Brad Pederson has more than 30 years of experience in IP law, which includes working at large general practice firms in Los Angeles and Minneapolis. He has been a partner with Patterson Thuente IP over the past 15 years, interrupted by a three-year stint as in-house counsel with Angeion Corporation and an entrepreneurial venture. Before entering the legal profession, Brad spent several years in the computer industry.
Brad is a partner with Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. and chair of the firm’s patent practice group. He concentrates his practice on post issuance review proceedings and patent prosecution strategy, licensing and litigation.
Brad is the past chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) USPTO Inter Partes Patent Proceedings committee. He has successfully represented companies in the new review proceedings before the PTAB at the USPTO and in both inter partes reexaminations and interference proceedings.
Serving both as litigation counsel and an expert witness, Brad has extensive trial and appellate experience, in addition to significant experience in patent prosecution and transactional work. He provides clients with practical and pragmatic advice on the development, management and enforcement of IP portfolios, base on his wide range of experiences. As an inventor, entrepreneur and former in-house counsel, he has a real-world foundation from which to create effective IP portfolios and strategies.
Brad is one of the more knowledgeable IP attorneys when it comes to the recent changes to U.S. patent law, resulting from the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Since 2005, he has actively followed the patent reform movement and the developments occurring at the agency, legislative and judical levels. He educates clients and colleagues by writing and presenting on the America Invents Act and strategies for dealing with the reforms.
A graduate of the Exponential Technologies Executive Program at Singularity University, Brad also has a keen interest in the leading edge of development with respect to artificial intelligence and semanti
A recent New York Times Editorial Board opinion urged comprehensive reform of America’s patent system by focusing on a few examples of what the Board views as “bad” drug-related patents. Unfortunately, the opinion does not define what makes a patent good or bad. Nor do the sources relied on by the Board provide open access to the underlying data on which such judgments are made. Calls for improving America’s patent system should be based on more than unverifiable grievances. Real reform will take more than just suggestions that nibble around the edges of our current patent system in response to broad allegations of unfairness. Real reform needs objective standards for measuring patent quality that can guide improvements. Such evidence about patent quality may show that fundamental aspects of our patent system must be updated to keep it relevant for today’s innovation economy.
Although these charts do not represent a rigorous analysis, they do show two things. First, patent activity appears to have a relatively consistent correlation to economic activity. Whether Lincoln was correct that there is a cause relationship or whether this is simply an effect relationship can be debated, but the existence of a relationship seems to be well-established. Second, patent litigation also appears to be following the longer-term trend of the relationship between patent activity and economic activity. The recent jump in the number of patent lawsuits filed, while significant in the short term, does not appear to represent a significant deviation from what would be expected based on longer-term historical trends.