Posts in Business

Given the recent proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) patent drafting technology, some in the legal services industry are asking whether AI is the patent profession’s “ultimate bad day,”on par with the dinosaurs’ ultimate bad day posited by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez in 1980. Like the asteroid thought to cause a mass extinction of the dinosaurs, will AI be a formidable impactor that renders patent prosecution an unprofitable practice area in law firms and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs)? Will AI decimate patent prosecution as a viable career?

For startups, patents are often the first line of defense in building a competitive moat. They signal to investors that your company is not only innovative but also strategically protecting its differentiators. But not all patents are created equal. A weak or poorly conceived filing can raise more red flags than confidence. As a former United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Examiner and now an Intellectual Property Strategist, I’ve seen both sides: portfolios that impressed investors and set startups up for long-term growth — and portfolios that did little more than drain resources. The difference comes down to strategy.

Representatives of 36 conservative organizations sent a letter yesterday to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, appealing to him as an inventor to walk back his proposal to charge a 1%-5% patent “tax” on the value of granted U.S. patents. Lutnick’s proposal was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July. While few details have been revealed about the plan still, it has drawn harsh criticism, including by IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO Gene Quinn, whose article was quoted in the conservative groups’ letter. Quinn called the idea “catastrophically stupid” and “fraught with peril.”

Late last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the agency was acceding to decisions by U.S. regional circuit courts vacating the agency’s Biden Administration-era rule banning noncompete clauses from U.S. employment contracts and preventing their enforcement. While some lawmakers have decried the decision to end this rule, the FTC also issued a request for information (RFI) as the Trump Administration seeks to develop a case-by-case enforcement approach for cracking down on noncompete abuses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a split decision today affirmed a district court ruling granting summary judgment to the U.S. government that the imposition of a Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) does not violate Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ constitutional rights. Judge Hardiman dissented.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC) today released its fourth annual report, titled “Empowering Small Business: The Impact of Technology on U.S. Small Business,” analyzing the important role of technology in small business operations, the unprecedented adoption rates of artificial intelligence (AI), and growing concerns about regulatory compliance. The report surveyed 3,870 U.S. small businesses with fewer than 250 employees between June 6 and June 26, 2025, highlighting how emerging technologies are reshaping America’s entrepreneurial sector.

Sinners looks to be little more than a gothic horror movie set in the John Brown South with incredible box office appeal. Its storyline, however, reflects a subtler narrative about ownership and the bold agreement involving intellectual property rights that the film’s celebrated writer-director, Ryan Coogler, was able to secure from Warner Bros, which has some studio executives running for their wooden stakes.  

When the framers made provision for copyright law in the U.S. Constitution, they probably didn’t envision a system that favors the wealthy. Yet today, that’s what we’ve got. High litigation costs and slow-moving courts have turned copyright enforcement into a luxury good. Unless you’re sitting on a pile of cash, your rights are often fool’s gold.

Pharmaceutical companies were dealt back-to-back blows over the last 24 hours in their fight against the Biden-era Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which the Trump Administration has continued. In one decision, published today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment that dismissed all of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s constitutional claims.

Fintiv, Inc. has filed a complaint against Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleging “corporate theft and racketeering of monumental proportions” due to Apple’s misappropriation of Fintiv’s mobile wallet technology. Fintiv’s complaint charges that Apple blatantly stole its trade secrets for mobile wallet technology from Fintiv’s predecessor, CorFire, under pressure to develop a mobile digital wallet and an inability to do so on its own.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday partially reversed and remanded a district court decision granting summary judgment for an employer in a trade secret misappropriation case brought against it by a former employee. The district court found the employer was not liable for misappropriating a customer list belonging to the former employee, and also granted a motion to exclude an expert witness, as well as any evidence or witnesses on lost wages.  

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Trump Administration is considering a major change to patent fees, which would charge patent holders somewhere between 1% to 5% of the overall value of the patent. Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is reportedly circulating draft proposals and financial models, no specific framework has been leaked. However, in addition to obvious valuation complexities that go beyond anything the USPTO currently does, if the Trump Administration is going to charge patent owners a percentage of the value of the patent, the most logical way to do so would be through dramatically increased maintenance fees.

As policymakers consider the future of American healthcare, it is imperative to recognize the potential dangers of adopting foreign price controls for life-saving medications. These price controls, which are referred to as foreign “reference pricing,” would tie the price of medicines in the United States to prices set by foreign governments that are paid in other countries with vastly different healthcare systems. While this approach may initially sound appealing, the reality is that foreign reference pricing imports the failed models of other countries rather than rewarding innovation or recognizing the true value of breakthrough therapies. It pegs prices here to bureaucratic decisions made abroad and threatens to undermine the very engine of medical innovation that has made the United States a global leader in life sciences and benefited millions of patients.

Over the past year, I’ve been in dozens of boardrooms where the same question keeps resurfacing: What are we missing in monetizing our intellectual property (IP) assets? The answer may surprise you—it’s no longer just licensing. It’s private equity. We’re witnessing an unprecedented wave of private equity (PE) attention directed toward patent portfolios. What was once a niche curiosity has turned into strategic financial engineering.