Posts in Podcasts

When I sat down with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu for this week’s episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I expected a serious conversation about the condition of the U.S. patent system. Instead of rehashing everything that has gone wrong with the U.S. patent system from the perspective of an innovator over the last two decades, what took place was a deep and revealing conversation about whether the legal architecture that once made the United States the world’s innovation leader is still fit for purpose in an economy increasingly defined by software, artificial intelligence, data, biotechnology, and other intangible assets.

The United States patent system is not failing because Americans have stopped inventing. It is failing because the legal and institutional architecture built to protect invention no longer operates as a coherent innovation framework. Over time, the system has become a patchwork of overlapping tribunals, inconsistent legal standards, procedural inefficiencies, and doctrinal barriers that make it harder to obtain, defend, enforce, license, and rely upon even high-quality patent rights covering innovations of extraordinary consequence. Now in the coming months we will move forward with a candid, serious, historically grounded, and focused conversation on building—not merely patching—the next American patent system.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Rama Elluru, a former PTAB Judge turned national security policy advisor. We explore the accelerating intersection of AI, patent law, and national competitiveness, as well as the hard questions policymakers will soon face around AI-assisted inventorship, patent eligibility, drug discovery, scientific research, and whether existing legal frameworks can keep pace with technologies that are advancing far faster than Congress, agencies, and courts typically move. We also address the broader national security implications of intellectual property policy, AI-enabled fraud, workforce disruption, the need for guardrails and meaningful penalties for malicious uses of AI, and why IP must be understood as a core pillar of economic and national security strategy.

For much of the last four decades, American innovation policy has rested on a premise that should be obvious but too often is not: strong intellectual property rights are not an obstacle to competition. Quite the opposite—strong IP rights are the precursor to robust competition. The alternative to a robust patent system is not some frictionless utopia of open competition. The alternative is secrecy, copying, and underinvestment. If patents are too weak, companies will rely more heavily on trade secrets. That means less disclosure, less technical diffusion, and fewer opportunities for others to build upon what has been invented. Weak patents do not democratize innovation—they often bury it. Weak patents also reward copycats who find it far more expedient and financially rewarding to take rather than to innovate themselves. These truths were the main point at the center of my recent conversation with Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission.

In the latest episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with David Hyams, Co-Founder and Chief Business Development Officer of Longship Legal, to explore what it looks like to build an IP practice around business value rather than patent volume. Drawing on a career that spans big law in Boston, in-house roles at Bose Corporation and AOL, and a cleantech startup, Hyams makes a case that the most important questions in IP strategy have nothing to do with patentability, and everything to do with understanding what a company is actually trying to win.

While AI can improve research, drafting, analysis, and overall work product quality, the panel emphasized that it is not a magic button and cannot replace expert legal judgment. The most effective use of AI in patent practice is incremental, targeted, and lawyer-directed—more co-pilot than autopilot. Panelists explored the risks created when inventors, clients, or law firms over-rely on AI-generated disclosures, patent application critiques, or claim strategy recommendations, including the potential for increased attorney workload, inventorship complications, technical inaccuracies, and downstream litigation vulnerabilities. The conversation ultimately framed AI as both a market disruptor and a strategic opportunity for patent law firms. Firms that respond defensively or compete solely on price risk being pushed into an unsustainable race to the bottom. Firms that lean into client education, workflow redesign, transparent billing expectations, disciplined AI usage, and higher-value counseling will be better positioned to compete. The panel made clear that AI will not eliminate the need for sophisticated patent counsel; it will expose which firms are genuinely strategic partners and which are merely labor providers.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Kristen Osenga, who is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Richmond School of Law. Kristen is a familiar voice to many in the patent community. She has been a regular participant in serious conversations about patent law, standard essential patents (SEPs), antitrust, competition policy, injunctions, and the broader innovation ecosystem.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke again with Fran Cruz, Senior Vice President of IP Solutions for Juristat. Our conversation was about a topic that should be top of mind for every patent prosecution firm, every in-house IP department, and every legal operations professional trying to make sense of the current market for patent related legal work. Where is patent prosecution work going, when does work move from firm to firm, when it does move, where is it moving, and what will firms have to do to win—or keep—the patent preparation and prosecution work?

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Brent Bellows, a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies (KIPS). We discussed a variety of issues including Hatch-Waxman, Orange Book listings, paragraph IV certifications, skinny labels, generic entry, clinical trial costs, regulatory exclusivity, and the enormous financial risk associated with bringing new drugs to market. Gene and Brent explore the tension between public demand for lower drug prices and the need for durable incentives that make high-risk drug development economically viable, particularly for oncology, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and other difficult-to-treat conditions. The episode closes with a broader innovation-policy message: patents are not a peripheral feature of drug development—they are a core operating asset that enables private-sector investment, supports breakthrough therapies, and ultimately drives the availability of future generic medicines.

Most companies entering a joint development agreement are focused on making the project work. What they are less focused on—and what can create serious problems years down the line—is what happens to the confidential information shared during that project once it ends. That’s one of the central arguments Emily Teesdale, founder of Pivot IP, makes in a recent episode of IP Innovators.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, my conversation with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice, underscores a fundamental shift underway in how sophisticated organizations approach intellectual property. What was once a reactive, litigation-centric discipline, is rapidly evolving into something far more strategic—an integrated function that sits at the intersection of technology, business, and risk management. Ultimately, what emerged from this discussion is a vision of IP practice that is far more integrated and strategic than the traditional model. It is a shift from courtroom to boardroom counselor—from reactive defense to proactive governance. For practitioners, this requires a broader skill set and a willingness to engage deeply with technology and business. For clients, it offers the promise of more effective risk management and better alignment between legal strategy and commercial objectives.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with Matteo Sabattini. At the heart of our discussion was the persistent asymmetry between those who are primarily innovators and those who are primarily implementers. As I explained, many patent owners historically assumed the system would take care of itself—that “cooler heads would prevail.” That assumption has proven misguided. Over the last two decades, implementers—many of them large, consumer-facing companies—have engaged in sustained and coordinated advocacy. Innovators, by contrast, have as a group been slower to mobilize. Sabattini agreed with the diagnosis but added an important nuance. The imbalance, he argued, is not simply a failure of engagement; it is structural. “There is a numerosity problem,” he told me. “The companies investing in developing new technologies are inevitably outnumbered by companies who actually use these technologies.”

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I have a candid conversation with Melissa Silverstein about both IP strategy and the human side of IP, including a discussion of the struggles that some attorneys have with substance abuse. The first half of the conversation centers on a clear market correction in intellectual property strategy: portfolios are being forced to operate like business assets rather than legal inventory…. The conversation then pivots sharply to the human dimension of the profession, where Silverstein’s current work is focused. Drawing on her own experience, she addresses the prevalence of substance abuse, burnout, and mental health challenges among high-performing attorneys.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, my conversation with patent broker Louis Carbonneau centers on a fundamental breakdown in the economic engine that has historically driven innovation. While innovation itself has not disappeared, the incentive structure that once enabled a repeatable cycle—innovate, patent, monetize, reinvest—has eroded. Large market participants increasingly operate under a “use now, pay later (if ever)” model, which disproportionately disadvantages individual inventors and smaller entities. As a result, many innovators are unable to sustain continued development beyond an initial breakthrough, leading to a systemic drag on long-term innovation output. This shift is reinforced by a broader cultural normalization of “free” access to intellectual property, which has migrated from the copyright into the patent and innovation industry.