Podcasts about Patent office

On September 16, 1890, Louis Le Prince vanished. He was never seen or heard from again. While that is the most well-known thing about him, he had a whole life before that which involved some very intriguing things. Research: “Amongst the persons …” The Leeds Mercury. August 2, 1870. https://www.newspapers.com/image/390297596/?match=1&terms=%22Louis%20Le Prince%22 Atreyee Gupta. “The Disappearance of Louis Le Prince.” Materials Today. Volume 11, Issues 7–8. 2008. Page 56, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(08)70160-3. Aulas, Jean-Jacques and Jacques Pfend. “Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince, inventeur et artiste, précurseur du cinéma.” 1895. Vol. 32. 2000. https://doi.org/10.4000/1895.110 Britannica Editors. "Étienne-Jules Marey". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 May. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Etienne-Jules-Marey Casey, Keiron. “The mystery of Louis Le Prince, the father of cinematography.” Science + Media Museum. Aug. 29, 2013. https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/louis-le-prince-created-the-first-ever-moving-pictures/ “CINEMATOGRAPHY Pioneers of Early Cinema: Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince (1841-1890?).” National Media Museum. https://www.meiermovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PioneersOfEarlyCinemaLouisLe Prince.pdf “First Surviving Film.” Guinness World Records. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-surviving-film Fischer, Paul. “The Man Who Invented Motion Pictures: A True Tale of Obsession, Murder, and the Movies.” Simon & Schuster. 2022. “Hannibal Goodwin.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/hannibal-goodwin Kelley, Peter. “Louis A. A. Le Prince and the Whitley Family.” Oak Leaves. Oakwood and District Historical Society. Summer 2002. https://www.oakwoodchurch.info/Oak%20Leaves%20Part%203%20-%20Louis%20A%20A%20Le%20Prince%20and%20the%20Whitley%20Family%20by%20Peter%20Kelley.pdf Le Prince, A. “METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING ANIMATED PICTURES OF NATURAL SCENERY AND LIFE.” U.S. Patent Office. Jan. 10, 1888. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/26/13/3c/c0bd20490abc9b/US376247.pdf Lewis, Maria. “The tragedy of Louis Le Prince.” ACMI (Australian Centre for the Moving Image). https://www.acmi.net.au/stories-and-ideas/tragedy-louis-le-prince/ “The Life, Mystery and Legacy of Louis Le Prince.” Leeds Museums & Galleries. https://museumsandgalleries.leeds.gov.uk/blog-life-mystery-and-legacy-of-louis-le-prince-fylq Marey, Etienne-Jules. “Chronophotographic gun.” Google Arts and Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/chronophotographic-gun-%C3%89tienne-jules-marey-otto-lund/KAFgqcxSaDadqw?hl=en “New research centre honours father of film.” The Reporter. University of Leeds. May 19, 2003. https://web.archive.org/web/20120205020340/http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/490/s6.htm “PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT NITROBENZENE.” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp140-c1-b.pdf Rawlence, Christopher. “The Missing Reel: the untold story of the lost inventor of moving pictures.” New York : Atheneum : Maxwell Macmillan International. 1990. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/missingreeluntol0000rawl/mode/1up “Single-lens Cine Camera by Louis Le Prince.” Science Museum Group. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co18634/le-prince-single-lens-cine-camera-cine-camera-cinematograph Swift, John. "Siege of Paris". Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 Jan. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Siege-of-Paris-1870-1871 Britannica Editors. "Franco-German War". Encyclopedia Britannica, 3 May. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/Franco-German-War Youngs, Ian. “Louis Le Prince, who shot the world's first film in Leeds.” BBC. June 23, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33198686 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Before your patent ever faces a court, a jury, or a competitor, it meets its very first judge: the patent examiner. And you don't get to pick them. In this episode, we pull back the curtain on how the Patent Office assigns examiners, why that assignment can shape the entire life of your patent, and what savvy inventors and startups should understand about this hidden but hugely influential part of the process.   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia, Bryan Smith, and Ted Merkel explore a significant new director memo that changes how ex parte reexaminations are initiated at the Patent Office. They explain what ex parte reexam is, when and why it is used, and how new preorder patent owner submissions shape strategy for both requesters and patent owners. They also discuss how tightening IPR rules have driven more filers toward reexam, and when this new preorder procedure may or may not make a meaningful difference in whether a reexamination gets ordered. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

There are so many things in our modern world that we presume are fairly recent inventions. But the three things we’re going to talk about in this instance are quite old, but they have close associations with the recent past. Research: Abbott, David, PhD., ed. “The Biographical Book of Scientists: Engineers and Inventors.” Peter Bedrick Books. New York. 1985. “Bad Breath.” Medline Plus. https://medlineplus.gov/badbreath.html#:~:text=Teenagers-,Summary,help%20give%20you%20fresher%20breath. Berlin, Erika. “‘The Myriad Reflector’: The Early, Forgotten Disco Ball.” Mental Floss. May 21, 2015. https://www.mentalfloss.com/entertainment/myriad-reflector-early-forgotten-disco-ball Britannica Editors. "aeolipile". Encyclopedia Britannica, 6 Jun. 2016, https://www.britannica.com/technology/aeolipile Britannica Editors. "Heron of Alexandria". Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Heron-of-Alexandria Garber, David. “Meet Me Under the Disco Ball: A History of Nightlife’s Most Enduring Symbol.” Vice. June 4, 2015. https://www.vice.com/en/article/meet-me-under-the-disco-ball-a-history-of-nightlifes-most-enduring-symbol/ Handwerk, Brian. “The History and Science Behind Your Terrible Breath.” Smithsonian. Feb. 13, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/halitosis-horrors-how-bad-breath-became-americas-worst-nightmare-180962104/ HØYRUP, JENS. “A NEW EDITION OF THE METRICA OF HERON OF ALEXANDRIA.” Physis. Vol. LIII. 2018. http://akira.ruc.dk/~jensh/Publications/2018%7BR%7D06_A%20New%20Edition%20of%20the%20Metrica%20of%20Heron%20of%20Alexandria_S.pdf Hughes, J. Donald. “Hero of Alexandria.” Ebsco. 2023. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/hero-alexandria Mendell, H. “Hero and the tradition of the circle segment.” Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 77, 451–499 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-023-00308-y “Mint! From the Ancient World to Modern Manchester.” Manchester Museum. Aug. 17, 2018. https://storiesfromthemuseumfloor.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/mint-from-the-ancient-world-to-modern-manchester/#:~:text=The%20ancient%20Egyptians%20invented%20breath%20mints%20to,*%20Severely%20worn%20teeth%20*%20Tooth%20loss “Myriad Reflector Will Feature Annual Fall Opening Odeon Ball.” Great Falls leader. Sept. 4, 1921. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1018804435/?match=1&terms=%22myriad%20reflector%22 “Plant of the Month: Mint.” JSTOR Daily. https://daily.jstor.org/plant-of-the-month-mint/ Pliny the Elder. “The Natural History.” Translated by John Bostock and Henry T. Riley. Taylor & Francis. London. 1855. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/50041 Rossen, Jake. “All That Glitters: A History of the Disco Ball.” Mental Floss. Dec. 30, 2021. https://www.mentalfloss.com/entertainment/music/disco-ball-facts-history “Saltair.” Salt Lake Telegram. June 13, 1921. https://www.newspapers.com/image/288643722/?match=1&terms=%22myriad%20reflector%22 Smith, Grafton Elliot, et al. “The Papyrus Ebers.” Ares Publishers. Chicago. 1974. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924073200077&seq=5 “Strike the Banners.” The Kentucky Post. August 31, 1945. https://www.newspapers.com/image/760821309/?match=1&terms=%22L.%20B.Woeste%22 “Wonderful Falls Short of Expressing the Grandeur of the Rotary Charity Ball.” The Piqua Daily Call. Jan. 26, 1917. https://www.newspapers.com/image/935844964/?match=1&terms=%22myriad%20reflector%22 Woeste, L.B. “Myriad Reflector.” U.S. Patent Office. Feb. 6, 1917. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9e/4c/73/00bfc626d3f664/US1214863.pdf Woeste, L.B. “Myriad Reflector.” U.S. Patent Office. March 13, 1928. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/1662554?requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiIyM2QyOTAxNi1iNjVhLTRkNTAtYWEyOS0zZjAyOWMwYmZiMWUiLCJ2ZXIiOiJmZjg4ZmU5Yy1iOTA2LTQxZDUtYTQxMS02MGM5Mzk3NTk0YzYiLCJleHAiOjB9 “Woeste Rites Are Set.” Cincinatti Enquirer. April 11, 1933. https://www.newspapers.com/image/103141821/?article=7dc922a9-f0a9-42b8-a61e-f9e92a7b3557&terms=%22Louis%20B.%20Woeste%22 Woodcroft, Bennet, ed. “The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria.” Taylor Walton and Maberly. London. 1851. Accessed online: https://www.thehopkinthomasproject.com/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/Wales/Steam/URochesterCollection/Hero/index-2.html See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Navy filed a patent for a craft that could fly through air, water, and space with no heat signature and no visible propulsion — by "engineering the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level." Their own CTO told the Patent Office it was operable. They spent $508,000 testing it. It didn't work. They let the patent expire.So what was it? Disinformation? Reverse engineering? One engineer who got further than he should have?And why does the paperwork cite the CIA's remote viewing guy?Salvatore Pais. The Pais Effect. Full deep dive. Feel me?Thanks to the TIN FOIL MULISHAExclusive episodes on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/c/ufonopodcastJoin the Tin Foil Mulisha Discord:⁠ https://discord.gg/PQyaJzkt4Y⁠Paypal Donation ⁠https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/Y6WRSW9F2JBSCStripe Donation https://buy.stripe.com/aFa6oGeiXamjdlW39HgUM00Buy Merch⁠ https://ufono.dashery.com/ | https://ufono-podcast.creator-spring.com/Buy Mushrooms⁠ https://www.schedule35.co/us/ (Code: U1173687US240607)⁠Email: Iwant2believe115@gmail.comFollow: Facebook | Twitter | Twitch | Kick | RumbleSHOW NOTEShttps://patents.google.com/patent/US10135366B2/en  —  Filed 2015, granted 2018https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en  —  Filed 2016, granted 2018 — the main onehttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20190058105A1/en  —  Filed 2017, published 2019https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/en  —  Filed 2017, granted 2019https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190295733A1/en  —  Filed 2018, published 2019https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais  —  Full list

The U.S. Navy filed a patent for a craft that could fly through air, water, and space with no heat signature and no visible propulsion — by "engineering the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level." Their own CTO told the Patent Office it was operable. They spent $508,000 testing it. It didn't work. They let the patent expire.So what was it? Disinformation? Reverse engineering? One engineer who got further than he should have?And why does the paperwork cite the CIA's remote viewing guy?Salvatore Pais. The Pais Effect. Full deep dive. Feel me?Thanks to the TIN FOIL MULISHAExclusive episodes on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/c/ufonopodcastJoin the Tin Foil Mulisha Discord:⁠ https://discord.gg/PQyaJzkt4Y⁠Paypal Donation ⁠https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/Y6WRSW9F2JBSCStripe Donation https://buy.stripe.com/aFa6oGeiXamjdlW39HgUM00Buy Merch⁠ https://ufono.dashery.com/ | https://ufono-podcast.creator-spring.com/Buy Mushrooms⁠ https://www.schedule35.co/us/ (Code: U1173687US240607)⁠Email: Iwant2believe115@gmail.comFollow: Facebook | Twitter | Twitch | Kick | RumbleSHOW NOTEShttps://patents.google.com/patent/US10135366B2/en  —  Filed 2015, granted 2018https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en  —  Filed 2016, granted 2018 — the main onehttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20190058105A1/en  —  Filed 2017, published 2019https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/en  —  Filed 2017, granted 2019https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190295733A1/en  —  Filed 2018, published 2019https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais  —  Full list

Sony's latest PS5 price hike, MTG's digital resurrection of Library of Alexandria, the critic–fan divide on the new Mario movie, a Sony patent aimed at nerfing cross‑platform players, Nintendo losing its “summoning” patent, how D&D supports mental health, and a retro review of Springer on Atari. This week on The Game Deflators, John and Ryan hit a rapid‑fire lineup of gaming news and retro goodness. They kick things off with Sony's newest PS5 price increase and what it signals for the console market. Then it's on to Magic: The Gathering, where Library of Alexandria is making a surprise appearance in MTG Arena — and the guys debate whether this is nostalgia done right or digital power creep. The duo also dives into the growing gap between critic reviews and fan reactions to the new Mario movie, followed by a look at a recent Sony patent that appears designed to nerf cross‑platform players based on input detection. Next, they unpack the U.S. Patent Office's decision to revoke Nintendo's “summoning” patent, a move that frees up game‑mechanic creativity across the industry. John and Ryan also explore how Dungeons & Dragons continues to support mental health through structured role‑play and community storytelling. Finally, the Inflation Deflation Game of the Week spotlights Springer for the Atari — a quirky platformer that gets the full Deflators treatment. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Overview of Topics 04:02 Game Pickups and Unboxing Dungeons & Dragons 05:35 Current Gaming Experiences and Upcoming Titles 10:27 Discussion on PS5 Price Increase 16:29 Sony's Dynamic Adjustments Patent 21:06 Critique of the New Mario Movie 28:34 Magic: The Gathering and Over-Saturation of Sets 32:51 The Power of Card Mechanics 39:09 Sustainability in Card Games 47:26 Therapeutic Role of Dungeons and Dragons 52:56 The Impact of Patents on Gaming 59:25 A Deep Dive into Springer Rabbit   Find us on TheGameDeflators.com   Twitter - www.twitter.com/GameDeflators Facebook - www.facebook.com/TheGameDeflators Instagram - www.instagram.com/thegamedeflators   The views and opinions expressed on this channel are solely those of the author. The content within these recordings are property of their respective Designers, Writers, Creators, Owners, Organizations, Companies and Producers. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted. Permission for intro and outro music provided by Matthew Huffaker http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe 2_25_18

