Posts in Guest Contributors

In the latest episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann discusses the evolution of patent practice, in-house innovation, and the growing role of AI with Phil Harris, Equity Partner and Patent Practice Group Leader at Holland & Hart. As firms navigate when to build their own tools versus partnering with vendors, Harris offers a grounded look at how automation is reshaping the daily realities of patent work, and why the most forward-thinking teams treat innovation not as a one-time project, but as a continuous practice.

The Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. on August 28, 2025,  providing guidance on the doctrine of prosecution laches. As the first U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision on prosecution laches for a patent issued after 1995—when patent terms changed from 17-years-from issuance to 20-years-from filing—some suspected the Federal Circuit might definitively end the prosecution laches doctrine. Although prosecution laches remains a valid equitable defense, the Federal Circuit placed significant limitations on its applicability.

In less than 2.5 years, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has established itself as a hallmark for high-profile patent litigation. This venue is a reality that U.S. companies need to be aware of Why? U.S. companies are “at both sides of the v” before the UPC. Below are the 10 most important questions that define liability risks before the UPC, both from a defendant’s and a plaintiff’s perspective. These questions will be put into perspective and compared to U.S. district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation.

For many guitarists, finding the right tone is a lifelong pursuit. It’s the quest for the perfect sound—a sound controlled not only by the guitar or the amplifier but also by the complex chain of electronics connecting them. Central to this are the effects pedals, and few pedals have the same mythical status as the Klon Centaur. This legendary pedal, built by guitarist and designer Bill Finnegan in the 1990s, was the subject of a recent trademark lawsuit that drew a line between a respectful “klone” (often spelled with a “K”) and an infringing counterfeit.

In the third episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with Mark Kesslen, Partner and Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Lowenstein Sandler, to trace a career that spans from the dawn of online banking and the FinTech revolution to the rise of AI in patent law. As AI tools become increasingly common in law firms and patent practices across the United States, Kesslen offers a firsthand view of how attorneys are learning to integrate these systems effectively and responsibly. From his early work digitizing finance at LabMorgan to leading AI adoption in a top-tier IP practice, Kesslen’s story reflects a profession once again at a turning point defined by the mantra: “Trust, but verify.”

For decades, inventors, practitioners, and researchers alike have faced the same tradeoff. Free tools surface only the most obvious references, missing decisive prior art. Professional platforms offer depth, but require significant training and demand five-figure subscriptions. The patent system promises to promote innovation by making knowledge accessible. But to fully realize this vision, patent knowledge must be available on tap to everyone who needs it, in whichever form best serves each individual user. Today’s AI technology has unlocked the possibility of universal access to professional-grade patent intelligence.

Howard Lutnick has been universally criticized by industry for his reported proposal to tax patent values and revenue share with universities. Howard Lutnick is absolutely right about the problem. Here’s why. The patent system was designed for individual inventors. Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers—these were lone entrepreneurs securing temporary monopoly rights in exchange for disclosing their inventions to the public. But sometime after World War II, corporations and universities completed a quiet takeover of the patent office. Today’s patent landscape is dominated by patent oligarchs: systematic corporate R&D programs filing thousands of applications annually, not individuals pursuing personal innovation.

In September 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), the highest judicial authority of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued its decision in G 2/24. The EBA addressed a procedural question: if a third party (an “intervener”) joins an ongoing appeal, can that party keep the case alive if all the original appellants withdraw? The EBA’s answer was a no. In other words, interveners play only a supporting role in appeal proceedings. They may join an existing appeal, but they cannot take over once the main participants have left the stage.

Growing consensus is emerging that artificial intelligence (AI) may assist biotechnology and life sciences companies to draft patents that satisfy written description and enablement requirements. The U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi reiterated that patentees cannot claim a wide functional class of inventions without providing sufficient guidance or examples to enable others to use the full range of what is claimed (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023)). The Supreme Court did recognize in some cases that disclosing a general property common to a class or genus of embodiments may be enough to satisfy the enablement requirement.

The value of intellectual property (IP) rights has decreased in the United States over the past 20 years because large tech companies consider patents and copyrights an enemy, not an ally, and because of the difficulty SMEs and independent creators have generating sufficient economic return. But when different stakeholder groups come together, they can develop an equitable and inclusive IP system that moves society forward while supporting their respective business agendas. These are the beliefs of Daryl Lim, a leader in understanding the global IP community.

In the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, Congress required the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish at least three regional offices nationwide. These offices were not symbolic; they were intended to expand access to patent services, recruit new examiners, and strengthen innovation ecosystems outside Washington, D.C. In 2014, I was honored to serve as the first Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, which provided inventors and small businesses across the Mountain West direct access to USPTO resources. By reducing barriers for entrepreneurs in states like Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, the office became a vital link between the innovation community and the federal government. The Trump administration’s decision to close the Denver office undermines this congressional mandate.

An April 2025 report from the Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK) titled, “The Heavy Price of GLP-1 Drugs,” presents grossly misleading information regarding the patent protection for semaglutide products (marketed by Novo Nordisk under the trademarks Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy) and tirzepatide products (marketed by Eli Lilly under the trademarks Mounjaro and Zepbound). The report accuses Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly of engaging in patent abuse to extend protection for their products. This accusation is predicated on I-MAK’s assertion that these companies own large numbers of patents covering their respective products. But, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) noted in its recent Drug Patent and Exclusivity Study, “simply quantifying raw numbers of patents and exclusivities is an imprecise way to measure the intellectual property landscape of a drug product because not every patent or exclusivity has the same scope.”

Since its introduction in 2023, the pro-patent community has broadly supported what the draft Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) said. However, a potentially monumental, unrelated rider seems to have crept in on the last page of the 2025 version…. Why did the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on IP feel the need to slip in a rider on the judicially created non-statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (judicially created ODP) in a bill directed to patent eligibility?

In Ex parte Desjardins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Appeals Review Panel (ARP) – which in this instance included Director John A. Squires, Acting Commissioner Valencia Martin Wallace, and Vice Chief Judge Michael W. Kim – considered a claim directed to training machine learning models. This decision has already been celebrated by many in the IP community for the positive impact it could have for patent applicants and patentees, and indeed this was a great way for Director Squires to make his presence known straight out of the gate.