Podcasts about ptab

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Troutman Pepper Locke Partner Andy Zappia is joined by Counsels Nick Gallo and Bryan Smith to explore recent shifts in discretionary denial practice at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). They discuss the implications of these changes for patent owners and petitioners, highlighting strategies for navigating the increased unpredictability in discretionary denial practice. The episode also discusses the PTAB's increasing focus on workload challenges and how that is impacting post-grant procedures.

PTO 'whistleblower' Julie Burke and patent prosecution guru Clint Mehall join Eli on the season finale of Clause 8 to break down what's happening at the USPTO—and what's still left to be done.On this episode, they discuss: *Insights from the Reddit r/patentexaminer thread*Previous and current plans to reduce the record patent application backlog*Should the USPTO withdraw patent eligibility example 47 for AI? *Previous administration's decision to end AFCP program and ideas for variation of AFCP program to help reduce the backlog*Misguided priorities and personnel decisions during last administration *Improving morale and performance of examiners *Adjusting credit system & improving culture to help examiners identify allowable subject matter *Choice of Valencia Wallace Smith as Acting Commissioner for Patents *USPTO's decision to deprioritize examination of continuation patent applications *USPTO rescinding memorandum for discretionary denials at PTAB and Director taking over handling of the requests for discretionary denials *Aligning post-grant proceedings at PTAB with mission of USPTO*Suggestions about switching to a registration system for patents that does not require examination And, much more! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

How do patents influence emerging technology innovation? How far could AI and DOGE push our current IP regime? Does it matter that China issues way more patents than the US does? To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed ​​Andrei Iancu, who served as the director of the US Patent Office under the first Trump administration. Andrei has degrees in aerospace and mechanical engineering, and worked at the legendary Hughes Aircraft Company before going to law school. He is currently in private practice at Sullivan and Cromwell. Co-hosting today is ChinaTalk editor and second year law student at Duke, Nicholas Welch. We get into… The mounting evidence that China's patent system now dominates America's, and whether these indicators constitute an emergency in the innovation ecosystem, Why some US companies now prefer Chinese courts for patent enforcement, The fundamental tension between private rights of inventors and public access to innovations, What congressional inaction on patent eligibility means for AI innovation, and the bills that congress could pass to immediately jumpstart emerging tech investment, What the current administration could do to help USPTO juice the economy, Controversy surrounding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and whether DOGE could put PTAB on the chopping block, How Trump will approach patent law and intellectual property rights, including perspectives on appointments and potential reforms. Thanks to CSIS for partnering with us to bring you this episode, the first in a three-episode CSIS Chip Chat series. Outtro Music: Lil Green, I'm Going to Copyright Your Kisses (1941) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ye39JuJZ4k&ab_channel=LilGreen-Topic Nellie Hill, I'm Gunna Copyright Your Kisses (1951) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OcMdxpWas&ab_channel=krobigraubart Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do patents influence emerging technology innovation? How far could AI and DOGE push our current IP regime? Does it matter that China issues way more patents than the US does? To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed ​​Andrei Iancu, who served as the director of the US Patent Office under the first Trump administration. Andrei has degrees in aerospace and mechanical engineering, and worked at the legendary Hughes Aircraft Company before going to law school. He is currently in private practice at Sullivan and Cromwell. Co-hosting today is ChinaTalk editor and second year law student at Duke, Nicholas Welch. We get into… The mounting evidence that China's patent system now dominates America's, and whether these indicators constitute an emergency in the innovation ecosystem, Why some US companies now prefer Chinese courts for patent enforcement, The fundamental tension between private rights of inventors and public access to innovations, What congressional inaction on patent eligibility means for AI innovation, and the bills that congress could pass to immediately jumpstart emerging tech investment, What the current administration could do to help USPTO juice the economy, Controversy surrounding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and whether DOGE could put PTAB on the chopping block, How Trump will approach patent law and intellectual property rights, including perspectives on appointments and potential reforms. Thanks to CSIS for partnering with us to bring you this episode, the first in a three-episode CSIS Chip Chat series. Outtro Music: Lil Green, I'm Going to Copyright Your Kisses (1941) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ye39JuJZ4k&ab_channel=LilGreen-Topic Nellie Hill, I'm Gunna Copyright Your Kisses (1951) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OcMdxpWas&ab_channel=krobigraubart Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this special episode of Clause 8, Eli shares why Coke Morgan Stewart is the perfect person to lead the USPTO. Eli discusses why her selection excites him and the broader implications for the intellectual property field. Reflecting on past directorships and the challenges faced by the USPTO, Eli explores issues such as patent backlogs, Section 101 rejections, and PTAB policies. Highlighting Stewart's experiences and skills, Eli shares his optimism for positive changes under her leadership. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

