Mato just raised pre-seed Read more
Podcast charts
Published by Gene Quinn
Each week we journey into the world of intellectual property to discuss the law, news, policy and politics of innovation, technology, and creativity. With analysis and commentary from industry thought leaders and newsmakers from around the world, IPWatchdog Unleashed is hosted by world renowned patent attorney and founder of IPWatchdog.com, Gene Quinn.
On the charts
Every published chart this podcast appears in, in the snapshot behind this page. Each one links to the chart it came off.
The Mato Topic Intelligence Platform does not report this podcast as charting in a published category in this snapshot.
From the feed
The latest episodes published to this podcast’s own RSS feed. Titles and descriptions are the publisher’s.
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Steve Caltrider. Caltrider, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and former General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly, brings perspectives from nonprofit research and pharmaceutical practice to a central question: how does IP help move discoveries from the laboratory to patients? The conversation examines the role of patent protection in supporting investment in life sciences innovation and distinguishes innovation incentives from challenges such as generic drug supply and market concentration. Caltrider argues that confidence in patent rights depends on improving patent quality at the examination stage. He and Quinn discuss uncertainty around § 101 eligibility for diagnostics and emerging therapies, the effect of PTAB review on investment, and the need to balance error correction with a system that allows innovation to proceed. They also consider how hindsight can distort obviousness analysis and why practitioners should act as stewards of the patent system. The discussion turns to AI’s potential to improve prior-art searches and give applicants earlier feedback, helping examiners focus on the key issues while preserving human judgment in patentability decisions. Caltrider also explores how simplifying patent law and reducing defensive prosecution practices could enable more candid engagement with examiners. For IP professionals, the conversation offers a practical look at how stronger examination and clearer rules could support more reliable patents and sustained investment. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Hilary Preston. A partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of the firm’s intellectual property and technology litigation practice, Preston discusses the rapidly expanding AI data center ecosystem and the complex technology, infrastructure, and legal risks emerging alongside it. The conversation examines how power availability, grid capacity, cooling systems, on-site generation, and geographic location are shaping data center development. Quinn and Preston explore why these issues are becoming potential patent battlegrounds, how rights holders may target operators rather than technology suppliers, and why both hyperscaler and smaller, purpose-built facilities must account for IP risk across interconnected systems and vendors. Preston also explains the importance of “innovation governance” in projects moving at unprecedented speed. The discussion addresses strategic choices between patent and trade secret protection, jointly developed technology, ownership rights, indemnification, public disclosures, and the need to identify and manage risk before construction begins. The episode also considers the emerging challenges surrounding AI-related patents, including patent eligibility under Section 101 and written description and enablement under Section 112, offering practical guidance for developers, investors, technology providers, and legal professionals navigating this rapidly evolving market. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Bijou Mgbojikwe , who is Senior Policy Counsel at the Entertainment Software Association. They discuss how artificial intelligence is reshaping the video game industry and creating new challenges at the intersection of copyright, the First Amendment, right of publicity, content moderation, and consumer protection. The conversation examines why policymakers must distinguish between harmful deepfakes and digital replicas used in legitimate creative works. Mgbojikwe explains how the rapid expansion of state-level AI legislation is producing a costly and increasingly unworkable regulatory patchwork. Broad disclosure, labeling, watermarking, and content-provenance requirements can create disclosure fatigue, disrupt gameplay and immersion, and inadvertently sweep in benign technologies that have been used in video games for decades. The discussion emphasizes the value of risk-based regulation, targeted legislative language, and industry self-regulation—particularly when addressing online safety and protecting children. The episode also considers the long-term consequences for innovation, smaller game developers, and the national digital economy. Quinn and Mgbojikwe discuss the growing need for federal coordination, the dangers of imposing content-based or product-liability theories on software, and the importance of relying on existing legal doctrines where they already address emerging AI issues. For IP professionals, the conversation offers a practical framework for evaluating AI legislation: support legitimate consumer protections while preserving the creative freedom and technological experimentation that drive the video game industry forward. