Posts in Inventors Information

Although I am not an attorney, I have been deeply enmeshed in the patent process as an inventor for three decades. And I have grown an appreciation for your profession that is perhaps deeper than most folks’. The majority of my work over the past 30 years has been in AI and machine learning. And I want to share some thoughts with you today about how all of this intersects and how you, everyone in this room, are really the last line of defense that humanity has in maintaining what it means to be human. 

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.

It is hardly a secret that corporate IP departments are under growing pressure to do more with less. Budgets are tightening, leadership increasingly expects patents to deliver measurable business value, and artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how patent work can be performed. What does this mean for the future of in-house patent teams—and for the law firms that support them? Our conversation explores several major trends shaping patent strategy today, including the shift toward quality over quantity in patent portfolios, the growing emphasis on maintenance fee pruning and portfolio discipline, and the evolving relationship between in-house counsel and outside patent law firms. We also examine how companies are using competitive intelligence, patent analytics, and emerging tools to guide filing strategy, manage costs, and identify licensing and enforcement opportunities. We also tackle one of the biggest questions facing the IP profession: What can AI realistically do for patent practitioners today—and what can’t it do yet?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential decision holding that the principle of forfeiture can apply even where an intervening  correction of inventorship was granted that would have directly affected the outcome of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham.

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.

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.

What does it mean to be a prolific inventor in an era of corporate retrenchment, weakened patent rights, and risk-averse innovation culture? This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I had the opportunity to explore that question with Fred Shelton—an engineer who has accumulated more than 3,000 patents over roughly two decades, primarily during his career at Johnson & Johnson. Shelton describes himself not as an IP professional, but as an engineer who “documents engineering through patents.” That distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a philosophy of invention that is structured, disciplined, and deeply contextual.

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.

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.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart joined IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO Gene Quinn this morning to kick off the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026. Discussing the many procedural changes that have been implemented at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under first Stewart as Acting Director and then current Director John Squires’, Stewart urged patent owners responding to petitions at the PTAB to tell their stories and petitioners to focus on patents in need of clear “error correction.”

There are lots of familiar recommendations to make U.S. businesses more competitive globally. All are valid, but none are particularly creative or original. One solution that hasn’t been pursued is not only simple, a variation of it has been implemented by America’s largest and most aggressive economic competitor: remove the filing fees for inventors and intellectual property (IP)creators under 18.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released two memos meant to provide additional guidance around the use of patent subject matter eligibility declarations (SMEDs) for examiners, applicants and practitioners, particularly with respect to “applied technologies” in areas like artificial intelligence and medical diagnostics. The memos do not alter existing procedures and are effective immediately.

The deadline for comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in October, titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” was yesterday, December 2. As of today, the Office has received 10,783 comments and has published just over 1,000 of them. The rules have been broadly welcomed by IP holders and practitioners, and broadly opposed by those who want to preserve the option to easily challenge patents. Below, we summarize several submissions from individuals and organizations on both sides.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rescinded its AI Inventorship guidance issued in February 2024 under the previous USPTO administration and published new guidance emphasizing that the Pannu factors for joint inventorship do not apply in the context of an AI invention involving a single inventor. The guidance issued on February 13, 2024, under previous USPTO Director Kathi Vidal discussed the relevance of the three-part test articulated in Pannu v. Iolab Corp. in determining inventorship in the context of AI-assisted inventions.

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.