This week's Clause 8 episode features Bridget Smith, Assistant General Counsel and Director, Intellectual Property at Relativity Space—the first company to successfully create and launch a 3D-printed rocket.

Please join our Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings.In this episode, Troutman Pepper attorneys Andy Zappia, Kim Coghill, and Bryan Smith discuss the new final rule issued for director review in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

In the high-stakes world of biosimilar development, manufacturers are increasingly turning to an unexpected partner: the Patent Trial and Appeal […] Source

In this episode, interventional cardiologist Dr. Peter Soukas joins us to discuss percutaneous transmural arterial bypass (PTAB) using the DETOUR system, a novel percutaneous treatment for extensive and complex blockages in the superficial femoral artery (SFA). --- CHECK OUT OUR SPONSOR Endologix https://endologix.com/ --- SYNPOSIS Dr. Soukas shares his extensive experience and insights into PTAB development, benefits, patient selection, and procedural details. The idea behind PTAB is to create an SFA-to-popliteal artery bypass through endovascular means, using a system of overlapping stent grafts within the femoral vein as a conduit. When planning the procedure, it is important to consider the location of reentry into the popliteal artery, avoid calcified zones, and meet femoral vein size criteria. Additionally, we explore the advantages of PTAB over other endovascular options and traditional open surgical bypass, which carry a higher likelihood of restenosis and longer recovery times, respectively. We also discuss the types of training and support available for physicians interested in adopting this technique, cost and reimbursement aspects, and the future direction of PTAB, including ongoing post-market studies. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 Introduction 02:38 Dr. Soukas' Career in Vascular Medicine 05:19 Introduction to PTAB 13:00 Landing Zones 19:37 Stent Graft Sizing 23:14 Patient Selection and Adjunctive Medical Therapy 28:04 Procedural Risks 29:18 Navigating PTAB Implementation 32:20 Opportunities for Learning PTAB --- RESOURCES PTAB with the DETOUR System: https://endologix.com/ptab/detour/ Brown Vascular and Endovascular Fellowship: https://brownmedicine.org/3/cardiology-vascular-endovascular-fellowship/ COMPASS Trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1709118 VOYAGER Trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2000052 DETOUR 2 Trial: https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(22)01274-5/fulltext