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Robert Plotkin. A patent attorney, computer scientist, and longtime software and AI practitioner, Plotkin discusses the relationship between hardware and software innovation and why legal distinctions that ignore how technology actually operates can produce flawed patent analysis. Quinn and Plotkin examine the continuing challenges surrounding patent eligibility, including the tendency to use Section 101 as a shortcut for questions that more appropriately belong under enablement, written description, novelty, or non-obviousness. They also discuss the risks of treating software as inherently simple or predictable, and the importance of evaluating AI and software inventions on their technological facts rather than through rigid labels that ignore deliberate design choices. The conversation also addresses the emerging AI patent gold rush and the difference between patent volume and patent value. Plotkin explains why companies should identify the specific technological capability they had to develop, determine whether it provides a meaningful competitive advantage, and align prosecution strategy with the business objective—whether product protection, fundraising, acquisition, monetization, or licensing. For startups and established companies alike, the discussion offers a practical framework for deciding what to patent, what may be better protected as a trade secret, and when an invention is sufficiently developed to justify pursuing patent protection. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , Gene Quinn examines why artificial intelligence is unlikely to eliminate experienced patent lawyers—but will expose practitioners whose work consists primarily of commodity production. AI is already transforming prior-art searching, claim comparison, application drafting, office-action responses, and portfolio analysis. The strategic opportunity is not simply to produce more patents faster, but to use AI to reach a substantially better work product within the time and budget previously required to reach what courts today increasingly find to be incomplete. Quinn discusses the limits of AI-assisted patent practice, including technically impossible embodiments, unsupported combinations, inaccurate characterizations of prior art, and plausible language that collapses under technical scrutiny. AI remains a tool, not an inventor, and the use of AI cannot relieve patent professionals of responsibility for determining what is true, what works, what the inventor actually conceived, and what the law permits them to claim. For patent owners and in-house counsel, the episode offers a direct warning against treating AI as merely a justification for reducing outside-counsel fees while continuing to demand commercially useful rights that can survive scrutiny and diligence in the real world. The episode also addresses a workforce issue that is rarely discussed: if AI performs much of the entry-level work traditionally used to train junior lawyers, patent agents, and searchers, how will the next generation develop professional judgment? Quinn offers a practical roadmap that includes mastering patent-law fundamentals, using AI as a tutor and adversarial reviewer, becoming skilled at inventor interviews, developing technical depth, and studying how patents fail. He also argues for deliberate collaboration between younger professionals who bring AI fluency and experienced practitioners who contribute legal judgment, technical skepticism, and strategic perspective. The future of patent practice will belong to professionals who know not only how to use AI, but also what to question, what to verify, and what matters to the client. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Joel Meyer . An IP attorney and innovation strategist with more than 30 years of experience building and monetizing technology portfolios, Meyer joins Gene to examine how the AI transformation is reshaping innovation and IP strategy. Drawing on his experience with digital watermarking and other advanced technologies, they explore software and functional claiming, the persistent challenges surrounding patent eligibility, and why many concerns labeled as “abstractness” may be better addressed through Section 112—and, in some cases, Section 103. The conversation then turns to the strategic choices facing startups and growth companies, including when to patent, when to rely on trade secrets, and why simply accumulating patent numbers is rarely the right objective. Meyer and Quinn discuss the importance of building foundational patent specifications that preserve optionality, support protection at multiple levels of generality, and anticipate competitive technologies, alternative implementations and future market developments. They also examine AI-assisted patent drafting and searching, including why an AI-generated application that looks polished may still be little more than a product specification without the strategic architecture necessary to create durable IP value. Finally, Gene and Joel explore the evolving role of IP counsel as a strategic business partner rather than merely a producer of patents. For emerging companies in particular, effective IP strategy requires understanding the technology, competitive landscape, business model and investor expectations—and identifying the protectable advantages that can become meaningful barriers to entry. The takeaway is a forward-looking discussion about using patents, trade secrets and AI tools together to create value, anticipate disruption and preserve strategic options as technologies and markets evolve. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , Brad Close, Phil Goter, Kyle Vallecillo, and Matheus Ramalho discuss enforcement driven economics. Continuing the podcast’s examination of patent monetization, the conversation moves beyond portfolio diligence to the far more difficult question of execution: what patent owners must understand once they are prepared to pursue licensing or enforcement, and why capital, timing, and deal structure often determine whether valuable patent rights produce a commercial return. The panel examines how non-recourse litigation financing and alternative fee arrangements distribute cost, risk, and potential recovery among patent owners, law firms, and funders. The discussion also explores patent pools, special-purpose vehicles, cross-licensing, and supply relationships, as well as the reputational and strategic considerations that influence whether a company asserts patents in its own name. Throughout, the participants emphasize that litigation is frequently a means of creating negotiating leverage—but that the desired business resolution must remain compatible with the economics of the enforcement campaign. The conversation also highlights Brazil’s increasingly important role in global monetization strategies, including preliminary injunctions, disgorgement-based damages, and other pressure points that may be unavailable in the United States. The panel closes with practical guidance for building monetization-ready portfolios: draft claims with provable infringement in mind, avoid unnecessarily costly limitations, preserve multiple independent patent families, and recognize that one newly issued patent rarely provides sufficient leverage. The result is a candid assessment of what it now takes to move from owning patents to extracting meaningful value from them. