Posts Tagged: "independent inventor"

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 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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision affirming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) denial of a petition for rulemaking filed by US Inventor (USI) asking the Office to establish criteria to limit its authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) under the America Invents Act (AIA).

Timing is everything in the world of American innovation. On September 16, 2025, I hand delivered a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking a simple, long-overdue fix: clarify by rule that “cancellation” of a patent claim means the end of rights prospectively, not erasure of decades of hard-earned reliance, contracts, and value. After living this process, I know firsthand how timing and retroactivity can destroy the lives and businesses of those who play by the rules.

As President Trump’s executive order mandating federal employees to return to the office ignites national debate, it underscores a glaring irony for inventors like me—those whose lives and businesses have already been upended by a remote government system that wields immense power with little accountability.

Last week, independent inventor Carrie Hafeman filed an opening brief  for the appellant at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) seeking reversal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of her device location and theft prevention patent claims. The brief includes Hafeman’s most recent challenge to alleged abuses of Sotera stipulations by Big Tech firms working in concert to invalidate Hafeman’s claims. The appellate brief also challenges the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness analysis in reaching its invalidity determinations.

If you are an inventor of a consumer product there are reputable companies looking for inventions and ideas to bring to market, and their business model is built on taking products to market over and over again, and they are in constant need of new products and improvements. They also realize litigation is wasteful when you are dealing with products that often have a 1-, 2- or 3-year shelf life, so they are willing to do deals that allow them to quickly get products onto shelves and into the stream of commerce, and inventors get paid.

As the hit sitcom Young Sheldon comes to an end next month, a look back at the series offers an opportunity for young inventors to learn about inventorship. The coming-of-age show centers around a boy genius, Sheldon, who has run the gamut of growing up in expedited fashion—experiencing high school, college dorm life, and even a first (failed) kiss (attempt), all before being eligible to drive. Another milestone in Sheldon’s life—his first inventorship dispute—shows that it doesn’t take a boy genius to become a young inventor.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied inventor Jeffrey Killian’s petition for a rehearing in his case asking the Court to provide clear guidance on – or else throw out – the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. The Supreme Court denied Killian’s original petition in early October, but Killian filed a request for rehearing several weeks later. Killian first filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in April, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB)’s ruling rejecting claims of his U.S. Patent Application No. 14/450,042 under Section 101.

On September 25, independent inventor Carolyn Hafeman filed a reply brief  arguing that efforts by consumer tech giant LG Electronics to prejudice Hafeman’s legal claims in front of a Western Texas jury require the court to grant a new patent infringement trial in the case. Among other things, Hafeman contends that LG’s invalidity arguments at trial violated LG’s own Sotera stipulation filed in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings brought by LG suppliers Google and Microsoft to challenge the validity of Hafeman’s patent claims asserted against LG.

Careless naming of inventors on a patent application can create confusion and add complexity to an already intricate process. The recent case of Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Prod., Inc. is a great example where failure to properly list a co-inventor resulted in the only named inventor losing their patent rights…. To avoid a case similar to Blue Gentian v. Tristar, identify all inventors carefully and have them sign an assignment agreement, which transfers their rights to a single entity, such as an individual or the company that’s going to exploit the patent.

The PREVAIL Act addresses current rules that enable gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by huge corporations against small inventors, startups and other patent owners, and that increase invalidation rates. It introduces standing requirements, establishes a clear and convincing evidence standard to invalidate a patent, ensures a code of conduct is put in place for administrative patent judges (APJs), and more. While these changes are well-intended, due to the PTAB’s perverse incentive structure, the PREVAIL Act will only be marginally effective, and may have no real effect at all.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) yesterday republished its Request for Comments (RFC) on the establishment of an additional USPTO Regional Office in the southeast region and four new community outreach offices. The original RFC included a bad link for the comments form, so the Office published a new link and also extended the deadline for comments from July 11, 2023, to July 17. The RFC is in response to provisions of the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 (UAIA), which was introduced in September 2021 and signed into law in December 2022, and requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish another satellite office within three years of the bill’s enactment somewhere in the Southeastern region of the nation, which the bill specifically defines as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.