J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.  In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America's IP system.John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101 and the PTAB, what it will take for Section 101 legislation to pass, why broad consensus is necessary for IP legislation, what's driving the bitter disagreements over IP issues, and much more!  The episode was recorded at the end of last year.  If you know anyone else who might be interested to learn what changes might be in store for patent law or how the patent policy sausage is made in Washington, please share with others:Selected Timestamps| 0:04:52 | How John Lee became Chief Counsel for IP in the House of Representatives || 0:08:05 | John Lee's role as Chief Counsel for IP and his relationship with Issa and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan || 0:10:18 | John Lee's experience stepping into his role on the Hill || 0:12:13 | Making positive impressions on IP staffers in Congress || 0:16:04 | Trajectory of patent system over last 20 years || 0:24:52 | Proposal to exercise march-in rights under the Bay-Dole Act || 0:31:27 | Administration's failure to build consensus on - and widespread congressional opposition to - proposals to waive & seize IP rights|| 0:33:26 | Uncertainty and lack of administration policy on standard essential patents (SEPs)|| 0:38:08 | The need to protect US leadership in technology and innovation || 0:39:19 | Concerns about the state of Section 101 and the weaknesses of the patent system || 0:44:04 | How patent system creates an innovation engine by encouraging disclosure of innovations || 0:45:12 | Importance of consensus for significant changes in IP law || 0:49:54 | Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on IP, AI, and other related issues || 0:53:39 | Heated opposition in House on USPTO's ANPRM proposing changes for the PTAB || 0:57:12 | Optimism for patent bills and substantial progress in the House and Senate. || 1:02:28 | Possibility of introducing companion bills for Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)|| 1:05:13 | Pain points that might drive agreement on Section 101: third party litigation funding, discretionary denials at PTAB, and standard essential patents (SEPs) || 1:06:26 | Negative impact on Federal Circuit from suspension of Judge Pauline Newman || 1:07:57 | Role of lobbyists in development of IP policy | This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.  In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America's IP system. John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101 and the PTAB, what it will take for Section 101 legislation to pass, why broad consensus is necessary for IP legislation, what's driving the bitter disagreements over IP issues, and much more!  The episode was recorded at the end of last year.   You don't want to miss this episode if you want to learn what changes might be in store for patent law or how the patent policy sausage is made in Washington DC Selected Timestamps | 0:04:52 | How John Lee became Chief counsel for IP in the House of Representatives | | 0:08:05 | John Lee's role as chief counsel for IP and his relationship with Congressman Darrell Issa | | 0:10:18 | John Lee's experience stepping into his role on the Hill | | 0:12:13 | Making positive impressions on IP staffers in Congress | | 0:16:04 | Trajectory of patent system over last 20 years | | 0:24:52 | Proposal to exercise march-in rights under the Bay-Dole Act | | 0:31:27 | Administration's failure to build consensus on - and widespread congressional opposition to - proposals to waive & seize IP rights| | 0:33:26 | Uncertainty and lack of administration policy on standard essential patents (SEPs)| | 0:38:08 | The need to protect US leadership in technology and innovation | | 0:39:19 | Concerns about the state of Section 101 and the weaknesses of the patent system | | 0:44:04 | How patent system creates an innovation engine by encouraging disclosure of innovations | | 0:45:12 | Importance of consensus for significant changes in IP law | | 0:49:54 | Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on IP, AI, and other related issues | | 0:53:39 | Heated opposition in House on USPTO's ANPRM proposing changes for the PTAB | | 0:57:12 | Optimism for patent bills and substantial progress in the House and Senate. | | 1:02:28 | Possibility of introducing companion bills for Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)| | 1:05:13 | Pain points that might drive agreement on Section 101: third party litigation funding, discretionary denials at PTAB, and standard essential patents (SEPs) | || 1:06:26 | Negative impact on Federal Circuit from suspension of Judge Pauline Newman | | 1:07:44 | Cannot comment on the details of the issue involving Judge Pauline Newman. | | 1:07:57 | Role of lobbyists in development of IP policy |

Scott McKeown is a shareholder in Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice. Based in the firm's Washington, DC office, Scott focuses his practice on high-stakes matters before the US Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and related patent litigation matters. Recognized as one of the top PTAB trial attorneys in the US, Scott is also a frequent speaker and author on various intellectual property topics and his award-winning blog can be followed at PatentsPostGrant.com.In this edition of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Scott offers his insight on some of the biggest PTAB developments over the past year and things to watch in 2024. Here are the highlights.01:07 - Scott gives an overview of 2023 PTAB changes and explains how they have changed the practice03:32 - PTAB developments that Scott is monitoring this year05:41 - Scott offers some helpful tips for in-house counsel in light of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling 07:31 - Exciting times ahead for Wolf Greenfield's Washington, DC office###

Please join our Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings.In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partner Andy Zappia and Counsel Bryan Smith analyze the sanctions order made public on February 6 in the OpenSky v. VLSI IPR proceeding. They explore how sanctions work at the PTAB, the types of conduct that could expose a party to sanctions, and best practices to avoid them.

