Posts Tagged: "Gene Quinn"

It is hardly a secret that corporate IP departments are under growing pressure to do more with less. Budgets are tightening, leadership increasingly expects patents to deliver measurable business value, and artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how patent work can be performed. What does this mean for the future of in-house patent teams—and for the law firms that support them? Our conversation explores several major trends shaping patent strategy today, including the shift toward quality over quantity in patent portfolios, the growing emphasis on maintenance fee pruning and portfolio discipline, and the evolving relationship between in-house counsel and outside patent law firms. We also examine how companies are using competitive intelligence, patent analytics, and emerging tools to guide filing strategy, manage costs, and identify licensing and enforcement opportunities. We also tackle one of the biggest questions facing the IP profession: What can AI realistically do for patent practitioners today—and what can’t it do yet?

I keep hearing the same thing from patent professionals across the industry—inside companies, inside law firms, and even from investors. Patent budgets are shrinking, expectations are rising, and nobody seems willing to admit what that combination actually means.

What does it mean to be a prolific inventor in an era of corporate retrenchment, weakened patent rights, and risk-averse innovation culture? This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I had the opportunity to explore that question with Fred Shelton—an engineer who has accumulated more than 3,000 patents over roughly two decades, primarily during his career at Johnson & Johnson. Shelton describes himself not as an IP professional, but as an engineer who “documents engineering through patents.” That distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a philosophy of invention that is structured, disciplined, and deeply contextual.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I had the pleasure of speaking with Deborah Farone, founder of Farone Advisors, former Chief Marketing Officer of Cravath, Swain & Moore, and author of Breaking Ground: How Successful Women Lawyers Build Thriving Practices. Our conversation focused on how lawyers—particularly in highly technical fields like intellectual property—can build thriving practices through disciplined, strategic business development. The discussion underscores that business development is a skill, not an innate personality trait. Even introverted attorneys can succeed by taking incremental steps, practicing authentic communication, and focusing on listening rather than selling.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we discuss whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). PTAB practitioners Matt Phillips and Kevin Greenleaf joined me for about how patent owners and challengers should be strategically thinking about the shifting post-grant environment at the USPTO. Our conversation highlights the growing reality that post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review (IPR), but that ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity, which requires careful evaluating timing, procedural dynamics, cost, and institutional realities. Fundamentally we attempt to answer the question of whether patent owners are better off in reexamination, or whether they are better off with IPR at the PTAB.

Patent portfolios are frequently discussed in terms of size, technological breadth, or litigation potential. Those characteristics may be easy to measure, but they are not what determines whether a portfolio succeeds or fails. At their core, patent portfolios are business assets that must be managed deliberately and strategically. When they are not, they become cost centers that quietly consume resources without delivering meaningful competitive advantage.

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, and we take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Johnson and I discuss the ongoing PTAB reset at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and suggest practical fixes for a better, reengineered PTAB. The majority of the conversation is devoted to concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, Johnson proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners.

In this week’s episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Megan Carpenter, who just recently stepped down as Dean of UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law after more than eight years. Our conversation was part personal journey and business philosophy together with a candid assessment of the IP ecosystem. We tackle emerging issues, including AI’s impact on legal practice and education. And we discuss the role of IP as essential to sustaining innovation in a rapidly evolving global economy, and fostering human creativity, innovation, and economic mobility.

In the latest episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with my good friends Brad Close, who is the Executive Vice President of Transpacific IP, and Jim Carmichael, a former judge on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and founder of Carmichael IP. Brad, Jim and I engaged in a candid conversation that provides our unvarnished assessment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where it started historically, where it is today, and where it may finally be headed. Bottom line: the PTAB is no longer the automatic execution squad it once was, but durable patent rights will require reform well beyond the agency level.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with prolific inventor Gil Hyatt, exploring his innovative journey and aspirations to leave a lasting legacy. One of the key highlights of the conversation was Gil’s creation of a non-profit Pioneering AI Foundation, which is aimed at advancing AI technology and bolstering U.S. economic interests. This non-profit organization is set to hold Gil’s substantial portfolio of AI patent applications, which cover his pioneering work dating back to the 1980s, and includes groundbreaking claims in artificial intelligence that could revolutionize sectors like education, manufacturing, and trade.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with my business and life partner, Renee Quinn. In addition to telling Renee’s story about how she found her way into the intellectual property world, and through our sometimes-comical banter, we together explore what it really takes to build, sustain, and continuously reinvent an entrepreneurial company like IPWatchdog. What emerged was a practical roadmap for entrepreneurship, invention, navigating platform risk, and focused on the necessity of constantly being ready to pivot as old business models start to show signs of age and ultimately falter. From Renee’s journey from IP outsider to patented inventor, to firsthand lessons learned navigating Amazon’s reseller ecosystem, the discussion highlights how intellectual property operates in the real world, not the classroom.

As we wind down 2025 it is time to reflect on the year that was, and what the future will bring. This year was punctuated by a structural reset for the U.S. patent system. What unfolded was not just incremental reform, but a coordinated shift driven by leadership change, policy realignment, economic pressure, and accelerating adoption of AI—all converging to reshape how patents are examined, challenged, monetized, and managed. This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we explore the monumental changes and the biggest trends that impacted the patent and innovation industry during 2025, and which will play an important role in defining 2026.

There’s a lot going on at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) right now, and it’s not just the usual noise about discretionary denial. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a one-and-done rules package that, if it survives, would fundamentally change how inter partes review (IPR) challenge works, who can challenge patents, and when. The comment window on the proposed one-and-done rule has now closed. With more than 10,000 comments received by the USPTO and over 700 individual commenters weighing in, the proposed rules package has become a flashpoint for questions that go way beyond discretionary denial and AIA trials, with many asking whether the USPTO is functionally trying to engage in de facto legislation to neuter the PTAB.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I was joined by my longtime friend John White, who is the the creator of the patent bar review course I’ve taught for almost 27 years. Together we explore the intricate and ever changing patent landscape. First, we begin by discussing the bar exam and how it is changing, then we pivot to the evolving role of AI in patent law more generally. Our conversation traversed decades of personal history, friendship and professional insights, revealing how the industry has transformed over the years and what it means for the current and future generation of patent practitioners.