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Martin Correa. Correa, whose work at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) focuses on the future of intellectual property. The conversation examines the danger of viewing IP solely as a legal instrument or barrier, rather than as infrastructure supporting investment, innovation, economic development, and public welfare. Correa and Quinn discuss how IP leaders can identify high-impact uncertainties, test strategy against multiple plausible futures, and remain prepared as technology, economics, law, and public attitudes evolve. Correa then puts Quinn through WIPO’s seven-question foresight exercise, shifting the discussion to the IP system of 2040. Their exchange addresses the durability of the U.S. patent system, declining respect for property rights, the cost and fragmentation of global patent protection, international harmonization, and the risk that innovators will increasingly rely on trade secrets. The result is a timely examination of how public education, policymaker engagement, and decisions made today will determine whether IP continues to drive innovation tomorrow. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we have a special episode moderated by Megan Carpenter , which took place during the IPWatchdog Patent Masters conference last month. IPWatchdog founder, Gene Quinn, joins along with economist Jon Putnam , and patent litigators Glenn Forbis , and Mark Nelson . The crew examines how the 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702—and the Federal Circuit’s increasingly rigorous review of expert testimony—are changing the way patent damages must be developed, defended, and challenged. The conversation explores why heightened scrutiny does not necessarily favor defendants, how the line between admissibility and weight remains highly judge-dependent, and what recent disputes reveal about apportionment, license comparability, causation, and the limits of scientific proof in the damages context. The panel also revisits the demise of the 25-percent rule and considers the tension between demanding economic rigor and recognizing that a reasonable royalty for a showing of infringement logically cannot begin at zero. The practical takeaway is clear: damages strategy cannot wait until expert reports are due. Patent owners and accused infringers alike need to engage damages experts early, pursue discovery in deliberate waves, connect technical value to economic outcomes, and build alternative theories capable of surviving Daubert scrutiny. The discussion offers a sophisticated roadmap for integrating liability, discovery, economics, and trial strategy from the beginning of the case. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with B en Greenberg . An engineer and product-development specialist, Greenberg works with independent inventors, startups, and small businesses to transform early-stage concepts into functional prototypes, manufacturable products, and commercially viable opportunities. The conversation examines why obtaining a patent is only one component of a successful strategy—and why technical feasibility, market demand, and economic reality must be evaluated together. Quinn and Greenberg explore the critical sequencing of patent protection, prototyping, testing, and market validation. They discuss the value of small-batch manufacturing, proof of sales, crowdfunding, and customer feedback, as well as the risks of securing patent claims before determining whether the claimed product can actually function or be manufactured competitively. The discussion also highlights the need for coordinated input from engineers, patent counsel, manufacturers, marketing professionals, and financial decision-makers. The episode offers a candid assessment of licensing, commercialization, and the low success rates associated with bringing new products to market. Greenberg explains why even a better, faster, or less expensive product may not make financial sense for an established company, while Quinn emphasizes disciplined market-size analysis and incremental investment. Their central takeaway is straightforward: inventors must validate the product, the market, and the business case at every stage—and continue investing only while the evidence supports moving forward. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Anthony Del Monaco , David Goose , Josh Hartman and John White about one of the most important strategic decisions in patent disputes: choosing the right battlefield. In today’s patent environment, outcomes are shaped not only by the strength of the patent, but by where the dispute is fought, how the forum operates, and what leverage each side can create. The conversation covers the shifting role of the PTAB, the rise of discretionary denials, the renewed interest in ex parte reexamination, and the continuing strategic importance of district court venue. The panel also explores when the International Trade Commission can provide patent owners with a powerful path to exclusionary relief, and why arbitration or mediation may sometimes offer a more practical route to resolution. The discussion then moves global, with particular attention to standard-essential patent disputes and the growing competition among China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Unified Patent Court to shape worldwide patent licensing outcomes. The result is a candid, practical conversation about forum selection, uncertainty, leverage, remedies, and how sophisticated patent owners and accused infringers should reverse-engineer strategy from the business outcome they need to achieve. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Dean Geibel and Karl Maersch . The conversation explores what patent owners must do before they can credibly monetize, license, sell, finance, or enforce a patent portfolio. Before any revenue strategy can succeed, companies first need to understand what they actually own, which assets are core, which are defensive, which may have value to others, and which patents may be consuming budget without advancing business objectives or portfolio value. Geibel and Maersch discuss the hard, often uncomfortable diligence required to separate valuable assets from deadwood. They examine how patent portfolios should be mapped against products, competitors, market direction, business units, revenue opportunities, and litigation risk. The discussion also addresses the importance of building portfolios with the end in mind, including claims that cover commercial products, claims that competitors will take seriously, and assets that can survive scrutiny from potential licensees, buyers, lenders, and litigation adversaries. The episode also highlights practical portfolio-building lessons, including the role of picture claims, design patents, prior art searching, patent landscapes, trade show intelligence, and ongoing communication with inventors, engineers, business leaders, and outside counsel. Ultimately, the conversation makes clear that patent monetization does not begin with litigation or licensing outreach. It begins much earlier, with disciplined prosecution strategy, market-informed portfolio management, and a clear-eyed assessment of whether the portfolio you have can survive due diligence when revenue opportunities emerge. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with former USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu . The conversation begins with Iancu’s path from engineering at Hughes Aircraft to intellectual property law, including his early years at the IP boutique Lyon & Lyon and his later experience as a leading patent litigator and law firm managing partner at Irell & Manella. From there, Quinn and Iancu examine the cyclical nature of IP practice, the migration of patent litigation into large general practice firms, and the growing commoditization of patent litigation work. The discussion then turns to the structural imbalance facing patent owners in today’s enforcement environment. Quinn and Iancu address Section 101 motions to dismiss, PTAB challenges, routine litigation stays, Federal Circuit scrutiny, and the practical erosion of injunctive relief after a patent owner has already run the litigation gauntlet and proved infringement. Iancu explains that defendants now have many more pathways to victory than patent owners, who must prevail repeatedly across multiple forums and legal standards before securing meaningful relief. The result, they suggest, is a system that often no longer operates like a patent is an exclusive property right as was contemplated by the Constitution. The conversation ultimately broadens into a first-principles discussion about what the U.S. patent system should look like in the 21st century. Iancu argues that the current framework, rooted in 18th-century statutory realities, is struggling to accommodate software, artificial intelligence, data, biotechnology, and other information-driven innovations. Quinn and Iancu explore whether a one-size-fits-all patent system still makes sense, whether sui generis rights may be necessary for emerging technologies, and how any future innovation framework must balance two core objectives: incentivizing investment in risky innovation while ensuring meaningful public disclosure. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, features the closing panel conversation from IPWatchdog’s recent Patent Masters program. Gene Quinn opens the conversation by arguing that the U.S. patent system is no longer functioning as a coherent innovation framework, but instead has become a fragmented mix of overlapping tribunals, inconsistent standards, procedural inefficiencies, and doctrinal barriers that make it harder to obtain, defend, and enforce meaningful patent rights. Rather than focusing on existing bills, USPTO rule packages, or incremental fixes, Gene explains that IPWatchdog will facilitate a year-long conversation in search of a first-principles blueprint for the U.S. patent system that restores predictability, protects investment, and reestablishes patents as critical to the innovation infrastructure. To kick-off this project, our conversation this week brings together Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader, Scott McKeown, John White, and Colin Sandercock for a wide-ranging discussion of the structural failures now undermining patent reliability, investment, commercialization, and technological leadership. The participants identify patent eligibility, injunctions, post-grant review, Federal Circuit review, venue, judicial expertise, and the uncertain status of patents as property among the core issues requiring serious reconsideration. A recurring theme is the need for clarity, predictability, and institutional alignment so that innovators, investors, implementers, courts, and agencies can operate within a system that is fair, efficient, and commercially rational. The panel ultimately frames patent reform not as a narrow legislative exercise, but as a national innovation imperative. While the panelists acknowledge the practical difficulty of achieving Congressional action in today’s political environment, they also emphasize that meaningful change is feasible if stakeholders are willing to engage in sustained, candid, first-principles thinking. The episode closes with a call to build a broader coalition of practitioners, judges, industry leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders capable of developing a serious blueprint for reform—one that restores confidence in patent rights, strengthens incentives to invest in technology, and better aligns the U.S. patent system with the needs of the modern innovation economy. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Rama Elluru , who is Senior Advisor for the Special Competitive Studies Project, which is a bipartisan non-profit initiative, which makes recommendations to strengthen America's long-term competitiveness for a future where AI and other emerging technologies reshape our national security, economy, and society. Rama brings a rare cross-disciplinary perspective to the conversation, having worked as a computer scientist, patent attorney, Administrative Patent Judge at the USPTO, and national security policy advisor. The discussion begins with her unconventional path into intellectual property, including her early work on embedded software tools for F-16 fighter jets, her clerkships at the ITC and Federal Circuit, her private practice experience, and her work at the USPTO as AI began to emerge as a strategic policy issue. The conversation then turns to the accelerating intersection of AI, patent law, and national competitiveness. Quinn and Elluru discuss whether the current U.S. patent system adequately incentivizes AI-related innovation, particularly as generative AI evolves toward more autonomous, agentic capabilities. They explore 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. Finally, Quinn and Elluru address the broader national security implications of intellectual property policy. They discuss 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. Elluru explains why policymakers often fail to connect patent policy with strategic competition, despite the fact that countries like China already treat IP as a lever of national power. The episode closes with a clear takeaway: if America wants to lead in AI and emerging technologies, intellectual property policy cannot remain an afterthought. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Alden Abbott , who is Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission. Abbott brings a rare combination of antitrust, intellectual property, administrative agency, and law-and-economics experience to a wide-ranging conversation about innovation policy, competition, and the practical consequences of government intervention in markets. The discussion traces Abbott’s career across government, academia, and public policy, including his work on issues at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. Together Quinn and Abbott examine how patents, licensing, and competition law should work together to promote innovation rather than undermine it. They also discuss how policy frameworks such as Bayh-Dole and standard essential patent protections helped shape the modern innovation economy, and why the wrong economic assumptions can distort how policymakers view patents, licensing, and market power. The conversation then turns to today’s policy environment, including the risks created when antitrust rhetoric treats intellectual property rights as suspect rather than as pro-competitive assets. Quinn and Abbott also explain why weakening patent rights and pushing innovators out of business negotiations and into litigation can damage the innovation ecosystem. The conversation closes by focusing on the core issue for patent owners and policymakers alike, namely that a functioning innovation economy requires predictable property rights, disciplined antitrust enforcement, and a clear recognition that patents are not obstacles to competition—they are often the foundation that makes competition possible. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with a panel of experts. This conversation was a part of the recent IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters program, and featured Carlo Cotrone , founder and principal consultant of Quartal IP, Robert Plotkin , author, patent attorney and founding partner with Blueshift IP, and John Rogitz , managing attorney at Rogitz & Associates and a member of the IPWatchdog Advisory Committee. Together, the panel examined the future of patent law firms in an AI-driven marketplace, where in-house legal departments are internalizing more work, expecting greater efficiency, and increasingly questioning traditional outside counsel fee structures. The discussion focused on the operational realities behind the AI hype. 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. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Kristen Osenga , who is the Julie & John Nowak Faculty Research Scholar & Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Richmond School of Law. Osenga discusses her path from engineering to patent law, including her time at Finnegan and her clerkship with Judge Richard Linn of the Federal Circuit, and explains how those experiences shaped her strong appreciation for patent owners, innovators, and the real-world consequences of patent policy. The conversation turns to Osenga’s scholarship, which she describes as focused on identifying what patent law commentators, policymakers, and courts are missing or getting wrong. She discusses her current research into who is actually suing whom in patent litigation, why the “patent troll” narrative has distorted enforcement policy, and how treating non-practicing patent owners as inherently suspect has harmed universities, startups, individual inventors, and small innovators. Quinn and Osenga also examine how large technology companies have successfully framed the patent debate around implementer concerns, often at the expense of innovators whose business model depends on licensing or enforcement rather than manufacturing. The episode also explores standard essential patents, FRAND licensing, injunctions, eBay, competition policy, and the recurring misconception that patents are monopolies. Osenga explains why many anti-patent arguments gain traction because they sound intuitive to the public, even when they are economically or legally incomplete. Quinn and Osenga emphasize that companies are in business to make money, that “free” licensing is rarely actually free, and that strong patent rights remain essential to sustaining innovation. The broader takeaway is that patent policy improves only when judges, policymakers, staffers, commentators, and academics take the time to understand how innovation actually works—and why weakening patent enforcement ultimately undermines the very innovators the system is supposed to protect. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Fran Cruz , who is Senior Vice President of IP Solutions for Juristat, about how data, AI, and changing corporate economics are reshaping patent prosecution business development. The conversation frames a critical market reality: in-house IP teams are under sustained pressure to reduce spend, consolidate outside counsel rosters, and direct more work to firms that can demonstrate measurable value. Cruz and Quinn examine recent prosecution-volume trends among the top 50 U.S. patent-filing assignees, with particular focus on whether IP boutiques are gaining ground against Am Law 200 firms. The data suggests the market is not simply shifting from large firms to boutiques, or vice versa. Instead, the dominant trend is client-specific consolidation: companies are moving more work to the best performers already on their existing rosters. The discussion highlights that efficiency metrics—especially average office actions, RCE rates, appeal strategy, 101 rejection outcomes, and cost per patent—are becoming increasingly important alongside allowance rates. Quinn emphasizes that law firms can no longer assume quality alone will carry the day; they need to understand what each client values, whether that is compact prosecution, strategic claim scope, portfolio value, or lower-cost patent-factory type execution. The episode closes with a practical business development playbook for patent firms operating in a cost-sensitive, data-driven market. Cruz urges firms to move beyond generic credentials pitches and instead teach prospective clients something specific about their own portfolios, prosecution patterns, competitors, or cost-saving opportunities. Quinn and Cruz also discuss how AI can sharpen messaging, compress bloated pitch language, improve decks and emails, and help firms articulate a differentiated value proposition in terms that in-house counsel actually care about. The broader takeaway is clear: firms that combine credible data, targeted insight, high-value content, and relationship-driven outreach will be better positioned to win work as in-house teams continue to seek the “best bang for your buck” prosecution partners. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed , our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn , speaks with Brent Bellows , a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies (KIPS) in Atlanta, Georgia, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in human genetics. Brent traces his path from graduate research in medical genetics and tumor-associated antigens to patent law, including his time at King & Spalding, a clerkship in the Northern District of Georgia, and his work today at KIPS on patent prosecution, portfolio strategy, litigation support, licensing, and expert witness matters. The conversation highlights how Brent’s scientific training and litigation-facing experience inform the way he drafts and prosecutes life sciences patents, with a clear focus on how those assets may ultimately perform in district court, ANDA litigation, and biosimilar disputes. Gene and Brent discuss what judges actually care about in patent cases, including why the story told in the patent application matters, why consistency from prosecution through litigation can be strategically important, and why some issues that loom large for prosecutors may carry less practical weight in court. Brent explains that district court judges often approach inequitable conduct allegations skeptically unless the conduct is truly egregious, and he offers insight into Markman practice, claim construction, and how life sciences disputes differ from many high-tech cases because the science often dictates the shape and value of the patent claims. The conversation then moves into the policy and business realities of pharmaceutical innovation, which dominate more than half of the conversation. Brent discusses a variety of issues including Hatch-Waxman, Orange Book listings, paragraph IV certifications, skinny labels, generic entry, clinical trial costs, regulatory exclusivity, and the enormous financial risk associated with bringing new drugs to market. Gene and Brent explore the tension between public demand for lower drug prices and the need for durable incentives that make high-risk drug development economically viable, particularly for oncology, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and other difficult-to-treat conditions. The episode closes with a broader innovation-policy message: patents are not a peripheral feature of drug development—they are a core operating asset that enables private-sector investment, supports breakthrough therapies, and ultimately drives the availability of future generic medicines. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com . You can also visit our channels at YouTube , LinkedIn , X , Instagram and Facebook .
Ranking source
Apple Podcasts rankings via the Mato Topic Intelligence Platform.
Observed September 14, 2026. Cached outside the daily freshness window; the positions keep the date they were taken on.
Apple and Apple Podcasts are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.
Pairs with
Bring this source into Mato to read its transferable patterns, then turn them into an original show for your own audience.