Posts in Guest Contributors

As discussed in my prior article, the growing adoption and sophistication of assistive AI tools for patent prosecution are paving the way for material business and career impacts, such as decreased prosecution revenue and reduced staffing over the long term. Despite these potential risks, practitioners and enterprises may experience widely differing outcomes due to their client mix, expertise, and capacity to navigate shifting winds to advantage.

In the latest episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with Drew McElligott, Counsel at Crowell & Moring, to explore how artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping legal workflows from the inside of a major law firm. While much of the conversation around AI focuses on disruption, McElligott offers a grounded, practitioner-driven perspective: one of the most immediate and impactful changes is how patent attorneys begin drafting. As AI tools become more integrated into legal practice, they are redefining the early stages of patent drafting and eliminating one of the most persistent challenges in writing: the blank page.

In 2008, a medical device company I represented, Datascope Corporation, won a hard-fought victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court reversed a verdict of patent infringement rendered by a federal jury in Baltimore in a suit brought by Johns Hopkins University and its licensee against my client. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Just over a month ago, the Human Artistry Campaign launched “Stealing Isn’t Innovation”—a graphic advertising campaign backed by over 1,000 artists, performers, authors, organizations and other creators. The Copyright Alliance joined dozens of groups and organizations supporting this powerful moment of creative community unity and strength. The campaign’s high-level three-word-message was simple and obvious, and difficult to contest. On a policy level, the campaign was widely, and correctly, understood as a clear statement supporting the core principle that training AI models on copyrighted works should be licensed by willing buyers and sellers.  “Big AI” published its response to this campaign in late February, speaking through two tech-aligned proxies—the Foundation for American Innovation (FAI) and Public Knowledge (PK). For a number of reasons, it’s deeply unpersuasive. 

From a trickle just a few years ago, AI use in the patent profession has become a rushing torrent. AI tools, features, and applications are now an integral and sometimes invisible part of patent practice. From invention harvesting and prior art searching to drafting, filing, opinion work, litigation, and licensing, the savvy patent practitioner almost certainly has AI embedded somewhere in their workflow.

China, the EU and the UK are quietly rewriting the rules on standard-essential patents (SEPs) in ways that strip value from U.S. innovators’ technology. As the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finalizes its 2026 Special 301 Report, Washington has a rare chance to call out these trading partners for turning global licensing into a government-managed exercise that drives royalty rates below market value.

In a recent Substack post discussing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) policy and current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reforms, former USPTO Deputy Solicitor Thomas Krause referenced my PTAB case as part of his broader argument. Because my case was cited in that discussion, the factual record matters… My case does not support the claim that the PTAB primarily exists to correct examiner errors or clean up patents issued over missed prior art.

For founders, naming a brand after oneself can feel like the most natural—and powerful—choice. A personal name signifies authenticity, craftsmanship, and accountability. Consumers feel they are not just buying a product, but a person’s vision, values, and reputation. In the apparel, beauty, and skincare space in particular, a founder’s identity often is the brand. That alignment can drive early momentum and deep consumer loyalty. But the same naming strategy that builds value at launch can create significant legal and business complications at scale—especially at exit.

Under today’s patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent—the standard utility patent. Despite the amount of power in the standard utility patent, this restriction oppresses the American inventor. Large numbers of people cannot afford the costs to procure and enforce the standard utility patent, and for many of the ones who can, it often does not pack enough firepower to allow them to fully recover. Because each invention is different, each instance of infringement is different. A single $20,000-$30,000 utility patent is not even close to being capable of addressing every one of those instances. The solution is very simple—different types of patents must be created.

The legal profession rewards endurance, precision and control. It also quietly normalizes stress, isolation and overextension. For patent practitioners and other IP lawyers, the pressures are uniquely acute: compressed prosecution deadlines, high-stakes litigation exposure, often unrealistic client-driven budget constraints, regulatory whiplash at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and increasingly complex technologies layered with global filing and prosecution strategy. The result is predictable. Even the most capable lawyers will, at some point in their careers, struggle.

Welcome back to Cool AI Patents of the Month, where we spotlight inventive developments at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property. In this installment, we take a look at two standout innovations—one that could transform how we watch sports, and another that may reshape how our vehicles understand the road ahead. Both illustrate how quickly AI is integrating itself into our daily lives.

Every day, Americans rely on technologies that were unimaginable just a generation ago – from advanced medical devices and artificial intelligence–powered applications to connected consumer electronics. These breakthroughs did not emerge in a vacuum. They are the product of an innovation ecosystem shaped by policy choices. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)—an agency with the extraordinary power to block imports and, in turn, influence the direction of American technology policy—has drifted out of that balance. To align with the Trump Administration’s intellectual property priorities and pro-investment agenda, the ITC is in urgent need of reform.

In a 2017 IPWatchdog article, I challenged practitioners engaged in patent prosecution: strive to embody the traits of an “IP counselor,” who brings a broader strategic mission and skill set than “just a patent prosecutor.” Likewise, I encouraged clients to retain IP counselors as their counsel of choice. My cautionary advice stemmed from patent prosecution’s vulnerability to complacency and commoditization, such as due to its structured nature and incentives to obtain as many patents as possible. In addition, relative to their peers, many practitioners provide relatively undifferentiated services, limiting their attractiveness to prospective clients and their staying power for existing clients.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), affirming the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. And it means the Federal Circuit should rule in favor of Director Squires and against Volkswagen in one of the more constitutionally focused writs of mandamus challenging Squires and his use of discretion to decide institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs). And there is no need for an oral argument.

A battle is currently being waged in a federal court in Washington D.C., where two prominent inventors are accusing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of singling out and stalling their pending patent applications, which might otherwise be allowable, for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards. The inventors allege that the USPTO has resurrected a program that started in 1994, that purportedly justified such added scrutiny, which the USPTO claims to have discontinued in 2015.