In this episode, we delve into the evolving landscape of legal technology, exploring the pivotal role of AI in revolutionizing legal marketing, the complex legal challenges surrounding generative AI, and the appointment of a legal tech veteran as the Chief Operating Officer of Leap Legal Software. We also unravel the growing concerns among in-house counsel regarding legal risks associated with AI and cybersecurity, and examine the profitability of the legal services sector. Furthermore, we explore the projections and insights into IP legislation, infrastructure, and the integration of new technology in the legal industry in 2024. Join us as we navigate through the dynamic intersection of law and technology, shedding light on the key developments shaping the legal tech landscape. FirmPilot Pioneers a New Era in Legal Marketing with AI19 Jan 2024LawyeristLegal Challenges Against Generative AI: Key Takeaways19 Jan 2024Bipartisan Policy CenterLEAP Legal Software Names Legal Tech Veteran Misti Holmes As Chief Operating Officer for the U.S.19 Jan 2024LawSitesWIRTW #701: the “conference” edition19 Jan 2024LexBlogLegal Tech Career Insights: Daniel Hayter, Axiom's managing director & VP for Europe19 Jan 2024Legal IT InsiderCorporate Counsel Sound the Alarm on AI and Cyber Risks, Norton Rose Fulbright Survey Finds19 Jan 2024LexBlogThe Most Profitable Industries Today19 Jan 2024Small Business TrendsIntellectual Property Protection: 13 Best Practices for Startups19 Jan 2024Legal ReaderWhat Software Is Used in a Law Firm?18 Jan 2024LexBlogWhat's ahead? 2024 predictions for the IP legal industry19 Jan 2024ClarivateAI Generated Case Summaries From AnyLaw? Yes, Please.18 Jan 2024LexBlogCourt grants AliveCor stay in patent battle with Apple as PTAB investigation goes on18 Jan 2024MassDeviceCrossing the Delaware River: Are Non-Competes in New York Executive Contracts and Equity Awards Enforceable?* New Laws and Court Decisions Muddy the Waters18 Jan 2024LexBlogCome See the Future of E-Discovery at LegalWeek New York Created on Jan 18, 2024 BY Tim Rollins18 Jan 2024ExterroTargeting Small and Medium Sized Businesses, OpenAI Announces New ChatGPT Team “Game Changer” Licensing Structure18 Jan 2024New Media and Technology Law BlogThe No AI FRAUD Act Recognizes IP in All Individuals18 Jan 2024GenAI-Lexology2024: The Year Of AI17 Jan 2024GenAI-LexologyA Triple Win: Optimizing Legal Matter Resourcing & Work Allocation for Everyone19 Jan 2024Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technology

2024 is upon us and it's going to be another busy year for intellectual property law. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, you'll hear Wolf Greenfield attorneys from a variety of practice areas offering their insights on what to expect in the months ahead. Here are some of the highlights.01:06 - Jeff Hsi commented on the impact the Amgen v. Sanofi decision may have on the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in 2024. 01:59 - Jonathan Roses with thoughts on the In re Cellect case. 03:11 - Following the Columbia Sportswear case, Jen Wang discusses the importance of choosing a good title in a design patent application.04:04 - John Harmon on artificial intelligence (AI) and the importance of filing patent applications in a timely manner.04:57 - In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the Jack Daniels case, John Strand's thoughts on the line between free expression under the First Amendment and trademark law.05:56 - John Welch previews the Vidal v. Elster trademark case to be decided by the Supreme Court in 2024.06:43 - Scott McKeown on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) much anticipated updated rules package.07:32 - Zach Piccolomini expects a great deal of focus on the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) and European unitary patent. 08:27 - Ed Russavage offers some thoughts on how President Biden's Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence may impact IP, including some patent and copyright issues. 09:24 - With a number of cases challenging the drug pricing scheme in the Inflation Reduction Act, Dan Young comments on the possible implications for a company's patent strategy.10:11 - Rob Sahr on the Biden Administration's Executive Order stating that “when new technologies and products are developed with support from the US Government, they will be manufactured in the United States whenever feasible and consistent with applicable law.” 11:32 - Libbie DiMarco says 2024 may see a rise in Section 337 non-patent claims before the ITC.###