Nintendo just had its patent for the game mechanic that allows you to summon a minion to do battle for you REVOKED by the U.S. Patent Office! This could be a HUGE blow to their case against Pocketpair / Palworld. Letting a company patent a game mechanic would absolutely set a dangerous precedent going forward. So let's talk about this... Watch the podcast episodes on YouTube and all major podcast hosts including Spotify. CLOWNFISH TV is an independent, opinionated news and commentary podcast that covers Entertainment and Tech from a consumer's point of view. We talk about Gaming, Comics, Anime, TV, Movies, Animation and more. Hosted by Kneon and Geeky Sparkles. Get more news, views and reviews on Clownfish TV News - https://more.clownfishtv.com/ On YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ClownfishTV On Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4Tu83D1NcCmh7K1zHIedvg On Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/clownfish-tv-audio-edition/id1726838629 MORE CLOWNFISH TV - Official Merch Store: http://ClownfishMinus.com Facebook - https://facebook.com/ClownfishTV X - https://x.com/ClownfishTVcom Clownfish TV subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClownfishTVOfficial/ Disclaimer: This series is produced by Clownfish Studios and WebReef Media, and is part of ClownfishTV.com. Opinions expressed by our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of our guests, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. ClownfishTV.com is an unofficial news source and has no connection to any company that we may cover. This channel and website and the content made available through this site are for educational, entertainment and informational purposes only. These so-called “fair uses” are permitted even if the use of the work would otherwise be infringing. #Pokemon #Palworld #Nintendo #Mario #Podcast #Commentary #News #Reaction #Gaming #Comedy #Entertainment #Hollywood #PopCulture #Tech #Anime #FYP Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia and Nick Gallo explore how the evolving law on subject matter eligibility under Section 101 intersects with post-grant practice, particularly post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. They explain when and why PGR is available, how its broad estoppel and nine‑month filing window shape strategy, and when it may (or may not) make sense to pursue subject matter eligibility challenges at the Patent Office. Recent subject matter eligibility memos from the USPTO: Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 101 Advance Notice of Change to the MPEP in Light of Ex Parte Desjardins Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ever wonder who really owns a patent, or how to tell if a company quietly sold off its core technology? In this episode, we dive into the USPTO's patent assignment database, one of the most overlooked but powerful tools inventors can use. You'll learn how to track ownership changes, spot acquisitions before they hit the headlines, and uncover licensing and investment clues hiding in plain sight. If you've ever wanted to do real IP due diligence without a law firm budget, this is the episode that shows you how to think like a pro.   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93

Show Notes: Erin-Michael Gill, founder of Genaesis, shares his upbringing in Middletown, Maryland, and his education at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, where he studied astronomy and physics. He describes working at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office while pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins University in applied physics, and later earning an MBA from MIT. Erin-Michael explains how his early exposure to patentability analysis shaped his view that intellectual property strategy often matters as much as the underlying technology. Working as a Patent Examiner Erin-Michael discusses his role as a patent examiner at the USPTO, evaluating applications for novelty and non-obviousness. He describes how examiners assess claims against prior art and why learning to identify the "one sentence" value proposition behind an invention became a durable skill for building and valuing companies. Intellectual Property Strategy at DuPont Erin-Michael describes moving from the USPTO into IP strategy at DuPont (Kevlar/Nomex), where he helped inventors protect and position new technologies. He recounts identifying a promising commercialization path for a new material, writing a business case, and being given the opportunity to help lead the effort to market. Improving PTO Operations Erin-Michael shares his experience advising during the Obama administration transition, contributing ideas to improve USPTO operations and reduce processing delays by addressing internal bottlenecks, incentives, and tools. Patent Portfolio Analysis and the "Patent Wars" Erin-Michael discusses later work analyzing patent portfolios and helping investors understand the strategic value of IP, including the dynamics behind major technology litigation that followed the rise of social platforms and smartphones. Founding Genaesis: GovCon M&A Erin-Michael explains how he entered the world of federal government contracting (GovCon) and why small-business set-aside programs create unique deal dynamics. He describes founding Genaesis to advise buyers and sellers of GovCon firms, with a focus on valuation, deal structuring, and growth through acquisition. Advising on Trade Agreements and IP Erin-Michael discusses his service on an industry advisory committee focused on intellectual property in trade, advising on complex trade issues across multiple administrations and highlighting why predictability and stability matter for investment and innovation.   Timestamps: 01:53: Role at the Patent Office 04:52: Transition to IP Strategy 09:36: Involvement in the Obama Administration 12:06: Career in IP and Government Contracting 21:09: Founding Genaesis and Government Contracting 44:03: Service on Federal Advisory Boards 48:46: Impact of Trade Agreements on IP   Links: Website: www.Genaesis.com Website Bio: https://www.genaesis.com/erin-michael    This episode on Umbrex: https://umbrex.com/unleashed/episode-637-erin-michael-gill-founder-of-genaesis-on-govcon-ma/ Unleashed is produced by Umbrex, which has a mission of connecting independent management consultants with one another, creating opportunities for members to meet, build relationships, and share lessons learned. Learn more at www.umbrex.com. *AI generated timestamps and show notes.  

Are patents the foundation of America's technological superiority? The answer is yes. But major changes at the U.S. Patent Office are reshaping how patents are challenged, defended, and protected. And these changes may impact innovation, products, prices and more - meaning that they may impact all of us.

