers return under different accounts, storefronts multiply, and counterfeit goods continue reaching customers. AI compounds the problem: the same technology that helps rights holders detect infringement can help counterfeiters generate replacement listings and create new accounts more quickly. Such is the neverending game of whack-a-mole confronting brands.