Lionel Hutz, Editor of the Valorem Research Newsletter on Substack, joins the podcast today to discuss the Liquidia vs. UTHR hearing at the Federal Circuit that took place on Monday, December 4, 2023. Lionel's LQDA write up: https://www.valoremresearch.com/p/lqda-v-uthr-premium-update Chapters: [0:00] Introduction + Episode sponsor: Alphasense [1:35] What was the $LQDA hearing recently on Monday, December 4, 2023, and Lionel's initial thoughts on the hearing [6:16] Arguments UTHR was drilling down on [10:14] How Lionel thinks of the quality of UTHR's arguments [13:56] Judge performance and thoughts on their performance during the hearing [27:00] Question from Judge for LQDA about dissemination of abstracts / would we have this problem of dissemination if that conference was in 2023 vs 2004 [37:26] Next steps post-hearing: reversal or remanding, if remanding (sending back to the PTAB court) - what is the most likely issue, if reversal - what is the most likely reason [49:02] Odds on outcome of the $LQDA hearing Today's episode is sponsored by: Alphasense This episode is brought to you by AlphaSense, the AI platform behind the world's biggest investment decisions. The right financial intelligence platform can make or break your quarter. AlphaSense is the #1 rated financial research solution by G2. With AI search technology and a library of premium content, you can stay ahead of key macroeconomic trends and accelerate your investment research efforts. AI capabilities, like Smart Synonyms and Sentiment Analysis, provide even deeper industry and company analysis. AlphaSense gives you the tools you need to provide better analysis for you and your clients. As a Yet Another Value Podcast listener, visit alpha-sense.com/fs today to beat FOMO and move faster than the market.