Protecting your ideas can be the difference between building momentum and watching someone else run with your work. In this episode of Unstoppable Mindset, I sit down with patent attorney and entrepreneur Devin Miller to explore what founders and business owners really need to know about patents, trademarks, and intellectual property. Devin shares how his background in engineering, startups, and law shaped his approach to innovation, and he breaks down the real differences between provisional and non-provisional patents in clear, practical terms. We talk about common mistakes entrepreneurs make, how legal protection supports growth instead of slowing it down, and why understanding intellectual property early can help you compete with confidence. I believe this conversation will give you clarity, direction, and a stronger foundation for protecting what you work so hard to create. Highlights: 00:01:18 – Hear how growing up in a small town shaped Devin's approach to problem-solving and business.00:12:53 – Learn why Devin combined engineering, business, and law instead of choosing a single career path.00:19:32 – Discover how a student competition turned into a real wearable technology startup.00:30:57 – Understand the clear difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.00:33:05 – Learn when a provisional patent makes sense and when it does not.00:53:52 – Discover what practical options exist when competitors copy or knock off your product. About the Guest: Devin Miller is the founder of Miller IP, a firm launched in 2018 that helps startups and small businesses protect their inventions and brands without breaking the bank. He's overseen over a thousand patent and trademark filings with a 95 percent success rate on patents and an 85 percent success rate on trademarks, making sure garage inventors and side hustlers get the same high-quality service as big tech. Before starting his firm, Devin spent years at large law firms working with clients like Intel and Amazon, but he found his true passion in helping scrappy entrepreneurs turn ideas into assets. He blends legal know how with an entrepreneur's mindset, offering flat fee packages, DIY legal tools, and hosting webinars and a podcast series to demystify IP. A lifelong runner who knocks out 10+ miles a day and 30-40 miles daily biking (except Sunday), Devin listens to audiobooks and podcasts while training for marathons. When he's not drafting office action responses or co-hosting Inventive Journey, you might catch him brainstorming the next Inventive Youth program or sipping coffee while sketching partnership agreements. Ways to connect with Devin**:** If you'd like to talk strategy or swap running playlist recs, feel free to schedule a chat at http://strategymeeting.com LinkedIn profile  https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawwithmiller/ Firm website [https://www.lawwithmiller.com](https://www.lawwithmiller.com "https://www.lawwithmiller.com") About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson  00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us. Well, hello to all of you, wherever you happen to be today, you are listening to or watching or both unstoppable mindset and I am your host. Mike hingson, our guest today is Devin Miller, who founded the company, Miller IP, and he'll tell us all about that and what that means and so on as we go through this. But I will tell you that he is a lawyer. He deals with patents and other things and a lot of stuff relating to startups. I think that's going to be a lot of fun to talk about. So without any further ado, as it were, Devin, welcome to unstoppable mindset. We're really glad you're here. Thanks for having me on. Excited to be here. Well, we're glad. We're glad you're here. Can you hear me? Okay, now I hear you. Devin Miller  02:06 Well, we're sorry for the delay, but I said I'm excited to be here and looking forward to chatting. Michael Hingson  02:11 Well, perfect. Well, let's start. I love to always do this. Let's start kind of at the beginning. Why don't you tell us about the early Devon, growing up and all that? Devin Miller  02:21 You know, I I'm happy to do. I don't know there's anything that probably stands out. I was probably fairly typical. So I was raised in a religious family, so we're attended church regularly every week. And I had a couple sisters, an older and a younger one, and was went through, went through schooling and or studied, probably the typical course. So I don't know there's anything stands out. I was in a small town, so grew up as, probably not as small as I'd like it to be anymore, but a small farming town, and it was, it was kind of always enjoyed the small town fill, and actually am back to being in that same hometown where I live now with my family. But yeah, so I did that, and I did probably the at the time, the typical thing with the it's growing up with kids and sports and doing things, and went through high school and and after that, jumped or went off to college. But I don't know if there's anything in particular that stands out in my mind, other than probably, at least in my mind, a pretty typical childhood and upbringing, but enjoyed it nonetheless. But happy to provide any details or I can jump into a bit about college. Michael Hingson  03:38 Well, where did you go to college? Devin Miller  03:40 Yeah, so I went to Brigham, young university, just or BYU, just out here in Utah. So I went off to so, or I graduated high school and I went off to a year of college. So I went off to BYU, kind of intending to go into electrical engineering, which is what I or one of the degrees I ended up studying with, and then I did that for a year, and after which I went off and did a served a religious mission for my church, so Church of Jesus Christ, or Latter Day Saints, otherwise nicknamed Mormon. So I went off and went to Taiwan for about two years. So didn't have any idea, even at that point where Taiwan was and certainly didn't know the language, but when studied that, or they have a training center where you get an opportunity to study it for about three months. So I studied it and then went off to Taiwan and served that religious mission for my church for a couple years before coming back to the high school, or good, not the high school to college to continue my studies. Michael Hingson  04:43 I several, several comments. One, I know what you mean about small hometowns. We moved from Chicago, where I was born, to California when I was five, we moved to a town called Palmdale, and it was a very small rural town about 60. Five miles north of Los Angeles. I don't know what the population was when we first moved there, but it couldn't have been more than 1000 or 1500 people spread out over a little bit of a distance. For me, it was great, because without there being a lot of traffic, I was able to do things I might not have done nearly as well in Chicago things like riding a bike, learning to ride a bike and walking to school and and not ever fearing about walking to school for any reasons, including being blind. But oftentimes I once I learned how to do it, I rode my own bike to school and locked it in the bike rack and then rode home and all that. But then Palmdale started to grow and I'm not quite sure what the population is today, but I live in a town about 55 miles east of Palmdale called Victorville, and as I described Victorville growing up, it was not even a speck on a radar scope compared to the small town of Palmdale, but we we moved down to Southern California from the Bay Area my wife and I to be closer to family and so on. In 2014 we wanted to build a house for Karen, because she was in a wheelchair her whole life. So we wanted to get a a house that would be accessible. And my gosh, the only place we could find any property was Victorville. And at that time, in 2014 it had 115,000 people in it. It has grown. Now it Devin Miller  06:31 has grown. And it tends to be that, you know, it feels like everybody's always kind of chasing the small town then, or people find out about it. Everybody moves in. It's no longer a small town, and then you're off to chasing the the next small town, wherever that might be. So it's kind of a perpetual cycle of of chasing that small or at least for the people to like it. Not everybody loves it, but I'm certainly a proponent of chasing that small town feel from from place to places, as you're trying to or trying to find or recreate what you probably grew up with. So it is a it is a cycle that everybody I think is chasing, Michael Hingson  07:09 yeah, well, for me now, my wife passed away in 2022 we were married 40 years. And so the thing about it is that there are probably advantages for me living alone, being in a place that has a few more people and a few more of the kind of amenities that at least somewhat larger towns have, like a Costco and some some restaurants. We actually live in a homeowner's development, a homeowner's association called Spring Valley Lake, and I live within walking distance of the Country Club, which has a nice restaurant, so I'm able to go to the to the restaurant whenever I choose, and that's kind of nice. So there's value for me and being here and people say, Well, do you ever want to move from Victorville now that your wife died? And why do I want to do that? Especially since I have a 3.95% mortgage? You know, I'm not going to do that, and I'm in a new house that. Well, relatively new. It was built in 2016 so it's pretty much built to code. And insulation is great. Solar is great on the house. Air conditioning works, so I can't complain. Devin Miller  08:20 No, sounds like a good setup, and it's kind of one where, why, if you enjoy where you're at, why would you move to go somewhere else that you wouldn't necessarily enjoy? So it just sounds like it works out. Michael Hingson  08:29 Well, it does, and I can always, as I need to being a keynote speaker and traveling, there's a shuttle that'll take me down to the nearest airports. So that works out. Well, that's awesome. So you went to, I'm a little bit familiar with the the whole LDS missionary program, Mission program, we we were not part of the church, but we lived, when my wife and I got married, we lived in Mission Viejo and we had neighbors right next door to us, who were members of the church, and they came over one day and they said, we have an issue. And I said, Okay. And my wife said, Okay, what's the issue? Well, we have a couple of missionaries coming in, and the only homes that are available to these two boys are homes that already have young female girls in them. So they really can't be in those homes. Would you be willing to rent your one of your rooms to missionaries? And so we said, and well, Karen said, because she was a member of the Methodist church, we said, as long as they don't try to mormonize us, we won't try to methodize them. And we would love to do it. And it worked out really well. We had a couple of missionaries for a while, and then they switched out. And eventually we had a gentleman from Tonga for a while, and we actually had a couple girls for for a while. So it worked out really well, and we we got to know them all, and it was a great relationship. And they did their work, and at Christmas time, they certainly were invited to our Christmas parties. We. Had every year a party. What we actually had was what we call a Christmas tree upping. We got the tree, we brought it into the house, and we invited all of our friends and neighbors to come and decorate the tree in the house. Because, needless to say, we weren't going to do that very well. Karen especially wasn't going to be able to stand up and decorate the tree. So we got them to do all the tree decorations and all that, and we fed them. So it worked out. Devin Miller  10:26 Well, it's awesome. Sounds like, great. And you hit on. I said, that's probably my, my favorite part of the Christmas is a Christmas tree. So growing up, we always had a real live tree, but it was always, you know, it was downstairs in the basement, and had lower ceilings. And so I was always kind of the opinion, hey, when I grow up, I want to have the a huge, you know, kind of like in the newbies at 20 plus or 20 or 20 plus foot tree, yeah. And lo and behold, we, or at least the couple houses that we build have always had, at least in the living space, have had the pretty high ceilings. And so that's always what we do. We'll go out and we'll cut down a live tree. So we'll go out to kind of in nature, to the forest, where they let you cut them down, and we'll, we'll cut down, usually it's around a 20 plus foot tree, and then have it strung up in the house. And I always tell my wife, I said, I'd rather that one could be my Christmas present. I'd be just as happy, because as long as I have my tree, it's a good Christmas for me. Michael Hingson  11:23 Yeah, oh, I hear you. Well, one of the boys who lived next door to us went off on a mission to, I think it was Argentina, and was gone for, I guess, two years. What was really funny is when he came back, it took him a while to re acclimatize his speaking English and getting back his American accent. He was he definitely had much more of a Spanish accent, and was much more used to speaking Spanish for a while. So the the three month exposure period certainly got him started at the at the center there in Utah. And then he went off and did his missionary work and then came home. But, you know, it's, it's got to be a wonderful and a very valuable experience. How do you think it affected you? Devin Miller  12:10 Yeah, I think I said, I think it would be, you said it probably well, is it like one where to say, Hey, this is the most fun time in your life, and you'll never have a more fun time. I don't know that. It's kind of like, you know, I liken it to I so I like to do a lot of running, so or in older years. I don't know that I was as much in younger years, but kind of discovered not that I love running, per se, but love to get out and decompress and otherwise, kind of have a time where I don't have a lot of intrusions or other things that are pressing in on life. And so with that, you know, I've done a number of marathons and marathons, you know, everybody again, says, Well, did you have fun? Or was it a good or was it good marathon? So I don't know that it's ever fun. I don't and do it, but it's a good accomplishment. You it's, you go out, you set your mind to something, and then otherwise, at the end of the day, you reach your goal. And, you know, kind of has the that sense of accomplishment and learning and become improving yourself. That's probably a lot of how I like in a mission is, you know, you have a lot of stresses of learning a new language, being in a different culture, doing something that you're unfamiliar with or not accustomed to, and at the end, you know, you learn a lot of things, you are gain a lot of skills. You hopefully impact a lot of people's lives for the better. And so it is definitely one of those where it's a great accomplishment, but it's not, you know, it's not one way to say, hey, this was a fun vacation where I got to go play for two years. So it it works out well, and I would absolutely do it again. Michael Hingson  13:31 Yeah, I'm sure you learned a lot, and you probably learned a whole lot more in a lot of ways, than most of the people that you you visited with because you treated it as an adventure and an adventure to learn. So that's pretty cool, absolutely. So you came back from that and you went back to college, and did you continue in electrical engineering? Or what Devin Miller  13:56 did you do? Yes and no. So I did continue in electrical engineering. Or so I came back and, you know, the intent was, and what I continue to do is to study electrical engineering. I did add on a second degree, which I was a Mandarin Chinese and so I can't remember, I mentioned I I served in Taiwan for those couple years and had an opportunity to kind of, you know, learn and study the language. So as I was doing that, I kind of came back and said, Well, if I've already put in the effort to learn the language and to study it, I might as well, you know, utilize it, or add it to the degree. And so I I really started, or I added that as a second degree to the first degree. So I came out with both the degree in Chinese or man or Chinese, as well as electrical engineering. So yes, continue to study that. And then from that, you know, kind of just as a part of that story. So I was coming out, kind of getting, you know, the senior year, kind of getting towards the end of that degree, and looked at and said, you know, what do I want to do when I grow up? And I still know if I know the full answer, but I did look at it and say, Hey, I, you know, I don't know exactly what I want to do when I grow up, but I don't, I like engineering. Engineering, but I don't want to be an engineer in the sense that, you know, not that I didn't like engineering, but it was one where a typical electrical engineers, you come out of graduate school, you go work for a big company. You're a very small cog and a very big Will you work for. You know, 1015, years, you gain enough experience to have any say your direction and what projects you work on or really have any impact. Not saying that's not really what I want to do when I grow up, or when I start into the working world. And so kind of with that, I, you know, I had a couple interests I enjoyed, you know, kind of the startup, small business, kind of that type of world. And I also found it interesting to on the legal aspect of intellectual property, so patents, trademarks, and really more. At the idea of, hey, you're going to work with a lot of cooling or cool inventions, cool people are working on a lot of unique things, and you get a lot more variety. And you get, you know, kind of be more impactful. And so that was kind of the the Crossroads I found myself at saying which, you know, kind of which direction I want to go. And, you know, kind of, rather than take one or the other, I kind of, I split the road and decided I was going to do both. So I went off to graduate school and did both an MBA or a master's in business administration as well as a law degree, kind of focused more on intellectual property. So went off and studied both of those kind of with the intent of, you know, I don't want to just be fit into one box or do just one thing, but I'd like to keep a foot in the business world, startup world, and have an opportunity to pursue my own business as well as doing the law degree. So I did that in a Case Western Reserve out in Cleveland, Ohio, studying both of those degrees Michael Hingson  16:34 when you were getting your degree in manner, in Chinese. Was that all about speaking the language, or was it also involved in history and civilization and understanding more about China? What was it like? Devin Miller  16:47 It was really more, certainly, there was a or, I guess, are you saying within college or within the mission itself? 16:54 In college? Okay, yeah. I mean, it was, Devin Miller  16:57 it was still primarily focused on the language. You know, the nice thing is, you can test out of a number of the, you know, entry level or their beginning classes, as long as you can show a proficiency. So there may have been some of that, and you still got, you know, some of the classes, would you still study a little bit of poetry, or, you know, within the language context, they've used poetry as a way to kind of learn different aspects of the language. You'd get a little bit of history, but pretty, or vast majority of focus was kind of both speaking as well as the the written and, you know, those are really as opposed to, like English speaking, where it's phonetics and you can or sound out and kind of understand what a you know, what something means by sounding it out, you don't have to know the word in order To, you know, to pronounce it. Chinese is not that way. So you have characters that are just every character you have to memorize. There is no phonetics. There's no way that you can look at a character and sound it out. And so there's a large amount of just memorizing, memorizing, you know, 20,000 characters to read a newspaper type of a thing. And then on the flip side is you have to learn the language, which is, you know, which are already focused on that, more on the mission, but you have to do pronunciation, so you can say the same word with different tones and it has entirely different meaning. So really, there was enough there on the language side, they tended to primarily focus on that, just because there was quite a bit there to Michael Hingson  18:19 dive into. It's a complicated language. Devin Miller  18:23 It it is certainly or uniquely different from English. I would say probably English to Chinese speakers is the hardest language because it's the most different from their language. And vice versa for English speaking Chinese is at least one of the this or harder languages because it is entirely different. So it is one that has a lot of intricacies that you get to learn. Michael Hingson  18:45 I took German in high school for three years, and then in college, I did a lot of shortwave listening and encountered radio Japan a bunch. So I actually took a year of Japanese, and I think from a written language, it's a lot more complicated than spoken language. I think it's a lot more straightforward than Chinese and a lot of ways easier to learn. But even so, it is different than than Latin languages by any standard. Devin Miller  19:16 But it is. It's an animal in and of itself, but it makes it fun. Michael Hingson  19:21 Yeah, that's right, it does make it fun. Incident. And then, as I said, it was an adventure. And all of that was, was an adventure. My master's is in physics. That was an adventure. And until you spend a lot of time dealing with physics and hopefully getting beyond just doing the math, you learn how much of a philosophical bent and how much about society and the way things work really is wrapped up in physics. So again, it's it's kind of fun, and unlike a lot of physicists or engineers. I've never thought that one is better or worse than the other. I think they both have purposes. And so as a physics person, I never pick on engineers. Devin Miller  20:11 I am, I wouldn't pick up. I wouldn't pick on any physics or physicists or physics majors, either, because that's equally, if not more difficult. And so there's a lot of learning that goes on and involved with all of them. But they're all of them are fun areas to Michael Hingson  20:26 study with. They are. So once you you got your master's degrees, and you you got your law degree, what did you go off and do? Devin Miller  20:36 Yeah, so I mean, I would probably back it up just a little bit. So kind of during that period where I was getting the degrees, couple things happened. Had a couple kids. So started out first kid while I was doing the, I guess the second year where I was in under or doing the law and MBA degree, doing it as a joint degree. And so had the had a kid. And then during that same period, the next year, about a year about a year and a half later, had another kid. And so that puts me as a it's a four year program, if you combine both of them together. And so I was in the kind of the third year, the four year program. And while I was doing those studies, you know, I had a I was doing a couple things. One is, I was doing the both, or studying both majors, raising the family. I was working about 20 hours as a law clerk or for a law firm, and then during that, I can't remember or if it was a flyer, or if it was, you know, an email or whatnot, but came across a business competition, or it's kind of a, it was kind of a, a multi disciplinary competition wherever, you know, people of different degrees and different fields of study would get together, you form a group of four or five, and you work on developing an idea, and then you would enter it into the competition and see how it goes. And so we did that the first year, and we did something, an idea to make Gym Bags less smelly, and then enter that in and took second place. And during that period, next year comes along, we're all in our final year of our degree. And as we're doing that, we are studying the degree and or entering the competition again. And we decided to do something different. It was for wearables. You know, this is before Apple Watch, or, you know, the Fitbit, or anything else. It was well before I knew that, but we just said, Hey, when I was there, thinking, hey, wouldn't it be cool I'd ran my or, I think, my second marathon that time. Wouldn't it be awesome if you could monitor your hydration level so that you can make sure you're staying well hydrated throughout and it helps with the air, not being a sore and being, you know, quicker recovery and performing better. And so out of that, took the genesis of that idea, entered it back into the business comp, or that is a new idea, into the business competition, and did that with the partners, and took second place again, still a little bitter, or bitter that about that, because the people that took first place has entered the same thing that they entered the previous year, but polished, or took the money they've earned previously and polished it made it look a little nicer, and won again because it looked the most polished. But that aside, was a great, or great competition. Enjoyed it. And from that, you know, said, Hey, I think this is a good idea. I think it can be a, you know, something that you could actually build a business around. And so said, Hey, or kind of told the the people that were in the the group with me, you know, we're all graduating. We're going different directions. Would be pretty hard to do a startup altogether. So why don't we do this? Or why don't you guys take all the money that I got, you know that we you're in some reward money, or, you know, prize money. If you take my portion, split it amongst yourselves, and I'll just take ownership of the idea, whatever it is, where, you know, wherever I take it, and simply own it outright, you know, basically buying them out. And so that's what I did. So coming out of, you know, getting the MBA in the law degree, that was kind of always the intent. So, or coming out of school, I went and joined a law firm here in Utah. Was a full time patent attorney, and then alongside, you know, had the side hustle, what I'd really say is kind of a second full time job to where I was, you know, pursuing that startup or small business alongside of doing the law firm. So that was kind of the the genesis for, as I graduated full time attorney working, you know, with a lot of our cool clients and other things, and then also incorporating the desire to do a startup or small business. And that's kind of been, really, the trajectory that I've taken throughout my career is really, you know, finding ways to combine or to pursue both interests together. Michael Hingson  24:26 What happened to the business? Devin Miller  24:28 Yeah, so it so it's still alive today. I've been, I exited. Now it's been a couple year and a half, two years somewhere in there. Have to think back. So it started out. So with the business I started out, it was actually one where, rewinding just a little bit when we when I got started, my dad was also an electrical engineer. He'd actually, you know, he's well or farther into his career, and he done a number of different things across their medical devices through his career. And so he kind of, or he joined on as kind of doing it with us. Hustle with me, and we took that, started to build it. We brought on some additional team members. We brought on an investor, and actually built out and grew the business. It also evolved. So we were starting to test or test out the technology have it with some colleges and some other, you know, athletes, which was a natural place to start it at and about that time, and we were getting kind of to that next hurdle where we either needed to get a further investment or cash infusion, you know, to kind of take it to a more of a marketable, you know, a except a Polish full or ready to go to market type of product. And at that time, as we're exploring that we had or came or got connected with somebody that was more in the diabetes monitoring, they were doing it more from a service base. But you know, the overlay as to kind of how the technologies are overlapped with what they're doing tended to work out pretty well. And so we ended up combining the business to be one, where it was redirected a lot of the technology we developed underlining to be more of a wearables for the diabetes monitor. So that was a number of years ago. I stayed on doing a lot of, some of the engineering and development, primarily more in the intellectual property realm, of doing a lot of patents and whatnot. And then about a year and a half, two years ago, got bought out, was exited from that company and and that continues on today. It's still alive and growing, and I kind of watch it from, you know, from a distance, so to speak, or kind of continue to maintain interest, but don't are not necessarily active within the business anymore. So that was kind of a long answer to a shorter question, but that's kind of where the business eventually evolved to. Michael Hingson  26:36 So now I'm sure that the company is doing things like developing or working with products like continuous glucose monitors and so on. Devin Miller  26:46 Yep, yeah, that's kind of the direction as to what they're headed you Michael Hingson  26:49 well, and what's what's been interesting about several of the CGM type devices is that for people who are blind, there's been a real push to try to get some of them to be accessible. And what finally occurred about a year ago, maybe two years ago, is that one of the devices that's out there was approved to actually incorporate an app on a smartphone, and when the app came out, then it was really easy, although it took an effort to convince people to pay attention to it and do it, but it became technically a lot easier to deal with access, because all you had to do was to make the app accessible. And so there now is a continuous glucose monitor that that is accessible, whereas you wherein you get all the information from the app through voiceover, for example, on the iPhone or through talkback on a android phone that you get when you're just looking at the screen, which is the way it really should be anyway, because If you're going to do it, you should be inclusive and make it work for everyone. Devin Miller  28:06 No, that's cool. Yeah, there's a number of I think, between, you know, being a prevalent, you know, issue that people are dealing with, to, you know, different trying to address things earlier on, and also to motivate people do healthier lifestyle. And kind of the direction I think, is headed where a lot of the the company that's continues on today, from our original technology, is on the non invasive side. So a lot of them have, you have to have a patch, or you have