Eli Mazour

“It became obvious to me that IP was a lot more than laws and court decisions and regulations,” says Joff Wild of IAM on the latest episode of Clause 8. “IP was becoming a fundamental business asset, one that people could use to generate profits, build partnerships, go out into the markets, and raise cash. But no one was writing about that there was no coverage of that. So that said, to me, there was an opportunity to create something new.” Wild joins Eli from “across the pond” on this episode of the Clause 8 podcast to talk about founding, editing, and growing IAM.

If you’ve ever attended a major intellectual property (IP) conference and found yourself captivated by an exceptional performance during a review of recent patent court decisions, chances are you witnessed the unmatched expertise and passion of Tom Irving. After over 47 years of focusing on pharmaceutical patents, Tom has the unique vantage point of someone who saw the field explode after the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the creation of the Federal Circuit.  Widely regarded as a legend of the patent bar and a virtuoso of Federal Circuit decisions, Tom Irving has made an indelible mark on the legal profession.

Cellular technology continues to transform the world. That would not be possible without innovative companies investing billions of dollars in research and development (R&D) to come up with innovations that make up transformational standards, such as 5G, and obtaining standard essential patents (SEPs) based on those innovations. Over the last 15 years, many companies that sell products based on those standards have invested heavily in trying to pay as little as possible for relying on those innovations. That latter investment has spurred global litigation campaigns, heated debates, endless amounts of lobbying, and questionable actions by regulators. Tim Pohlmann has seen the growth of these disagreements up close: initially, while working for the German government, and then as an economist who wrote his doctoral thesis on patenting and standardization.

Lucky or that good? David Jones’ time as Executive Director of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA), which advocates on patent policy issues on behalf of some of the largest tech companies in the world, suggests that he’s both when it comes to shaping America’s patent system. However, he’s way too modest and strategically wise to take credit or even accept the premise of that question. “I appreciate you saying we’ve had a winning streak. It doesn’t quite feel that way. To me, it feels to me like we’ve kind of clawed our way back to approaching neutral,” Jones says on the latest episode of Clause 8.

The patent community often treats the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as the person responsible for setting and changing an administration’s patent policy. On this episode of the Clause 8 podcast, former USPTO Commissioner for Patents, Robert Stoll, says that’s a mistake. “The autonomy of the Director is not what people think it is on the outside who are not familiar with it,” he emphasizes. “It’s not your own voice. Any Director of the PTO has to work in their administration and carry forward what becomes the policy of the President. So, they’re not free hands with respect to implementing their ideas, and you just have to recognize that.”

Israel is known as the land of milk and honey, the Holy Land, and the Startup Nation. And it consistently ranks in the top five countries for number of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent applications filed per capita. But due to its relatively small size, it’s understandably not known as a hotbed of major patent deals. Yet, surprisingly, the person responsible for making many of the biggest patent deals in the world happen is an unassuming lawyer based in Tel Aviv, Lillian Shaked.

What does U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal think of Molly Metz’s story? In a wide-ranging Clause 8 interview, that is one of the only questions Vidal chooses not to answer directly. While acknowledging that the patent system could use improvements in a variety of areas, Vidal makes it clear she prefers for the focus to be on positive stories about how the U.S. patent system is “the gold standard.” After all, Vidal goes out of her way to point out, America’s “strong patent system” delivered the COVID-19 vaccines.   “If there was not a strong patent system, we would have never gotten to where we did with regard to the vaccine,” Vidal says. “And then we needed all the developments on top of that, and we needed patents so that companies could collaborate. Because if you don’t have patents, people keep things [as] trade secrets. They need to make sure that they can get a return on investment for all the great work that they’re doing.” 

The copy writes itself: “Five-Time Woman World Jump Rope Champion Transforms Fitness Industry after Securing Patents.”  However, you’re unlikely to find a glowing profile of Molly Metz on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website anytime soon. That’s because, after the fitness industry embraced Molly’s invention as the gold standard for speed jump ropes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO invalidated the claims of the patents based on prior art from 1978 and 1979.