In this episode, Harper Batts, partner in Sheppard Mullin Silicon Valley's Intellectual Property Group and co-leader of its Semiconductor Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the different forums for patent lawsuits, the complex nature of resolving semiconductor patent disputes, the timing to resolve the lawsuits and more.   What We Discussed in This Episode: What are the different venues to resolve patent disputes? What sort of timing is associated with the different forums? Why has there been an uptick in filing lawsuits in international venues? Besides money, what sort of damages or relief can parties get? What is the benefit of showing competitive harm? How do you best litigate these complex matters in front of a jury?   About Harper Batts Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group located in the firm's Silicon Valley office. He is also the leader of Sheppard Mullin's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and Semiconductor Industry Team. Harper has almost two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Harper has obtained institution on more than 90% of the IPRs he has filed – a number unmatched across the country. Numerous Fortune 500 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent disputes in venues across the country. He has been selected multiple times as a Top IP Attorney in California by the Daily Journal (including this year), and IAM Patent 1000 noted that Harper “performs adroitly in post-grant proceedings on both the patent owner and petitioner sides.” In 2022 and 2023, he obtained institution of numerous petitions for inter partes review, obtained numerous final written decisions finding all claims unpatentable, and obtained an exceptional case finding and an award of attorney's fees in the Central District of California in 2020. He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client. Harper is one of the leading attorneys for handling complex PTAB challenges across a variety of technologies. Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 80 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as related appeals. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Harper Batts Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Welcome to Season 2 of the On Intellectual Property Podcast! We welcome Judge Randall Rader and welcome back Jay Kesan for a conversation on all things patent. In this episode, Jeff Harty, Judge Randall Rader, and IP attorney and law professor Jay Kesan discuss: AIA, the PTAB, and PTAB Reform (the Prevail Act)Global patent trends and what it means for the U.S. innovation economyApportionment in patent damagesFrom E.D. of Texas to W.D. of Texas to Delaware: hot patent courtsEffective appellate advocacyKey Takeaways: Adequately protecting the technology of tomorrow requires looking beyond your own country's law. We cannot simply look to U.S. intellectual property law but must consider the global interplay in patent law. IP is about strategy. In a worldwide dispute, you want to be able to settle in the United States, even if you use leverage from other countries to give you the best strategy for your desired settlement. It is about more than just the cash value. There is also cost value and market value to be considered in apportionment. In appellate work, you are looking for a single, reversible error. You need to be able to discern the one error that should be corrected, why it is reversible, and then be clear and convincing on that point. “I feel like putting a model or submitting a model forces me to submit, essentially, an embodiment and example. And I would hate to be limited to the example or the model that I submit. Part of the beauty of the claims system is that you're drafting the claims to capture all those examples and models and so on. And I'd hate to be deprived of that by having a model submitted or basically lose that flexibility at the altar of definiteness or preciseness.” —Jay Kesan Connect with Judge Randall Rader: Bio: https://www.law.gwu.edu/randall-r-rader Website: https://www.theradergrouppllc.com/ Connect with Jay Kesan: Bio: https://jaykesan.com/about-me/ Website: https://jaykesan.com/ Email: jay@jaykesan.com Books: https://jaykesan.com/books/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayKesanP LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykesan/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCENwROk5ywajSVoJWUX9SBA/featured If you missed it, check out our first episode with Jay Kesan: The PTAB And The Impact Of Post-Issuance Invalidity Proceedings With Jay KesanConnect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

Patents, a dirty word in the 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing industries for hobbyists, but as you get closer to professional and industrial, they become a part of doing business. You can use a patent in a way that benefits a community as a whole or as a way to stifle competition and maintain market superiority. Let's talk about how patents can protect innovations and drive growth, particularly for small businesses transitioning from hobby to full-time ventures in the 'making' space. But there are some potential drawbacks, including limitations on creativity and the risk of stifling industry-wide innovation. Topics to cover: How patents were originally intended How patents are currently used How the PTAB has hurt small inventors How to use patents correctly Why patents are often used to hurt rather than help AND MORE!!! __________________________________ Do you have an idea you want to get off the ground? Reach out to the Making Awesome Podcast through https://3DMusketeers.com/podcast and someone will get you set up to be a guest!

In this episode, host Dr. Sabeen Dhand interviews vascular surgeon Dr. Sean Lyden about percutaneous transarterial bypass (PTAB) with DETOUR, a new therapy for treating occlusive / stenotic superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease. --- CHECK OUT OUR SPONSOR Endologix https://endologix.com/ --- SHOW NOTES Dr. Sean Lyden serves as the Chairman of Vascular Surgery at Cleveland Clinic. Sean starts off the discussion by conveying the severity of SFA chronic total occlusion (CTO) and walks us through what PTAB therapy is. We then cover the steps and general principles of using the DETOUR technology. Throughout the episode, Sean and Sabeen discuss the structure and key takeaways of both the DETOUR 1 and DETOUR 2 trials, held in Europe and the United States respectively. They also cover major questions, such as DVT and PE risk, patency of femoral vein following DETOUR intervention, and overall device cost. We conclude the episode with future directions of the now FDA-approved DETOUR device, and when and how vascular and interventional physicians can incorporate the new technology into their practice. Sean and Sabeen also contrast prior treatment options with the recent DETOUR trials to highlight how longer calcified / occluded SFA lesions now have a viable, effective, and safe endovascular treatment option. --- RESOURCES PTAB with DETOUR System: https://endologix.com/ptab/detour/ DETOUR 1 Trial: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29327570/ DETOUR 1 Trial, 1 year follow-up results: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32276015/ DETOUR 2 Trial, 12 month results: https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(22)01274-5/fulltext DETOUR 2 Trial, 24 month results from Vascular Annual Conference Presentation: https://www.dicardiology.com/content/endologix-announces-24-month-results-detour-2-study-2023-vascular-annual-meeting Voyager Trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2000052 Compass Trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1709118