to have periodically prick, or put an arm, you know, arm, right? Something where has a needle in the arm. And this one is kind of trying hair working to take it to that next level, to where it's no longer having to be invasive, and it's really all without having air with sensors that don't require you to have any sort of pain or prick in order to be able to utilize it. So kind of fun to fun to see how the industry continues to evolve. Michael Hingson  28:55 Well, today, we're working on that, and tomorrow, of course, the tricorder. So you know, we'll, we'll get to Star Trek 29:03 absolutely one step at a time. Michael Hingson  29:05 Yeah, but I've kind of figured that people were certainly working on non invasive technology so that you didn't have to have the sensor stuck in your arm. And I'm not surprised that that that's coming, and we'll be around before too long, just because we're learning so much about other ways of making the measurements that it makes sense to be able to do that. Devin Miller  29:31 Yep, no, absolutely. You know, it is a hard nut to crack. The body is very complex. A lot of things going on, and to measure it, not invasively, is certainly a lot that goes into it, but I think there's a lot of good, good technologies coming out. A lot of progress is being made, and certainly fun to continue to see how the health devices continue to hit the market. So certainly a cool area. Michael Hingson  29:53 So why did you decide, or maybe it was a natural progression, but why did you decide to go into patent law? Yeah. Devin Miller  30:01 I mean, I think it was probably a natural progression, and in the sense that, you know, it is one where overall desire was, Hey, I like engineering from the sense I like to think or how things work and kind of break things down and to have a better understanding. So really, intellectual property law and patents and trademarks and others allowed me to work with a lot of startups and small businesses, see a lot of cool things that they're developing still play a hand in it, and yet, also not, you know, be mired down to a long project over multiple years where you, you know, you're a small cog in a big wheel. And so, yeah, that was kind of one where it fit well within kind of the overall business, you know, business desire and business aspect of what I wanted to accomplish, and also just overall, you know, enjoying it or enjoying it. So that's kind of where it might, you know, it married well with the the desire to do startups and small businesses, as well as to work with a lot of other startups and small businesses. Michael Hingson  30:55 That's a lot of fun, to be able to deal with startups and see a lot of new and innovative kinds of things. And being in patent law, you probably see more than a lot of people, which does get to be exciting in an adventure, especially when you see something that looks like it has so much potential. Yep. Devin Miller  31:14 No, it is. It is fun. I get to see everything from I've worked on everything from boat anchors to credit card thing or devices that help elderly people to remove them more easily, from their wallet to AI to drones to software other or software platforms to medical devices. So it gives a ability to have a pretty good wide exposure to a lot of cool, different, you know, very different types of innovations, and that makes her just, you know, a fun, fun time, and be able to work or work with the air businesses as they develop. Are all those different technologies? Michael Hingson  31:50 Well, on the the law side of things, what's the difference between a provisional patent and a non provisional filing? Devin Miller  31:57 Yeah, so, so I don't back it up, and I'll get to your question. But maybe I'd set the stages to when you're looking at what is the difference between a patent and trademark and copyright, because a lot of times when people look at that, that's probably a good question too. Provisional trademark, or I want a, you know, or a non provisional copyright, or whatever it might be, and kind of get the terminology mixed up. So if you're to take it one step back, a provisional patent app or a patent is something that goes towards protecting an invention. So something that has the functionality that does something, that accomplishes something, a trademark is going to be something that is protecting of a brand. So name of a company, name of a product, a cash, phrase, a logo, and those type of things all really fall under trademarks and copyrights are going to be something that's more creative in nature. So a painting, a sculpture, a picture, a book, you know, all those type of things are going to fall under copyrights. And so really, when you're looking at it, you know, kind of breaking it down initially, you look at it as you know, which one is it. And so now to your question, Michael Hingson  32:58 well, before you go there, before you go ahead, before you go there. So if I'm writing software, does that fall under patent or copyright? I would assume if the software is to do something, it would be a patent. Devin Miller  33:12 So software primarily is under a patent. So there's, technically, you can copyright software. Now there's, it's pretty limited in its scope of protection. So if you're to do or software and do it under a copyright, really, all it protects is the exact way that you wrote the code. So you know, got it using this exact coding language. If somebody come along, copy and paste my code, you'll be protected. But it doesn't protect the functionality of how this code works or what it does. It is purely just how you wrote the code. So most of the time, when you're looking at software, it's really going to be more under a patent, because you're not going to want to just simply protect the identical way that you wrote the code, but rather what it does and what it does, yeah. So yep. So yeah, you for if you're to do as as your example, software, primarily, you're going to it's going to fall under patents. Michael Hingson  34:01 Okay, so anyway, back to provisional and non provisional. Devin Miller  34:05 Yeah, so, and when you're looking at doing a patent, you can do there's a couple different types of patents. One is a design patent. It really just goes to something the esthetic nature, the look and feel of a of an invention. So if you're thinking of the iPhone, you know, used to have the curved edges. I had the circle or a button at the bottom. It had, you know, the speaker placement and all those things. And it was just that outward appearance, not the functionality, could go under a design patent, but what the primary patent, which is what most people pursue, is what's called the utility patent application. And the utility patent application is really going towards the functionality of how something works. So the utility, how it works, what it does, and then kind of the purpose of it. And so with that, when you're looking at pursuing a utility patent application, there are a couple different types of patents that you can or types of utility patent patent applications. So. As you mentioned, one is called a provisional patent application. The other one is called a non provisional patent application. So a provisional patent application is kind of set up primarily, a lot of times for startups or small businesses where they're going to have a some product or an innovation that they're working on. They're in earlier stages. They're wanting to kind of protect what they have while they continue to develop it, and kind of flush it out. So provisional patent application is set up to be a one year placeholder application. So it will get, you know, you file it, you'll get patent pending, you'll get a date of invention, and it'll give you a year to decide if you want to pursue a full patent application or not. So you can file that gives you that one year time frame as a placeholder. The non provisional patent application would be the full patent application. So that would be what has, all the functionality, all the features, all the air, formalities and air, and it will go through the examination process. We'll go look at it for patentability. So those are kind of the difference provisional, one year, placeholder, less expensive, get your patent pending, versus the non provisional, that's the full patent application and gives you kind of that, or we'll go through examination. Michael Hingson  36:12 Do most people go through the provisional process just because it not only is less expensive, but at least it puts a hold and gives you a place. Devin Miller  36:22 It really just depends on where people are at. So kind of, you know, a lot of times people ask, Hey, well, what would you recommend? And I'll usually say, hey, there are typically two reasons why I would do a provisional patent application. And if you don't fall into either of those camps, then I would probably do a non provisional patent. Got it. So generally, the two reasons I get one is certainly budgetary. Give you an example. So our flat fee, you know, we do our primarily everything, flat fee in my firm, and a provisional patent application to prepare and file it, our flat fee is 2500 versus a non provisional patent application is 6950 so one is, Hey, your startup, small business, to have a limited funds, you're wanting to get a level of protection in place while you continue to pursue or develop things, then you would oftentimes do that as a provisional patent application. And the other reason, a lot of times where I would recommend it is, if you're saying, Hey, we've got a initial innovation, we think it's going to be great. We're still figuring things out, so we'd like to get something in place while we continue to do that research and develop it and kind of further figure it out. So that would be kind of, if you fall into one of those camps where it's either budgetary overlay, or it's one where you're wanting to get something in place and then take the next year to further develop it, then a provisional patent application is oftentimes a good route. There are also a lot of clients say, Hey, I'm, you know, we are pretty well. Did the Research Development getting ready to release it in the marketplace. While we don't have unlimited funds, we still have the ability to just simply go or go straight to a non provisional so we can get the examination process started, and then they'll go that route. So both of them are viable route. It's not kind of necessarily. One is inherently better or worse than the other is kind of more where you're at along the process and what, what kind of fits your needs the best. Michael Hingson  38:09 But at least there is a process that gives you options, and that's always good. Absolutely, patent laws, I well, I won't say it's straightforward, but given you know, in in our country today, we've got so many different kinds of things going on in the courts and all that, and sometimes one can only shake one's head at some of the decisions that are made regarding politics and all that, but that just seems to be a whole lot more complicated and a lot less straightforward than what you do With patent law? Is that really true? Or are there lots of curves that people bend things to go all sorts of different ways that make life difficult for you? Devin Miller  38:50 Um, probably a little bit of both. I think that it so. The law, legal system in general, is a much more slower moving enemy, so it does have a bit more of a kind of a basis to anticipate where things are headed in general. Now, the exception is, there always is an exception to the rule. Is that anytime the Supreme Court gets involved with patent law cases, I'd say 95% of the time, they make it worse rather than better. So, you know, you get judges that none of them are really have an experience or background in patent law. They've never done it. They really don't have too much familiarity with it, and now they're getting posed questions that are fairly involved in intricate and most of the time when they make decisions, they make it worse. It's less clear. You know, it's not as great of understanding, and it otherwise complicates things more. And so when you get the Supreme Court involved, then they can kind of make it more difficult or kind of shake things up. But by and large, it is a not that there isn't a lot of or involved in going through the process to convince the patent and examiner the patent office of patentability and make sure it's well drafted and has the it's good of coverage and scope, but at least there is, to a degree, that ability to anticipate. Hate, you know what it what's going to be required, or what you may likely to be looking at. You know? The other exception is, is, you know, the, ironically, I think the patent office is the only budget or producing or budget positive entity within all of the government. So every other part of the government spends much more money than they ever make. The Patent Office is, I think the, I think the postal office at one point was the other one, and they have, now are always in the in the red, and never make any money. But, you know, they are the patent office. Now, the problem with that is, you think, great, well now they can reinvest. They can approve, they should have the best technology, they should be the most up to date. They should have, you know, all the resources because they're self funding, and yet, there's always a piggy bank that the government goes to raid and redirects all those funds to other pet projects. And so, or the patent office is always, perpetually underfunded, as ironic as that is, because they're getting, always getting the piggy bank rated, and so with that, you know, they are, if you're to go into a lot of the patent office, their interfaces, their websites or databases, their systems, it feels like you're the onset of the or late 90s, early 2000s as far as everything goes. And so that always is not necessarily your question, but it's always a bit aggravating that you know you can't, as an example, can't submit color drawings. People ask, can you submit videos? Nope, you can't submit any videos of your invention, you know, can you provide, you know, other types of information? Nope, it's really just a written document, and it is line drawings that are black and white, and you can't submit anything beyond that. So there's one where I think eventually it will sometime, maybe shift or change, but it's going to be not anytime soon. I don't think there's any time on the horizon, because they're kind of stuck it once they move, moved over to the lit or initially onto the computer system, that's about where that evolution stopped. Michael Hingson  41:51 Well, the other thing though, with with videos, especially when you get AI involved and so on, are you really seeing a video of the invention. Or are you seeing something that somebody created that looks great, but the invention may not really do it. So I can understand their arguments, but there have to be ways to deal with that stuff. Devin Miller  42:13 Yeah, and I think that even be prior to AI, even we just had, you know, videos been around for 20 or 30 years, even, you know, digital format or longer. That probably, and the problem is, I think it's more of the search ability. So if you have a drawing, you can more easily search drawings and compare them side by side, and they'll do it. If you have a video, you know what? What format is the video? And is it a, you know, dot movie, or dot MOV, or is it.mp for is it color? Is it black and white? How do you capture it? Is it zoomed in as a kind of show all the details? Or is it zoomed out? And I think that there's enough difficulty in comparing video side by side and having a rigid enough or standardized format, the patent office said, man, we're not going to worry about it. Yes, so we could probably figure something out, but that's more work than anybody, any administration or any of the directors of the patent office ever want to tackle so it's just always kind of kicked down the road. Michael Hingson  43:06 Do they ever actually want to see the invention itself? Devin Miller  43:12 Not really, I mean, you so the short answer is no. I mean, they want to see the invention as it's captured within the the patent application. So the problem Michael Hingson  43:21 is, the drawing, they don't want to see the actual device, or whatever it is, well, and a lot Devin Miller  43:24 of times, you know as a inventors, they you know as a patent applicants, as the inventors and the owners, you're saying, hey, but I want to show them the invention. Problem is, the invention doesn't always mirror exactly what's showing in the patent application. Because you're on generation three of your product patent application is still in generation one, yeah, and so it doesn't mirror, and so the examiners are supposed to, they don't always, or aren't always good, and sometimes pull things and they shouldn't, but they're supposed to just consider whatever is conveyed in the patent application. Yeah, it's a closed world. And so bringing those additional things in now you can, so technically, you can request a live in office interview with the examiner, where you sit down live. You can bring in your invention or other or details and information, and when you do it live, face to face with an interview, you can walk them through it. Most very few people attorneys ever do that because one clients aren't going to want to pay for you to one of the offices, put you up in a hotel, you know, sit there, spend a day or two to or with the examiner to walk them through it. It just adds a significant amount of expense. Examiners don't particularly like it, because they have to dedicate significantly more time to doing that. Yeah, they're allotted, so they lose they basically are doing a lot of free work, and then you're pulling in a lot of information that they really can't consider. So you technically can. But I would say that you know, the likelihood of the majority of attorneys, 99 point whatever, percent don't do that, including myself. I've never been to do a live or live one, just because it just doesn't, it doesn't have enough advantage to make it worthwhile. Michael Hingson  44:58 Well, in talking about. About the law and all the things that go on with it. One of the things that comes to mind is, let's say you have somebody in the United States who's patenting, or has made a patent. What happens when it all goes to it gets so popular, or whatever, that now it becomes an international type of thing. You've got, I'm sure, all sorts of laws regarding intellectual property and patents and so on internationally. And how do you get protection internationally for a product? Devin Miller  45:32 File it in each country separately. So, you know, there are people, and I understand the inclinations, hey, I want to get a worldwide or global patent that covers everything in every country. The short answer is, you can't. I mean, technically, you could, if you file a patent into every country separately, nobody, including when I used to work or do work for companies including Intel and Amazon and Red Hat and Ford. They don't have patents in every single country throughout the world because they just don't have enough marketplace. You know, you go to a very small, let's say, South African country that you know, where they just don't sell their product enough in it, it just doesn't make the sense, or the courts or the systems or the patent office isn't well enough to find, or it's not enforceable enough that it just doesn't capture that value. And so there isn't a ability to have a global, worldwide patent, and it really is one where you have to file into each country separately. They each have their own somewhat similar criteria, still a different, somewhat similar process, but they each have their own criteria in their process that has to go through examination. So when you're looking at you know when you want to go for whether it's in the US or any other country, when you're deciding where you want to file it, it's really a matter of what marketplaces you're going to be selling the product into. So if you look at it and you know, I have as an example, some clients that 95% of their marketplace is all in the US, that's where they anticipate, that's probably where they're going to sell it. Well, yes, you could go and find, if you have 2% of your marketplace in Japan, you could go file a patent and get it into Japan, but you have such a small amount of your marketplace that's probably there that it doesn't make sense. And vice versa will have as an example. And a lot of times in the medical devices, they'll a lot of times file both in the EU as well as in the US, because those are two of the predominant medical device and are places where a lot of innovation is going on, where there's a lot of focus on utilization, development, medical devices, and there's just a lot of that demand. And so you're really going to look at it is which, where's your marketplace. The other times are the people, a lot of times, they'll get tripped up on so they'll say, Well, I probably need to file into China, right? And I said, Well, maybe because the inclination is, well, everybody just goes to China. They'll knock off the product. And so I want to have a patent in China so that I can, you know, fight against the knockoffs. And that isn't while I again, understand why they would ask that question. It wouldn't be the right way to convey it. Because if you if all it is is they you have no real, you know, no desire, no plan, to go into China. You're not going to sell it. You're not going to build a business there. If they're knocking it off and just just doing it in China, so to speak, then they're not. There isn't going to be a need to file a patent in China, because you don't have any marketplace in there. There's nothing really to protect. And if somebody makes it in China as a just picking on China, making as an example, and imports it into the US, you can still enforce your patent or otherwise do or utilize it to stop people from importing knock off because it's in the US, because they're, yeah, exactly, they're selling it, importing it, or otherwise doing activities in the US. So it's really a matter of where your marketplace is, not where you think that somebody might knock it off. Or, Hey, I'm gonna get a try and get a global patent, even though my marketplace is really in one or two spots. Michael Hingson  48:38 What about products like, say, the iPhone, which are commonly used all over. Devin Miller  48:44 Yeah, they're going to do, they'll do a lot of countries. They still Michael Hingson  48:47 won't do. They'll still do kind of country by country. Devin Miller  48:50 Yeah, they'll now, they'll do a lot of countries. Don't get me wrong, a lot of right. Phones are sold throughout the world, but they'll still look at it as to where it is, and they still have, you know, issues with them. So one of the interesting tidbits as an example, so going back and rewinding your time, taking apple as an example. You know, they came out with, originally, the iPod, then they had iPhone, and then they had the iPad. Now the question is, when they originally came out with their watch, what did they call it? 49:17 Apple Watch? Apple Watch. Now, why Devin Miller  49:20 didn't they call the I wash, which is what it made sense. It goes right along with the iPhone, the iPad, the iPhone, you know, the all of those iPod on that. And it was because somebody had already got a trademark in China that was for a different company, unrelated to the apple that had it for the iWatch. And so when Apple tried to go into the country, they tried to negotiate. They tried to bully. They weren't able to successfully get the rights or to be able to use I wash within China. China was a big enough market, and so they had and rather than try and split it and call it the I wash everywhere but China and trying to have the Apple Watch in China, they opted to call it the Apple Watch. Now I think they might. Of eventually resolve that, and I think it's now can be referred to as the I watch, I'm not sure, but for, at least for a long period of time, they couldn't. They called it the Apple Watch when they released it, for that reason. So even if you have, you know, a big company and one of the biggest ones in the world, you still have to play by the same rules. And why, you can try and leverage your your size and your wealth and that to get your way, there's still those, there's still those hindrances. So that's kind of maybe a side, a side note, but it's kind of one that's interesting. Michael Hingson  50:30 So that's the trademark of how you name it. But how about the technology itself? When the Apple Watch was created, I'm assuming that they were able to patent that. Devin Miller  50:39 Yeah, they will have, I'm sure they probably have anywhere from 30 to 100 to 200 I mean, they'll have a significant amount of patents, even it's just within the Apple Watch, everything from the screen, the display, how it's waterproof, how it does communications, how does the battery management, how does the touch, how does the interface, all of those are going to be different aspects that they continue to, you know, did it originally in the original Apple Watch, and are always iterating and changing as they continue to improve the technology. So generally, you know that, I'm sure that you will start out with as a business of protecting you're getting a foundational patent where you kind of protect the initial invention, but if it's successful and you're building it out, you're going to continue to file a number of patents to capture those ongoing innovations, and then you're going to file it into all of the countries where you have a reasonable market size that makes it worthwhile to make the investment. Michael Hingson  51:32 So if you have a new company and they've got a name and all that, what should new businesses do in terms of looking and performing a comprehensive search for of trademarks and so on to make sure they are doing the right thing. Devin Miller  51:49 Yeah, a couple of things. I mean, it wanted, if you're it depends on the size of company, your budget, there's always the overlay of, you know, you can want to do everything in the world, and if you don't have the budget, then you have to figure out what goes in your budget. But if I'll take it from kind of a startup or a small business perspective, you know, you first thing you should do is just as stupid and as easy as it sounds, you should go do a Google search. Or, now that you have chat GPT, go do a chat BT search and a Google search. But, you know, because it's interesting as it sounds, or, you know, is you think that, oh, that's, you know, kind of give me or an automatic I'll have still even till today, people come into my office. They'll say, Hey, I've got this great idea, this great invention, and a Lacher getting a patent on it, and they'll start to walk me through it. I'm like, you know, I could have sworn I've seen that before. I've seen something very similar. We'll sit down at my desk, take two minutes, do a Google search, and say, so is this a product that you're thinking of? Oh, yeah, that's exactly it. Okay. Well, you can't really get a patent on something that's already been invented and out there, and so, you know, do a little bit of research yourself. Now there is a double edged sword, because you can do research and sometimes you'll have one or two things happen. You'll not having the experience and background, not entirely knowing what you're doing. You'll do research, and you'll either one say, Hey, I've done a whole bunch of research. I can't really find anything that's similar. When, in fact, there's a lot of similar things out there. There's a patent, and people will say, yeah, it's the same, it's the same invention, but my purpose is a little bit different. Well, you can't if it's the exact same or invention. Whether or not you say your purpose is different, doesn't get around their patent and same thing on a trademark. Yeah, their brand's pretty much 53:20 identical, but they're Devin Miller  53:21 doing legal services and I'm doing legal tools, and so it's different, and it's, again, it's one where there's there they have a false sense of security because they rationalize in their head why it's different, or vice versa. You also get people that will say, Hey, this is even though it's significantly different, it's the same purpose. And so while, while they really could go do the product, while they could get a patent or a trademark, because they think that it's just overall kind of the same concept, then they talk themselves out of it when they don't need to. So I would say, start out doing some of that initial research. I would do it if I was in their shoes, but temper it with, you know, do it as an initial review. If there's something that's identical or the same that's out there, then it gives you an idea. Probably, you know, you're not going to be able to add a minimum, get or patent their intellectual property protection, and you may infringe on someone else's but if you you know, if there's, there's some differences, or have to do that initial research, that's probably the time, if you're serious about, you know, investing or getting business up and going, you've probably engaged an attorney to do a more formal search, where they have the experience in the background and ability to better give a better understanding or determination as to whether or not something presents an issue. Michael Hingson  54:32 Yeah, well, that's understandable. If I've developed something and I have a patent for it, then I suddenly discovered that people are selling knockoffs or other similar devices on places like Amazon and so on. What do you do about that? Because I'm sure there must be a bunch of that that that does go on today. Devin Miller  54:53 Yeah, yes, it does. I mean, I wouldn't say it's not as probably as prevalent as some people think. In other words, not every single. Product, right, being knocked off. Not everything is copied. Sometimes it's because, you know, either I don't have the ability, I don't have the investment, I don't have the, you know, it's not as big enough marketplace, I don't have the manufacturing, I don't have the connections, or it is simply, am respectful, and I'm not going to go do a discord because I'm not going to try and rip off, you know, what I think is someone else's idea. So it doesn't happen that as frequently as I think sometimes people think it does, but it certainly does occur. You know, there's a competitive marketplace, there's a profit incentive, and if there's a good product that's out there that people think they can do something with, and there's a motivation to do it, either because people are unaware that it's an issue, or that they they're unaware that they can't copy it or is protected. And so if you get into that, you know, there's a few potentially different recourses. One is, you know, a lot of times you'll start out with the cease and desist.

