Posts in Technology & Innovation

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.

Imagine a company spends millions of dollars constructing a new office building in a prime downtown location. The company pays for maintenance, utilities, insurance, landscaping, repairs, security, and taxes. The building is well designed, professionally managed, and expensive to maintain. But it sits empty. No tenants. No leases. No revenue. That would strike most executives as irrational. Yet many companies treat patent portfolios in exactly the same way. They spend millions building and maintaining patent portfolios around the world. But when asked what revenue the portfolio generates, the silence is deafening.

Have you ever drafted a claim set with a second claim that began, “the system of claim 2, wherein…” when you meant to write “the system of claim 1”? It’s embarrassing because every first-year patent attorney knows that a dependent patent claim cannot depend on itself. However, making the error is inevitable when you draft a large number of patent applications. The good news is, if you upload such a claim to today’s Patent Center (where patent applications are filed), you will be provided with the following alert: “The claims appear to contain an improper dependency with at least one claim that depends on a missing or canceled claim. Please review and revise if necessary”. How beautiful is this? Now you can self-correct before your patent application is even filed. Ten years ago, you would have to go back and forth with a patent examiner to correct the error.

America’s $150 billion per year private sector investment in biopharmaceutical research and development (R&D) does more than offer comfort. Increasingly, American innovators are curing or effectively eliminating the medical threat from many diseases and conditions. Witness, cures for Hepatitis C, GLP-1s for weight loss, COVID-19 vaccines, and HIV prevention at virtually 100% effectiveness, alongside stem cell therapies, gene editing, and CAR-T therapies for previously untreatable cancers. For those suffering from rare or untreatable disease, as well as chronic conditions, this is an era of unprecedented hope.

Managing patent portfolios requires investment. There are significant costs associated with both building and maintaining patent portfolios, but all too often only a fraction of their potential business impact is ever realized. While obtaining and maintaining weak patents is a real concern, the strength of any particular patent, family or portfolio is not always tied to overall strength. Frequently, the problem is that the organization does not really know what it owns, why it owns what it does own, where patents fit from a strategic perspective, and whether the assets can be credibly used to support any commercial outcome.

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.

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.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is going through a significant digital transformation. With the Office seemingly updating its procedures as rapidly as the latest AI model, it’s important to track what this means for IP practice. AI is transforming the tools governing how the Office now processes what is filed, and the Office’s vacillations on AI inventorship should be top of mind for every practitioner.

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.

“Should we insource IP work?” This perennial question is posed by in-house professionals and organizational leaders in corporations, universities, and other institutions—and dreaded by outside IP counsel, who fear loss of insourced client business. Deceptively binary and straightforward, the insourcing question often can’t be answered without in-house teams first exploring a host of underlying considerations. Their decision-making calculus may confront grey areas and vexing tradeoffs, ultimately coming down to rough cost-benefit analyses and gut instincts.

To say we live in perplexing times is an understatement. Everything seems to be shifting beneath our feet, often with seemingly little thought. One example is the move to change how the federal government supports research. It wasn’t until the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, which injected the incentives of patent ownership into the system, that the situation changed. And the result was dramatic.

Artificial intelligence has moved beyond the experimental phase in legal practice. The legal industry is no longer debating whether lawyers can or should use AI tools, or whether AI will affect the economics of law firm and in-house legal department operations. Those questions have been answered. AI is already reshaping how legal work is performed, how legal departments manage demand, how law firms are expected to price services, how patent teams analyze portfolios, and how clients evaluate outside counsel.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new, easier-to-administer version of a popular cancer medicine called Keytruda a few months ago, patients celebrated. But critics quickly cried foul, accusing the drug’s manufacturer of gaming the patent system to preserve its monopoly and prevent cheaper competitors from coming to market. 

During a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property hearing on the Oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office on Tuesday, the intersection of copyright law, artificial intelligence, and executive branch interference were the key focuses. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter provided critical updates on the Copyright Office’s modernization efforts. However, the hearing was punctuated by sharp rebukes from Democratic senators regarding former President Donald Trump’s recent attempts to assert executive control over the legislative branch agency.