Posts in Podcasts

OpenAI shocked the world when it released its spectacularly helpful, free generative AI platform, ChatGPT, on November 30, 2022. AI has existed in various forms for decades but it has never been so widely accessible or boldly efficient. No one can deny that we’ve been living in an AI world ever since. But ChatGPT is just one example of how AI is being used by businesses. To unpack why and how different forms of artificial intelligence are being adopted by businesses and their impact on intellectual property rights, Bruce Berman hosts two innovative exponents of AI on the seventh episode of the third season of his podcast “Understanding IP Matters.”

The number of granted design patents has tripled over the past 10 years. To find out why — and how design patents are being used to secure value for innovative products — Bruce Berman interviews IP attorney and design patent litigator Elizabeth Ferrill and Brian Hinman, former Chief IP Officer at Philips, on Episode 6 of Season 3 of his Top 2- ranked podcast, “Understanding IP Matters.”

Claim construction is a process in which courts attempt to interpret the meaning and scope of the claims of a patent. It’s effectively reconstructing what an inventor and their practitioner meant back when they drafted the patent application. While your patent might not be tested in a court for many years, understanding the sometimes-surprising language specifics and context traps while drafting now can help set you up for success later when defending your patent or attempting to stop an infringer. The words you choose now and the support you provide when drafting are your opportunity to help de-risk the process of courts and juries later interpreting what you meant. And oftentimes, claim construction can be the key factor in resolving disputes even before litigation, with the facts that come out of claim construction deciding the monetary value and payouts in settlements.

As we step into a new year, the landscape of influencer marketing is witnessing notable changes that impact both brands and talent due to recent updates to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Guide on Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. Let’s delve into the key insights shared in this informative conversation.

Jamie L. Simpson is the Chief Policy Officer and Counsel for the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) and has previously served as Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, and in various roles at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In the latest episode of The SEP Couch, Tim Pohlmann spoke with Simpson about  how IP is dealt with in the United States and, in particular, the topic of standard essential patents (SEPs), and explained that the situation is certainly more complicated than is appreciated from the outside.

The Federal Circuit basically confirmed in In re Cellect that terminal disclaimers can knock out patent term adjustment (PTA). If you have patent term extension (PTE) and you filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection, you can get the PTE term tacked onto the disclaimed date. However, in the case of PTA, the court says that PTA term gets added to the life of the patent first and then the terminal disclaimer goes into effect so that you have disclaimed the PTA term and any extended term such that the two patents now expire on the same date regardless of the PTA. In effect, terminal disclaimers may knock out PTA term.

On this episode of the Clause 8 podcast, Patrick Kilbride and returning guest Brad Watts join Eli Mazour to talk about the U.S. Chamber’s new initiative, the current narrative on IP rights and the forces that shaped it, the themes of the IP Principles document, and what they hope to accomplish. They also discuss why the U.S. Chamber cares so much about IP issues, whether patents are underappreciated compared to other IP rights, and much more!

Innovators that invest in R&D are the driving force behind today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape. However, implementers that rely on – and as a result benefit from – those innovations to sell their own products and services aren’t usually eager to pay those innovators. But by paying the innovators, the implementers are actually helping make sure that the cycle of innovation continues. Matteo Sabattini, the new President and Chief Licensing Officer of Convida, joins Eli on this episode of the Clause 8 podcast to talk about this important dynamic.

IP legend Marshall Phelps joins host Bruce Berman to deliver a masterclass on IP strategy from a business perspective on Episode 5 of Season 3 of the podcast “Understanding IP Matters.” In the 1990s, as vice-president of IP business and licensing at IBM, Phelps’ group generated as much as $2 billion annually by establishing partnerships and focusing on R&D (IBM rarely sued). In 2003, he was personally recruited by Bill Gates to head Microsoft’s IP business, where he was instrumental in helping it become one of the most profitable IP focused businesses ever. He has taught IP strategy at Cornell, USC, Duke, UC Berkeley, and in Japan.

In 1975, Ian Murgitroyd founded his own firm in Glasgow, Scotland after stumbling into the patent field.  He could not have imagined that it would become one of the world’s biggest IP service providers, let alone that it would make history by being the first and only law firm to be listed on the London Stock Exchange or later be acquired by a private equity firm for £63 million.

Joe Casino is a partner and the Intellectual Property Chair at Wiggin and Dana and the Managing Trustee of Sun Patent Trust. Joe has been involved in licensing and patent enforcement for more than 25 years and is currently the Secretary for the Licensing Executives Society standard-setting program for developing an ANSI standard of best practices for licensing negotiations. In this episode of the SEP Couch podcast, Joe describes his extended experience in all aspects of intellectual property law and explains how standard essential patents (SEPs) cases are different from other patent cases.

What is a patent worth? What makes patents valuable? Patent practitioners, valuation experts, and academics spend a lot of time thinking about and debating these questions. But they rarely get fully tested. Most patents are never litigated or licensed. Settlement negotiations and licensing agreements are often driven by factors that aren’t related to the worth of any individual patent. The latest judicial decisions provide some hints at the answers to these questions, but also frequently lead to overreaction and confusion.

Get ready for a cinematic exploration of innovation and intellectual property as depicted in popular movies about inventors and creators. In this episode, IP Goes Pop!  co-hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue peel back the layers of iconic movies that not only inspire us, but also shed light on the realities of building successful businesses and protecting ideas.

The global video game market topped $183 billion in 2022 and is projected to exceed $300 billion by 2026. To put those numbers into perspective, this makes gaming bigger than the film and music industries combined – and dwarfs the combined revenue of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL! Worldwide board game sales, while significantly less, still account for over $2 billion. That’s a whole lotta IP in need of protection, so in this month’s episode of Patently Strategic, we’re talking games.

Patents are supposed to provide the right to exclude others from practicing an invention. In the United States, this has become extremely challenging for smaller businesses. For independent inventors, who pour their time, energy, and resources into commercializing a new idea, patents are personal. They need and rely on the leverage that patents have historically offered. For large companies, the decision to forge ahead irrespective of who “owns” an idea is just business. The consequences of efficient infringement are few and far between. The challenges faced by U.S. inventors who rely on the legal system are well-documented. Suing for patent infringement is not a reliable business strategy, even when willful infringement is found to have occurred, which is rare. What’s an innovator to do?