Cassius Marcellus Coolidge’s most well-known art is the Dogs Playing Poker series. He was a true Renaissance man, and even patented a style of kitsch art. Research: Arn, Jackson. “Why This Painting of Dogs Playing Poker Has Endured for over 100 Years.” Artsy. June 6, 2018. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-painting-dogs-playing-poker-endured-100-years Barry, Dan. “Artist’s Fame Is Fleeting, But Dog Poker Is Forever.” New York Times. June 14, 2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/14/nyregion/artist-s-fame-is-fleeting-but-dog-poker-is-forever.html “The bicycling fraternity …” The Evening World. Oct. 17, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/50674735/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 Coolidge, Asenath Carver. “The Independence Day Horror at Killsbury.” Hungerford-Holbrook Company. 1905. https://books.google.com/books?id=-04LAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22cassius+coolidge%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s Coolidge, Cassius M. (as Kash). “The Accomodating Lender.” The Cosmopolitan. Volume 2. Schlicht & Field, 1887. P. 120. https://books.google.com/books?id=P5rNAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s Coolidge, Cassius M. “Improvement in the processes of taking photographic pictures.” U.S. Patent Office. April 14, 1874. https://patents.google.com/patent/US149724 “Dog Poker Art Fetches Big Bucks.” CBS News. Feb. 16, 2005. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dog-poker-art-fetches-big-bucks/ Edwards, Phil. “Ever stick your face in a cutout? Meet the kitsch genius who invented them.” Vox. May 29, 2015. https://www.vox.com/2015/5/29/8682601/carnival-cutouts-inventor “The exciting road race …” The Evening World. Sept. 26, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/163980688/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 “Gallinipper Mosquitos & Other Insects.” Nebraska Extension Disaster Education. https://disaster.unl.edu/gallinipper-mosquitos-other-insects/ “George A. Banker received this week …” Pittsburg Dispatch. Aug. 16, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/76578744/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 Haddock, John A. “The Growth of a Century: as Illustrated in the History of Jefferson County, New York, from 1793 to 1894.” Sherman and Company, 1894. https://books.google.com/books?id=KyUVAAAAYAAJ&dq=antwerp+cassius+coolidge+bank&source=gbs_navlinks_s “King Gallinipper.” New York Times. April 28, 1892. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1892/04/28/104126214.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 Lewis, Joel. “Boat Unloading: Cassius Marcellus Coolidge,” Rutherford Red Wheelbarrow 7. Issue 7, part 2014. https://books.google.com/books?id=Zu__BgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA205&dq=coolidge%20%22september%2018%2C%201844%22&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q&f=false McManus, James. “Play It Close to the Muzzel and Cards on the Table.” New York Times. Dec. 3, 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/sports/othersports/play-it-close-to-the-muzzle-and-paws-on-the-table.html Martinovic, Jelena. “Beloved By All But The Art World - The Dogs Playing Poker Painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge.” Artsper. Feb. 27, 2025. https://blog.artsper.com/en/a-closer-look/dogs-playing-poker-painting/ “Mr. Cassius M. Coolidge, the New York artist and playwright …” Sun-Journal. Oct. 3, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/828104988/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 “A Notable Game of Poker.” The Sun. Sept. 17, 1893. https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83030272/1893-09-17/ed-1/?sp=7&st=pdf&r=0.147%2C0.847%2C0.213%2C0.088%2C0 “Rehearsals for ‘King Gallinipper,’ …” The Evening World. April 20, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/50663243/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 “Reviewed Work(s): A Prophet of Peace by Asenath Carver Coolidge and Cassius M. Coolidge.”The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920), Vol. 70, No. 5 (MAY, 1908), p. 117. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20665503 “Teachers’ Institute.” Democrat and Chronicle. June 9, 1876. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/135109029/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 “The wheelmen of the Manhattan Atheltic Club …” The Evning World. Sept. 23, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/163977579/?match=1&terms=%22cassius%20coolidge%22 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we look into the rocky future of the Rocky Mountain Regional Patent Office, which was slated to close during the shutdown and shift remaining employees to Virginia, and now may be relocated somewhere else in the West. Tamara Chung joins to explain what these shifting federal decisions could mean for Colorado and its workers.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cat litter, it could be argued, kicked off the pet products industry. After its invention in the 1940s, other inventors started to come up with products that today are standard in the homes of people with pets. Research: Caminiti, Kasey. “Inside the Secret Lives of Pets With Allen Simon.” DuJour. https://dujour.com/life/allen-simon-founder-wee-wee-pad-pet-products/ “Clays.” U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2025/mcs2025-clays.pdf Crow, Frank. L. “Cat Tree.” Nov. 25, 1969. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/65/fa/30/1290601d5476ab/US3479990.pdf Edward Lowe Foundation. https://edwardlowe.org/ Gross, Daniel A. “How Kitty Litter went from happy accident to $2 billion industry.” Washington Post. Feb. 2, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/you-wont-believe-how-old-that-kitty-litter-is/2015/02/02/9ecac9ea-a1b4-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html Holding, Ray. “Cassopolis Man Valet for 10,000 Cats.” The Kalamazoo Gazette. Sept. 4, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1145480706/?match=1&terms=Ed%20Lowe%20Kitty%20Litter “Kitty Litter.” (ad) The Ann Arbor News. Feb. 16, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1178883937/?match=1&terms=Ed%20Lowe%20Kitty%20Litter “Kitty Litter Maker Selling Operations.” The New York Times. Sept. 13, 1990. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/13/business/company-news-kitty-litter-maker-selling-operations.html “New Boon for Cat Owners.” Delaware County Daily Times. Nov. 16, 1949. https://www.newspapers.com/image/53207968/?match=1&terms=Ed%20Lowe%20Kitty%20Litter “PetProducts.com | CEO Allen Simon & Kevin Yamano, VP Business Development | Innovators.” LilaMax Media. April 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsHhyEcz-pQ Simon, Allen. “Allen Simon.” LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/allen-simon-592115111/ Simon, Allen. “Dog Toy.” U.S. Patent Office. Dec. 16, 2008. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/31/65/61af50ca84b654/USD583113.pdf Simon, Allen. “Scoop for Cat Littler.” U.S. Patent Office. Jan. 19, 1993. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c2/f4/01/b378f00dd92e8c/USD332675.pdf Simon, Allen. “Bristled Grooming Glove.” U.S. Patent Office. Jan. 28, 2014. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b6/83/22/143c9b9392d608/USD698159.pdf Thomas, Robert Mcg., Jr. “Edward Lowe Dies at 75; a Hunch Led Him to Create Kitty Litter.” New York Times. Oct. 6, 1995. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/06/us/edward-lowe-dies-at-75-a-hunch-led-him-to-create-kitty-litter.html United Press International. “Ed Lowe Owes His Fortune to Kitty Litter.” L.A. Times Archive. June 16, 1985. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-06-16-sp-2907-story.html “U.S. pet ownership statistics.” American Veterinary Medical Association. 2024. https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's episode of The Game Deflators Podcast, John and Ryan share the latest additions to their gaming collections before diving into what they're currently playing—John continues his long trek through The Witcher, while Ryan experiences Metal Gear Solid for the very first time. The duo then shift gears to industry news, discussing Nintendo's recent revelation about the percentage of Switch 2 owners who upgraded from the original Switch, Tencent's unusual “Mickey Mouse defense” in its court battle with Sony, and the U.S. Patent Office's decision to reexamine Nintendo's patent on summoning mechanics. Wrapping things up, the guys take a nostalgic detour with a quirky retro review of Mega Man Soccer for the SNES, debating whether this oddball spin-off is a hidden gem or simply a relic best left in the past.   00:00 Introduction to the Podcast and Current Games 03:21 Nintendo's Patent Issues and Market Trends 06:02 Exploring the Witcher Series and Gameplay Experiences 09:04 Ryan's Metal Gear Solid Journey 12:06 Dungeons & Dragons Update 15:17 Nintendo's Switch 2 Sales and Consumer Loyalty 18:13 Nintendo's Patent Controversy 28:56 Patent Controversies and Gaming Mechanics 32:43 The Impact of Competition on Nintendo 34:44 Crafting Games and Market Dynamics 36:53 Trademark Battles and Character Design 45:29 Mega Man Soccer: A Frustrating Experience 55:22 Outro   Want more Game Deflators content? Find us at www.thegamedeflators.com     Find us on Social Media Twitter @GameDeflators Instagram @TheGameDeflators Facebook @TheGameDeflators YouTube @The Game Deflators   Permission for intro and outro music provided by Matthew Huffaker http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe 2_25_18 

Tonight's topics: - GTA 6 delayed… again - Rockstar Games employees protest - Marvel 1943 delayed - Cloud streaming comes to PlayStation Portal (also this) - PS5 and PC cross-buy option discovered - U.S. Patent Office reexamines Nintendo's patent - EA claims it will keep creative control if bought by Saudis Thanks as always to Shawn Daley for our intro and outro music. Follow him on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/shawndaley Where to find Throwdown Show: Website: https://audioboom.com/channels/5030659 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/throwdownshow Twitter: https://twitter.com/ThrowdownShow YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/throwdownshow Discord: https://discord.gg/fdBXWHT Twitter list: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1027719155800317953

Before Clarence Birdseye, frozen food was perceived as being low-quality and kind of gross. But after spending time in extremely cold climates, Birdseye figured out that speed freezing was the key to retaining freshness. Research: “$1,900,000 Fraud Attempt Alleged in Insurance Deal.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. May 2, 1917. https://www.newspapers.com/image/138253870/?match=1&terms=%22Clarence%20Birdseye%22 “Alleged Clean-up of $1,900,000 in Two Days.” The Bennington Evening Banner. May 2, 1917. https://www.newspapers.com/image/546110078/?match=1&terms=%22Clarence%20Birdseye%22 Birdseye, C. “Animal Food Product.” U.S. Patent Office. Aug. 12, 1930. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/f3/e3/ea3d0a5d1b6b7a/US1773080.pdf Birdseye, C. “METHOD OF PRESERVING PISCATORIAL PRODUCTS.” U.S. Patent Office. April 18, 1924. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b7/d9/5a/aeb7fae023f47e/US1511824.pdf Birdseye, Clarence, 1886-1956. Some Common Mammals of Western Montana in Relation to Agriculture and Spotted Fever, pamphlet, 1912; Washington D.C.. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc87555/ Britannica Editors. "Clarence Birdseye". Encyclopedia Britannica, 3 Oct. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Clarence-Birdseye “Celebrating American Innovation: Clarence Birdseye.” Council for Innovation Promotion. Sept. 14, 2023. https://c4ip.org/celebrating-american-innovation-clarence-birdseye/ “Clarence Birdseye.” Lemelson-MIT. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/clarence-birdseye “Clarence Birdseye Is Dead at 69; Inventor of Frozen-Food Process; Developed Method for Quick Freezing and Also Devised System for Dehydrating.” New York Times. Oct. 9, 1956. https://www.nytimes.com/1956/10/09/archives/clarence-birdseye-is-dead-at-69-inventor-of-frozenfood-process.html “Frozen Food Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Frozen Ready Meals, Frozen Seafood & Meat Products, Frozen Snacks & Bakery Products, and Others), Distribution Channel (Supermarkets/Hypermarkets, Specialty Stores, Convenience Stores, and Online Retail), and Regional Forecast, 2025-2032.” Fortune Business Insights. Oct. 6, 2025. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/frozen-food-market-10413 “How Did Clarence Birdseye Shape the American Diet?” National Inventors Hall of Fame. Nov. 28, 2022. https://www.invent.org/blog/inventors/clarence-birdseye Kile, O.M. “Food That Is Fresh Though Frozen: New Preserving Process Aims to Maintain Cell Structure.” The Baltimore Sun. Nov. 10, 1929. https://www.newspapers.com/image/373627550/?match=1&terms=%22quick-frozen%22%20 Kurlansky, Mark. “Birdseye: The Adventures of a Curious Man.” Thorndike Press. 2012. “Reinsurance for Policyholders in Defunct Concerns.” New-York Tribune. Nov. 11, 1917. https://www.newspapers.com/image/894239796/?match=1&terms=%22Clarence%20Birdseye%22 “Supervisory Methods Lax.” The Kansas workman. Nov. 1, 1917. https://www.newspapers.com/image/480092568/?match=1&terms=%22Clarence%20Birdseye%22 “Who invented frozen food?” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/technology/item/who-invented-frozen-food/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Game Deflators, John and Ryan welcome special guest Barry Carenza from PM Studios! Barry dives into the exciting lineup of upcoming titles from PM Studios and gives listeners a behind-the-scenes look at how ESRB ratings are set up for video games—yes, there's more to it than just slapping a letter on the box. The trio then tackles the latest legal drama surrounding Palworld, including updates on the Nintendo JPO patent denial and what it could mean for the game's future. In a surprising twist, they discuss the bombshell news of Halo making its way to the PS5—could this be the beginning of a new era in cross-platform gaming? To wrap things up, the crew takes a nostalgic trip back to the 16-bit hardwood with a review of NBA Jam for the SNES. Is it still "on fire" after all these years? 00:00 Introduction to the Gameplayers Podcast 02:30 Recent Game Pickups and Personal Updates 07:57 Current Gaming Experiences and Reviews 12:49 The ESRB Rating Process Explained 19:17 Behind the Scenes in Game Development 25:53 Navigating Game Quests and Challenges 31:17 Looking Ahead: Future Gaming Plans 32:31 Nintendo's Legal Struggles with Pal World 39:15 The Impact of Competition on Game Development 44:16 The Patent Office and Legal Maneuvering 54:13 The Evolution of Console Wars 01:00:15 Microsoft and Sony: A New Era of Cooperation 01:08:21 The Future of Gaming Resolutions 01:11:23 The Xbox Performance Dilemma 01:13:34 Physical vs Digital: The Game Ownership Debate 01:20:53 NBA Jam: A Classic Revisited Want more Game Deflators content? Find us at www.thegamedeflators.com     Find us on Social Media Twitter @GameDeflators Instagram @TheGameDeflators Facebook @TheGameDeflators YouTube @The Game Deflators   Permission for intro and outro music provided by Matthew Huffaker http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe 2_25_18 

Can artificial intelligence outsmart the patent lawyer? Host Jack Russo sits down with veteran patent prosecutor, Greg Smith, Esq., to tackle that very question. They explore how tools like ChatGPT are shaking up trademark filings, patent drafting, and the entire legal workflow. Greg shares stories from the trenches of the U.S. Patent Office and why AI may empower a new generation of DIY inventors. Jack introduces his latest innovation, a "human potential dashboard" that turns wearable data into a blueprint for better performance. Along the way, they unpack the risks of automation, the rise of self-taught creators, and the shifting line between human insight and machine intelligence. This episode pulls back the curtain on how AI is rewriting the rules of invention, ownership, and the practice of law itself.   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

In today's Daily Fix:Nintendo has raised its hardware forecast as the Switch 2 crosses the 10 million units sold mark. The Switch 2 continues its run as the biggest console launch ever, surpassing the Switch 1 (4.7 million units) and PlayStation 5 (7.8 million units) in their respective first six month milestones -- but in only four months (June 5-September 30). Nintendo now expects to move 19 million units by the end of March 2026. In other Nintendo news, the U.S. Patent Office is going to reexamine a patent awarded to Nintendo regarding the 'summon character and let it fight' Pokémon patent. This could potentially undermine Nintendo's argument in its lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair. And finally, Microsoft's Game Pass Wave 1 offerings for November have been revealed, and as expected Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 leads the charge.

There was a man in Grand Forks named Royal L. Boulter who was an innovator and an inventor. Back in 1896, R.L. “Roy” Boulter secured a patent from the U.S. Patent Office for what he called a “bicycle-boat.”

What happens when the USPTO lets artificial intelligence join the patent process? In this episode, I breaks down the brand-new Automated Search Pilot Program, a six-month experiment where AI runs a pre-exam prior art search before a human examiner even touches your application. I explains what it is, how to join, who it helps (and who it doesn't), and why it might just change the way patents get examined, all with some healthy skepticism about letting robots near our inventions.   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw   Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93  

Denver is home to one of just a handful of U.S. patent offices around the country, and today Colorado Sun business reporter Tamara Chuang talks about changes coming to the federal agency, starting at the top of the Denver regional office. Learn more: https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/25/patent-office-denver-regional-director-molly-kocialski/ https://friendsofchambermusic.com Promotions Tab; Promo Code: ChamberSunSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Swing into the world of intellectual property and untangle the legal threads behind legendary wall-crawling comic book character, Spider-Man. From comic book origins to blockbuster films, hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue trace Spidey's journey through pop culture, the U.S. Patent Office, and the courtroom. From Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's Amazing Fantasy #15 to Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland on the big screen, Michael and Joe explore how each era shaped Spider-Man's generational appeal—and his IP story. Listeners' “spidey senses” will tingle at the tale of a toy web-shooter patent that reached the Supreme Court in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment (2015), sparking lessons in royalty agreements and licensing strategies. The host take a deep look into other intellectual property aspects of the Spider-Man universe. 

JOIN US NEXT WEEK, YOU NERDS. 7PM PST. :) Live on Twitch Wednesdays! http://www.twitch.tv/TheUglyMugs https://discord.gg/RvE6TVANRF http://bit.ly/UglyMugsGlasses https://www.humblebundle.com/ Email us stuff! Uglymugspodcast@gmail.com Joint Twitter: @TheRealUglyMugs https://www.heroforge.com/tap/?ref=uglymugs Justin Twitter: @CliffxThurst Tiktok: @cliffxthurst Quincey Threads: https://www.threads.net/@quinceyroberson?invite=0 Tiktok: @qballscollectables Socky: @sockysquidrings Twitch: @sockysquid

The initial time period where a TV remote control was developed was pretty short. And it shows how two different people perceive their work, and how that work is perceived differently over time by their employer. Research: Adler, R. “Control System.” Dec. 17, 1957. U.S. Patent Office. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9a/fb/1a/619d2580b08526/US2817025.pdf AFX News. “COMPANY NEWS; MOTOROLA TO BUY ZENITH ELECTRONICS NETWORK SYSTEMS.” New York Times. July 20, 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/20/business/company-news-motorola-to-buy-zenith-electronics-network-systems.html Benson-Allott, Caetlin. “Remote Control.” Bloomsbury Academic. 2015. Dowling, Stephen. “The Surprising Origins of the TV Remote.” BBC. Aug. 31, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180830-the-history-of-the-television-remote-contro Fox, Margalit. “Eugene Polley, Conjuror of a Device That Changed TV Habits, Dies at 96.” New York Times. May 22, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/business/eugene-t-polley-inventor-of-the-wireless-tv-remote-dies-at-96.html Gertner, Jon. “A Clicker Is Born.” New York Times Magazine. Dec. 30, 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/magazine/30Adler-t.html Gregory, Ted. “Remote’s Inventor Hopes to Push Buttons of History.” Press of Atlantic City. Feb. 5, 2006. https://www.newspapers.com/image/926298372/?match=1&terms=eugene%20polley “Heritage.” Zenith. https://zenith.com/heritage/ “Man who glued TV watchers to the couch dies.” Cnn.com (via AP). Feb 16, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070219040307/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/obit.remote.control.ap/index.html “Now … a Flash of Light Without wires!” (Advertisement.) The Salt Lake Tribune. Nov. 20, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/598655702/?match=1&terms=Flash-matic Polley, Eugene J. “Control System.” U.S. Patent Office. Sept. 8, 1959. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f7/02/b1/5716b40ac9c0fc/US2903575.pdf “Robert Adler.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/robert-adler “Robert Adler - TV Wireless Remote.” Lemelson-MIT. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/robert-adler Schofield, Jack. “Eugene Polley Obituary.” The Guardian. May 23, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/23/eugene-polley Slodysko, Brian. “Eugene Polley dies at 96; inventor of wireless TV remote control.” May 23, 2012. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-eugene-polley-20120523-story.html Stroh, Michael. “The Couch Potato’s Best Friend.” Baltimore Sun. Nov. 22, 2006. https://www.newspapers.com/image/173151815/?match=1&terms=eugene%20polley “TV remote control inventor Eugene Polley dies at 96.” BBC. May 22, 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18164200 “You have to see it to believe it!” (Advertisement.) Syracuse herald-Journal. Sept. 27, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1088093208/?match=1&terms=Flash-matic “Zenith Space Command …” Evening World Herald/ Dec. 26, 1956. https://www.newspapers.com/image/883665550/?match=1&terms=%22Space%20Command%22 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The possible contenders for the title of inventor of spray paint were actually working across decades. And really, all those people contributed pieces of the story. Research: Abplanalp, R.H. “Valve mechanism for dispensing gases and liquids under pressure.” U.S. Patent Office. March 17, 1953. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/65/be/710e864cf870d8/US2631814.pdf “About Binks.” https://binks.com/about-us/ Andreassen, Dag. “The world's first spray can?” Teknismuseum. Nov. 6, 2024. https://www.tekniskmuseum.no/en/stories/spray-can “Atomizer.” Smithsonian National Museum of American History. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_721925 Baisya, Pramila. “A Brief History of Spray Paint.” UP Magazine. https://upmag.com/a-brief-history-of-spray-paint/ Bancroft, Hubert Howe. “The book of the fair; an historical and descriptive presentation of the world's science, art, and industry, as viewed through the Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893.” The Bancroft Co. 1893. https://archive.org/details/bookfair1banca/page/68/mode/2up Bellis, Mary. "The History of Aerosol Spray Cans." ThoughtCo, May. 11, 2025, thoughtco.com/history-of-aerosol-spray-cans-1991231 “Boss of the Year Secretary Speaker in Sycamore.” The Sycamore Tribune. April 29, 1960. https://www.newspapers.com/image/898198730/?match=1&terms=Edward%20H.%20Seymour “Definitions of “Aerosol Product” and Related Terms in Various Federal and State Regulations, Standards and Codes.” National Institute od Standards and Technology. February 2012. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/wmd/Definitions-of-Aerosol-Product.pdf “DeVilbiss Atomizers.” Wood Library Museum of Anesthesiology. https://www.woodlibrarymuseum.org/museum/devilbiss-atomizers/ “Francis Davis Millet and Millet family papers, 1858-1984, bulk 1858-1955.” Smithsonian. https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/francis-davis-millet-and-millet-family-papers-9048/biographical-note Greenbaum, Hillary and Dana Rubinstein. “The Origin of Spray Paint.” New York Times magazine. Nov. 4, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/who-made-spray-paint.html Haberkorn, Stephen. “Seymour of Sycamore: Aerosol Paint Inventor Still Mass Producing.” The Daily Chronicle. May 31, 2014. https://www.newspapers.com/image/183344909/?match=1&terms=%22Nancy%20Seymour%20Heatley%22 Linden, Chris. “The 1893 Columbian Exposition: Remembering Chicago’s White City.” Northwest Quarterly. Dec. 10, 2012. https://northwestchicagoland.northwestquarterly.com/2012/12/10/the-1893-columbian-exposition-remembering-chicagos-white-city/ “Oslo, Home of the Spray Can.” Oslo Science Park. Sept. 24, 2024. https://www.forskningsparken.no/en/news/2024-oslo-home-of-the-spray-can “A Patent on a Rattle in a Can.” The Lemont Herald. May 22, 1952. https://www.newspapers.com/image/700713398/?match=1&terms=%22Edward%20H.%20Seymour%22 Rotheim, Erik. “METHOD AND MEANS FOR THE ATOMIZING OR IDISTRIBUTION OF LIQUID OR SEMI-LIQUID MATERIALS.” United States Patent Office. April 7, 1931. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f5/fb/c3/05208e6542c01c/US1800156.pdf Seymour, E.H. “HERMETICALLY SEALED PACKAGE FOR MIXING AND DISCHARGING ” Dec. 25, 1951. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c0/4b/45/2677a2b12e2430/US2580132.pdf “Seymour Man Develops New Spray Device.” The Daily Chronicle. May 27, 1952. https://www.newspapers.com/image/126585367/?match=1&terms=%22Edward%20H.%20Seymour%22 “Summary of the Clean Air Act.” EPA. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson interview Prof. Keith Hylton, William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor and Professor of Law at Boston University. Prof. Hylton shares insights from his academic career and the book Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas, which he co-authored. The discussion explores how Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith helped shape the legal framework for property rights and the free market in the U.S., and how these ideas are central to understanding our modern economy. Prof. Hylton explains the constitutional foundations of American intellectual property (IP) law, Thomas Jefferson's role in establishing the U.S. Patent Office, and how historic inventors like Thomas Edison exemplify American experimentation, innovation, and economic dynamism.  He also covers trade secrets, copyright law, and the tension between protecting inventors' individual patent rights and today's calls for free access to copyrighted online content. Hylton addresses global challenges, including cyber theft and piracy, and reflects on key legal cases that define international IP enforcement. Prof. Hylton also shares three major takeaways he hopes high school and undergraduate students will understand about the importance of intellectual property rights in sustaining American rule of law, innovation, and economic growth. He concludes with a reading from his book, Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas.

Jade, the co-founder and CEO of Dr. Glitter, tell us about her innovative nutrient crystals, a unique product format that combines the fun of edible glitter with iron and gut health supplements. The discussion covers the challenges of modern diets, the importance of iron, fiber, and probiotics, and the need for educating consumers about nutrition. Jade shares insights on the patenting process, the strategic move into the US market, and their retail collaboration with Urban Outfitters which is helping them get in front of Gen Z consumers. The conversation concludes with Jade's vision for a better world through empowering healthy living and the importance of thinking bigger as an entrepreneur.Takeaways:Dr. Glitter's Nutrient Crystals are a novel supplement format.The idea originated from a desire to make nutrition fun and appealing.Modern diets often lack essential nutrients, making supplements necessary.Iron is the #1 deficiency in the world, and is a significant global issue, especially among women.1 stick of Dr. Glitter is equivalent to the iron in 4 ounces of beef.Probiotics are crucial for gut health, but many struggle to consume them regularly.Consumer education takes time but is vital for driving consumer trial and retention.The patenting process is complex but essential for protecting innovations.Urban Outfitters provides a unique retail opportunity for Dr. Glitter.A better world means empowering people to live healthier and happier lives.Sound bites:“We are definitely the world's first. Patent Office has confirmed that.”"Whole foods are not enough [referring to declining nutrition content].”“We like to celebrate whole foods and make nutrition fun.”“The best advice I've been given is to not rush into retail.”“It's important to scale things that work and not scale any things that are not quite right yet.”“I think people should just think bigger, think longer term, be more patient, and the world would be a better place.”“We finally launched and then to our surprise, we went viral in the US. SnackShot picked us up and then three retailers reached out.”Links:Cynthia Duran on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadediep/DrGlitter - https://drglitter.com/DrGlitter on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/drglitter/DrGlitter on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/drglitterhealth/DrGlitter on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/drglitterhealthDrGlitter on TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@drglitter…Brands for a Better World Episode Archive - http://brandsforabetterworld.com/Brands for a Better World on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/brand-for-a-better-world/Modern Species - https://modernspecies.com/Modern Species on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/modern-species/Gage Mitchell on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/gagemitchell/…Print Magazine Design Podcasts - https://www.printmag.com/categories/printcast/…Heritage Radio Network - https://heritageradionetwork.org/Heritage Radio Network on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/heritage-radio-network/posts/Heritage Radio Network on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeritageRadioNetworkHeritage Radio Network on X - https://x.com/Heritage_RadioHeritage Radio Network on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/heritage_radio/Heritage Radio Network on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@heritage_radioChapters:03:00 Introduction to Dr. Glitter and Nutrient Crystals06:02 The Inspiration Behind Nutrient Crystals08:53 The Importance of Whole Foods and Nutrition11:44 Targeting Nutritional Deficiencies: Iron and Probiotics14:53 The Unique Manufacturing Process and Patent17:48 Education on Nutrient Absorption and Probiotic Effectiveness20:55 Addressing Sugar and Sweetener Concerns23:34 Market Trends and the Role of GLP-1 in Nutrition27:34 The Importance of Unflavored Supplements28:44 Patenting and Intellectual Property Strategy34:28 Navigating the Challenges of Patenting37:59 Expanding into the US Market42:55 Strategic Partnerships with Urban Outfitters47:18 Retail vs. Online Adoption50:46 Consumer Education and Retention Strategies54:40 Advice for Entrepreneurs56:59 Personal Touch: Favorite Ways to Use the Product60:07 Vision for a Better WorldSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this Denatured discussion, the conversation revolves around unpacking the patent policy changes that could make or break biotech companies. Guests Aaron Cummings and Anne Li of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck highlight critical issues posed by the Patent Office including recent changes to the Inter Partes Review (IPR) such as discretionary denial and a proposed patent property tax.Cummings and Li also discuss how biopharma can work with the administration as changes are being proposed and evaluated and stress the importance of individual advocacy and engagement.Host⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lori Ellis⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, Head of Insights, BioSpaceGuestsAaron CummingsAnne Elise Herold Li, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber SchreckDisclaimer: The views expressed in this discussion by guests are their own and do not represent those of their organizations.

How do you patent health tech inventions in today's challenging IP landscape, especially when AI is reshaping the game? We explore the complex world of patenting health technology inventions with Ryan Phelan, U.S. Patent Attorney and Partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP. Health tech innovations, from AI-powered diagnostic tools to surgical robotics, often face unique patent hurdles. This is especially true under the U.S. Patent Office's evolving guidelines.  What you'll learn: Why many health tech patents get rejected as "organizing human activity" Proven strategies and workarounds to successfully patent healthcare IT and software-driven medical devices The explosive growth of AI patents in healthcare and what it means for innovators  Tips for healthcare startups and executives to protect their breakthroughs and intellectual property If you're working in healthcare innovation, med tech, medical device development, AI in health, or intellectual property law, this episode offers essential insights to help you safeguard your inventions. Find Ryan's work at: www.marshallip.com Subscribe and stay at the forefront of the digital healthcare revolution. Watch the full video on YouTube @TheDigitalHealthcareExperience The Digital Healthcare Experience is a hub to connect healthcare leaders and tech enthusiasts. Powered by Taylor Healthcare, this podcast is your gateway to the latest trends and breakthroughs in digital health. Learn more at taylor.com/digital-healthcare About Us: Taylor Healthcare empowers healthcare organizations to thrive in the digital world. Our technology streamlines critical workflows such as procedural & surgical informed consent with patented mobile signature capture, ransomware downtime mitigation, patient engagement and more. For more information, please visit imedhealth.com   The Digital Healthcare Experience Podcast: Powered by Taylor Healthcare Produced by Naomi Schwimmer  Hosted by Chris Civitarese Edited by Eli Banks Music by Nicholas Bach  

Curated clips of live broadcasts from popular radio shows of the day. History through the eyes of people as they lived it, reported by radio. In today's SoundScape: Royalty are just regular folks! Jack Benny with the Hollywood Gossip! The Patent Office is Your Friend! Frank Morgan talks Wizard of Oz and World Fairs! A … Continue reading When Radio Ruled #130-SoundScape 1939 part 11

Can AI be an inventor? The short answer is no—but the full story is more complex. In this episode, I break down the latest Patent Office guidance on AI-assisted inventions and what it means for inventorship. Learn when using AI still qualifies you for a patent, where the legal grey areas lie, and what to watch out for in your filings. If you're innovating with AI, this is one episode you can't afford to miss!   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 161 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's guest is António Campinos, who is the president of the European Patent Office. We talk about the Draghi report, patent quality, the Unified Patent Court, AI, validation in non-European countries and many […]

SummaryIn this episode, the hosts discuss the different types of rejections that can be issued by the Patent Office when filing a patent application. They focus on 102 rejections, which are based on prior art, and 103 rejections, which are based on obviousness. They explain the timing of responding to rejections and the options for overcoming them, including amending the claims and making arguments based on the prior art. They also highlight the importance of carefully considering the prosecution history and avoiding creating a messy trail. Overall, they provide a helpful overview of the process of responding to rejections. The content of this podcast should not be interpreted as legal advice. All thoughts and opinions expressed herein are only those from which they came.TakeawaysThe Patent Office can issue various rejections when filing a patent application.102 rejections are based on prior art, while 103 rejections are based on obviousness.When responding to rejections, it is important to carefully review the references cited and consider amending the claims.Arguments based on the prior art should be supported by evidence and should be carefully considered to avoid creating a messy prosecution history.The timing of responding to rejections is typically three months, with the possibility of extensions.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Overview03:20 Types of Rejections10:50 Timing of Responding to Rejections15:04 Responding to 102 Rejections29:27 Avoiding a Messy Prosecution History35:06 Conclusion

This Day in Legal History: Bell and Gray File PatentsOn February 14, 1876, both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed patent applications for the invention of the telephone, setting off one of the most famous legal battles in U.S. history. Bell's lawyer submitted his paperwork to the U.S. Patent Office just hours before Gray's, leading to a dispute over who truly invented the device. Gray's filing was a "caveat," an intention to patent, while Bell's was a full application, giving him a legal advantage. When the patent was granted to Bell on March 7, 1876, Gray challenged it, arguing that Bell had improperly incorporated elements of Gray's liquid transmitter design.The controversy led to numerous lawsuits, with Gray and others accusing Bell of fraud and claiming he had seen Gray's filing before finalizing his own. Despite these challenges, the courts consistently ruled in Bell's favor, affirming his rights to the telephone patent. This legal victory gave Bell's company, later known as AT&T, control over the rapidly growing telephone industry. The case highlighted issues of patent timing, intellectual property rights, and legal strategy in technological innovation.The Bell-Gray dispute remains a landmark moment in patent law, demonstrating how the slightest timing difference can determine the outcome of major technological advancements. It also underscored the competitive nature of the late 19th-century invention boom, where multiple inventors often worked on similar ideas simultaneously.Democratic attorneys general from 16 states issued guidance defending diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) programs against recent executive orders from former President Trump. Led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, they argued that DEI initiatives remain legal under existing anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Trump administration's orders call for eliminating DEI efforts from federal agencies and scrutinizing private-sector programs, conflating lawful diversity policies with illegal hiring preferences, the AGs said.Major corporations like Google and Amazon have adjusted or rebranded their DEI initiatives in response to legal uncertainty. The guidance clarifies that policies promoting workplace diversity—such as broad recruitment efforts and impact assessments—are legally distinct from unlawful hiring preferences. Courts have long upheld employers' ability to consider the effects of their policies on different groups to prevent discrimination claims.Meanwhile, Republican AGs, including Missouri's Andrew Bailey, are pushing businesses to abandon DEI programs. Bailey recently sued Starbucks, accusing the company of violating civil rights laws through its DEI initiatives. The conflicting state-level actions highlight the growing legal and political battle over corporate diversity policies.Democratic AGs Defend DEI Against ‘Misleading' Trump DirectivesTwo federal judges will decide whether Elon Musk's government cost-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), can access sensitive U.S. government systems. Since his appointment by President Trump last month, Musk has led efforts to eliminate wasteful spending, but critics argue his team lacks legal authority to handle Treasury payment systems and sensitive agency data.Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan will consider a request from Democratic attorneys general to extend a temporary block preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury systems that process trillions in payments. The states argue Musk's team could misuse personal data and disrupt funding for health clinics, preschools, and climate programs.In Washington, Judge John Bates will review a separate request from unions seeking to prevent DOGE from accessing records at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Bates previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration but will now reconsider after the unions amended their lawsuit.Democratic AGs have also filed a separate lawsuit claiming Musk's appointment is unconstitutional and seeking to block him from making personnel decisions or canceling contracts. While courts have blocked several of Trump's initiatives, his administration has continued firing government workers and cutting foreign aid, mostly targeting programs opposed by conservatives.Musk's DOGE team: Judges to consider barring it from US government systems | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for hundreds of foreign aid contractors affected by a 90-day funding freeze. The ruling temporarily blocks the administration from canceling foreign aid contracts and grants that were in place before Trump took office on January 20.  The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by two health organizations that rely on U.S. funding for overseas programs. The Trump administration had halted all foreign aid payments, claiming the pause was necessary to review program efficiency and alignment with policy priorities. However, Judge Amir Ali ruled that the government had not provided a rational justification for the sweeping suspension, which disrupted agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations worldwide.  Trump has also ordered federal agencies to prepare for major job cuts, leading to layoffs among government workers without full job protections. His administration has already removed or sidelined hundreds of civil servants and top officials, part of a broader effort to reshape the federal workforce and consolidate power among political allies.Judge orders US to restore funds for foreign aid programs | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the release of Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein, three days after he was jailed for allegedly violating pretrial release conditions in a tax fraud case. Goldstein, a prominent appellate lawyer and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, was indicted last month on 22 counts of tax evasion related to his high-stakes poker winnings and alleged misuse of law firm funds to cover debts.Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan ruled that there was insufficient evidence to keep Goldstein incarcerated for allegedly concealing cryptocurrency transactions. However, the judge imposed new restrictions, including monitoring his internet use and prohibiting cryptocurrency transfers.Prosecutors claimed Goldstein secretly moved millions in crypto after his initial release, prompting his second arrest. Goldstein argued the transactions occurred in 2023 and that he did not own the accounts in question. While the judge found Goldstein's evidence created enough doubt to justify his release, he also suggested Goldstein may still have access to hidden funds that could enable him to flee. Goldstein has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team maintains the government's case lacks proof.Supreme Court veteran Goldstein wins release again in tax crimes case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) was a visionary composer and conductor whose symphonies bridged the late Romantic and early modern eras. Known for his deeply personal and expansive works, Mahler infused his music with themes of life, death, and transcendence. His Symphony No. 2, often called the Resurrection Symphony, is one of his most ambitious compositions, blending massive orchestral forces with choral elements to explore the journey from despair to spiritual renewal.The symphony's fifth and final movement, Im Tempo des Scherzo – Aufersteh'n, is a dramatic culmination of the work's themes. It begins in chaos, with the orchestra depicting the terror of the apocalypse, before gradually moving toward light and resolution. The music builds in intensity until the choir enters softly, singing the text of Friedrich Klopstock's Resurrection Ode, which speaks of rising again after death. Mahler expands on these words, adding his own lines about redemption and eternal life.The movement swells to one of the most powerful climaxes in symphonic history, with soaring brass, thunderous percussion, and a triumphant chorus proclaiming victory over death. The final moments are a breathtaking ascent, as the music dissolves into radiant serenity. This movement is more than just a finale; it is an emotional and philosophical journey, offering a sense of transcendence that has resonated with audiences for over a century.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2, the fifth and final movement – Im Tempo des Scherzo.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

SummaryIn this episode, Samar and Jamie discuss various resources for independent inventors. They highlight the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website as a top resource, which provides information on patent basics, patent scams, and free services offered by the Patent Office. They also mention the Inventor Assistance Center and the Pro Bono Program, which are available through the USPTO. Other resources discussed include search tools like patents.google.com, PQ AI, Pantzilla, WIPO, and the European Patent Office. They also mention local inventor groups and inventor clubs, law schools and nonprofits that help inventors, and the book 'One Simple Idea' by Stephen Key as a great resource for patent licensing.TakeawaysThe USPTO website is a valuable resource for independent inventors. It provides information on patent basics, scams, and free services.Search tools like patents.google.com, PQ AI, Pantzilla, WIPO, and the European Patent Office can help with patent searches.Local inventor groups and clubs offer a supportive community and access to experienced inventors.Law schools and nonprofits can provide pro bono assistance to inventors.The book 'One Simple Idea' by Stephen Key is recommended for those interested in patent licensing.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Purpose of the Episode01:24 Top Resources for Independent Inventors05:37 Useful Patent Search Tools10:21 Joining Inventor Groups and Clubs13:39 Pro Bono Assistance from Law Schools and Nonprofits15:07 Recommended Book for Patent LicensingResourceshttps://www.uspto.gov/https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resourceshttps://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-patentshttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-programhttps://patents.google.com/https://projectpq.ai/https://docs.ip-tools.org/patzilla/https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenethttps://inventleader.org/inventor-groups/https://inventright.com/books/one-simple-idea/

The shoes you're wearing today likely were made possible by an invention from the late 19th century. But the inventor of that machine, who had little to no formal education, didn't really get to enjoy the fruits of his labor. Research: ·     “29c Jan E. Matzeliger single.” Smithsonian National Postal Museum. https://postalmuseum.si.edu/object/npm_1993.2015.160 ·     Biography.com Editors. “Jan Matzeliger Biography.” Biography.com. June 24, 2020. https://www.biography.com/inventors/jan-matzeliger ·     Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Jan Ernst Matzeliger". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Sep. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Ernst-Matzeliger. ·     “Brockton lasters Strike.” The Daily Item. August 8, 1887. https://www.newspapers.com/image/945617821/?match=1&terms=lasters%20strike ·     Curry, Sheree R. “Jan Ernst Matzeliger Made Modern Footwear Accessible.” USA Today. Feb. 17, 2023. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2023/02/17/jan-ernst-matzeliger-black-shoe-inventor/11154017002/ ·     “Death of Earnest Matzeliger.” The Daily Item. Aug. 26, 1889. https://www.newspapers.com/image/945605665/?match=1&terms=Matzeliger ·     “Jan Ernst Matzeliger.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/jan-ernst-matzeliger ·     “Jan Matzlieger ‘Lasting Machine.'” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/jan-matzlieger ·     Kaplan, Sydney. “JAN EARNST MATZELIGER AND THE MAKING OF THE SHOE.” Journal of Negro History. Volume 40, Number 1. January 1955. https://doi.org/10.2307/2715446 ·     Matzeliger, J.E. “Lasting Machine.” U.S. Patent Office. March 20, 1883. https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/0274207 ·     “Matzeliger's Invention Changed the World.” The Daily Item. Aug. 10, 1999. https://www.newspapers.com/image/948726215/?match=1&terms=Matzeliger ·     Morgan, Stuart. “The birth of the lasting machine.” Satra. https://www.satra.com/bulletin/article.php?id=2501 ·     Smeulders, V.  (2017, May 31). Matzeliger, Jan Ernst. Oxford African American Studies Center. Retrieved 25 Nov. 2024, from https://oxfordaasc.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.001.0001/acref-9780195301731-e-74508 ·     Thompson, Ross. “The Path to Mechanized Shoe Production in the United States.” University of North Carolina Press. 2001.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Patent Office is raising its fees for patents starting on January 19, 2025! To figure out what you actually need to pay for various things can be quite confusing as there are 471 lines of fees that you could potentially owe. I go over some of the main ones that you'll encounter. I think you'll agree that this is probably the most exciting episode of "Patenting for Inventors"!   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93    

Noah Healy, the founder of Coordisc, has developed a revolutionary market system called the Coordinated Discovery Market (CDM), designed to make economic transactions more efficient and transparent. The CDM separates traditional market roles—producers, consumers, and negotiators—into distinct categories, streamlining processes and reducing waste while still achieving the same outcomes as conventional markets. Healy's work aims to address the inefficiencies of outdated market systems that have dominated for centuries, offering a more adaptable and equitable alternative to global economic exchange. However, Healy's groundbreaking invention faces significant legal challenges. His patent for the CDM has been tied up in a lengthy and contentious approval process, with multiple disputes and rejections from the U.S. Patent Office. Despite presenting new mathematical proofs that could redefine patent law, Healy's application remains under dispute, threatening to stall the broader impact of his innovative market model. His case is not only about protecting intellectual property but also about reshaping the future of economic systems in a way that benefits individuals, not just large financial institutions. To support Healy's fight for a fair patent process and help bring his innovative market system to life, you can take action today. By signing the petition, you can show your support for a new economic future—one that values efficiency, fairness, and transparency over outdated systems of control. Your voice can make a difference in helping Healy secure the intellectual property rights necessary to revolutionize global markets for the benefit of all. We're happy you're here! Like the pod? Visit our website! Start your trial on Simplified. Schedule a consult, get on the mailing list, and learn more about my favorite tools and programs via https://www.yourbrandamplified.com

It's no secret that I've had some trademark issues. When you build a business, you're bound to be touched by trademarks in some way. You could file for your own trademark, or someone could be infringing on yours or you could be trying to be preventative. There are a lot of areas.  One that is particularly unnerving is getting a notice from an attorney or, even worse, the United States Trademark and Patent Office that you're infringing on someone else's trademark or that your trademark is in jeopardy. Everyone can guess the reaction letters like that would cause. Pure panic to anyone who receives it. Do you know who knows that best? Scammers. I know this because I just almost got trademark scammed.  In this episode, I'm sharing what trademark scam I was targeted with, what I did, the most common types of trademark scams, and how to keep yourself protected. Show notes: https://milmo.co/podcast/trademark-scam

What is a patent post-grant supplemental reexamination? Once your patent has been issued, sometimes you might want to have the Patent Office take a second a look to see if it really should have been issued in the first place. Why would you want to do this? One reason is that it can make invalidating your patent harder to do by others, and second, you can avoid the dreaded "Fraud on the Patent Office." Listen to the episide to find out more!   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93

Chaotic Change: Embracing Chaos to Drive Innovation and Growth by Nicholas Webb ABOUT THE BOOK: Chaotic Change is designed to be a comprehensive guide for leaders, innovators, and change-makers navigating the complexities of the modern business landscape.  Through personal anecdotes, case studies, and practical strategies, this book provides a roadmap for managing chaotic change—a process that drives and sustains innovation.  From grasping the dynamics of strategic excellence to fostering a culture of happiness and clarity within organizations, each section builds on the next, offering a holistic approach to change management.  Get started on this journey, equipped with the knowledge, tools, and mindset to thrive amidst chaotic change. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Nicholas Webb is a best-selling author, a keynote speaker on innovation, healthcare, future trends, and customer experience, and the CEO of LeaderLogic a management consulting firm that works with some of the top brands in the world.   Nicholas began his career as a technologist creating award-winning innovations in healthcare, consumer, and industrial technologies. He has been awarded over 40 Patents by the U.S. Patent Office for various technologies.  Nick's books include What Customers Crave: How to Create Relevant and Memorable Experiences at Every Touchpoint, The Innovation Mandate: The Growth Secrets of the Best Organizations in the World, What Customers Hate: Drive Fast and Scalable Growth by Eliminating the Things that Drive Business Away, and Happy Work: How To Create A Culture Of Happiness, all of which have been featured on The Marketing Book Podcast.   Nick is also the Producer and Host of the Award-winning Documentary Film, “The Healthcare Cure”, which was released in 2021 and won the Sedona International Film Festival's “Audience Choice Award” for Most Impactful Film. And, interesting fact – Nick Webb and the host of The Marketing Book Podcast are both extremely proud parents of paramedics! Click here for this episode's website page with the links mentioned during the interview... https://www.salesartillery.com/marketing-book-podcast/chaotic-change-nick-webb

Milton Bradley shaped not only the way people in the U.S. and around the globe play, but also how many kids in the U.S. were educated in their youngest years. Research: Adams, David Wallace, and Victor Edmonds. “Making Your Move: The Educational Significance of the American Board Game, 1832 to 1904.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, 1977, pp. 359–83. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/367865 Bradley, M. “Game Board. U.S. Patent Office. April 3, 1866. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/21/56/40/6993536471b841/US53561.pdf “Bradley's Mechanical and Mathematical Institute … “ The Berkshire County Eagle. July 23, 1858. https://www.newspapers.com/image/532891626/?terms=%22milton%20bradley%22%20&match=1 “The Cars for Egypt.” Vermont Press. March 13, 1858. https://www.newspapers.com/image/547100306/?terms=%22milton%20bradley%22%20&match=1 “The Checkered Game of Life.” Hasbro. https://www.hasbro.com/common/documents/5b96f7161d3711ddbd0b0800200c9a66/858C69C319B9F3691003C63AB0E8078A.pdf “The Game of Life: A 2010 National Toy Hall of Fame Inductee.” The Strong National Museum of Play. https://www.museumofplay.org/blog/the-game-of-life-a-2010-national-toy-hall-of-fame-inductee/ Hastings, C.C. “Paper Cutter.” U.S. Patent Office. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/07/48/11/e31cbdcbdc7c2c/US1123190.pdf Lepore, Jill. “The Meaning of Life.” The New Yorker. May 14, 2007. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/21/the-meaning-of-life “Milton Bradley.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/milton-bradley Shea, James J. and Charles E. Mercer. “It's All in the Game.” New York. Putnam. 1960. Shea, James J., Jr. “The Milton Bradley Story.” New York, Newcomen Society in North America. 1973. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/miltonbradleysto0000shea/page/n31/mode/2up “WHISKERS FOR VOTES, OR WHY ABRAHAM LINCOLN GREW A BEARD.” Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites. August 31, 2021. https://www.indianamuseum.org/blog-post/whiskers-for-votes-or-why-abraham-lincoln-grew-a-beard/#:~:text=Silly%20affection%20or%20not%2C%20later,trip%20prior%20to%20his%20inauguration See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Margaret E. Knight was an ingenious woman. She started tinkering with things when she was still just a tiny child, and the first invention that really improved the lives of those around her came about at the age of 12.  Research: “A Lady in a Machine Shop.” Woman's Journal, December 21, 1872. Accessed online: https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:48852547$409i Bedi, Joyce. “Margaret Knight.” Lemelson Center, Smithsonian. March 22, 2021. https://invention.si.edu/node/28532/p/609-margaret-knight Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Margaret E. Knight". Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-E-Knight “Gained Fame as Inventor.” The Boston Globe. Oct. 13, 1914. https://www.newspapers.com/image/430883835/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 “The Inspiring Story of Margaret E. Knight.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/blog/inventors/margaret-e-knight-paper-pag Knight, M.E. “Clasp.” U.S. Patent Office. Oct. 14, 1884. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1d/93/e6/029e560778fcd4/US306692.pdf Knight, Margaret E. “Bag Machine.” U.S. Patent Office. July 11, 1871. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8b/67/0a/1fa1f5f32874bc/US116842.pdf Knight, M.E. “Improvement in Paper Bag Machine.” U.S. Patent Office. Oct. 28, 1879. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bb/4b/1a/218335d174188c/US220925.pdf Knight, M.E. “Rotary Engine.” U.S. Patent Office. January 6, 1903. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/9a/87/cea123cb8ba55a/US717869.pdf Knight, M.E. “Skirt Protector.” U.S. Patent Office. Aug. 7, 1883. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3a/cc/e8/cf6943b96a868f/US282646.pdf Knight, Margaret E. “Sole Cutting Machine.” U.S Patent Office. Sept. 16, 1890. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/19/16/34/0c57840da89f4c/US436358.pdf “Margaret E. Knight, ‘Woman Edison,' Dead.” The Sun. Oct. 15, 1914. https://www.newspapers.com/image/145292345/?clipping_id=31861882 “Patent Model for Paper Bag Machine.” Smithsonian – National Museum of American History. https://www.si.edu/object/patent-model-paper-bag-machine%3Anmah_214303 “Patented By Women.” Pittsburgh Dispatch. April 10, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image/76571393/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 PETROSKI, HENRY. “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.” The American Scholar, vol. 72, no. 4, 2003, pp. 99–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41221195 Sisson, Mary, and Doris Simonis, ed. “Inventors and Inventions.” Marshall Cavendish. 2007. Smith, Ryan P. “Meet the Female Inventor Behind Mass-Market Paper Bags.” Smithsonian. March 15, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/meet-female-inventor-behind-mass-market-paper-bags-180968469/ “The Ames Manufacturing Company … “ Boston Evening Transcript. Oct. 17, 1873. https://www.newspapers.com/image/734890555/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 “Women As Inventors.” The Philadelphia Times. April 10, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image/52506300/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 “Women Who Are Inventors.” New York Times. October 19, 1913. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1913/10/19/100654443.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. produces more crude oil than any other country, but the number of active oil rigs has fallen by nearly 70% since 2014, the Energy Information Administration reports. How can that be? The answer is a combination of innovation and financial pressure. Plus, the non-alcoholic beverage market booms, the U.S. Patent Office decides AI can’t be credited as an inventor and household debt burdens are on the rise.