Scott McKeown recently joined Wolf Greenfield's Washington, DC office as a shareholder in the Post-Grant Proceedings Practice.  Scott focuses his practice on high-stakes matters before the US Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and related patent litigation matters. He is recognized as one of the top PTAB trial attorneys in the US, having handled more than 400 PTAB matters since 2012, including those in which more than $500 million was at stake. In addition to his client work, Scott is a prolific blogger and publishes the award-winning PatentsPostGrant.com, where he shares his insight on PTAB matters, patent litigation, patent reissues, patent reexamination, proposed litigation, patent policy issues, and patent prosecution tidbits. He also teaches the course on post-grant patent practice at George Washington Law School in Washington, DC.Scott is also a frequent speaker and author on various intellectual property topics and has been recognized by leading legal publications, including Chambers USA, The Legal 500, Best Lawyers, IAM, and Managing IP.In this edition of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Scott shares his path from wanting to be a VCR repairman to becoming an attorney, details his practice, and explains what attracted him to Wolf Greenfield.01:09 - What led Scott to focus on post-grant patent issues03:48 - Details on Scott's practice and what led to his success06:14 - Scott's non-linear path to the law08:27 - The decision to join Wolf Greenfield10:47 - What Scott's looking forward to in his role12:22 - What readers can expect from Scott's blog13:52 - Hot topics and news items Scott is following

USPTO Director Kathi Vidal's decision to issue the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is the latest major controversy surrounding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  The American Invents Act (AIA) created the PTAB to supposedly provide a cheaper, faster alternative to district court patent litigation.  However, the PTAB quickly gained a reputation for being a patent “death squad” that allows defendants to repeatedly challenge the same patents until those patents are invalidated. During the last administration, former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu tried to correct that by limiting when patents could be challenged at the PTAB.  Because those changes never finished going through the federal government's rulemaking process, Vidal was able to quickly roll them back.  The ANPRM now presents a litany of its own proposals for fixing fix how the PTAB operates and heated opposition on all sides. Nicholas Matich joins Eli to talk about the ANPRM and what's likely to happen with its proposals.  Nick, who is now Principal at the patent litigation powerhouse McKool Smith, served as USPTO's general counsel under Iancu after working at the White House and as Deputy GC of the OMB.  This provides him with an unmatched understanding of how the rulemaking process actually works for proposals emanating from the USPTO.  Nick and Eli also discuss: What Nick learned from working with Viet Dinh and/or Paul Clement at Bancroft PLLC How the OMB reviews & approves agency rules Serving as USPTO's GC Advice for influencing USPTO's rules Iancu's Fintiv factors & how to explain swift reversal Why the ANPRM was a mistake Advice for future USPTO Directors  

The Director of the USPTO talks about patents and the things she's doing to support us independent inventors. We had inventors join us from all over the United States to get their questions answered on topics ranging from the usage of AI in examining patents to proposals for changes to PTAB. Here's what some of our audience members said: “Thank you!” — P.B. “Thank you! This has been very informative. Much appreciated!”— J. “Fantastic job!! Thank you” — G.E. “yes! so inspired right now” — J. “This platform is so informative.” — R.J. “Thank you! Great information.” — L.C. “Great information. Thank you!!!” — E. “Thank u” — W.S. “Director Vidal you are such a refreshing representation of our country and government! Thank you” — D. “A very interesting and helpful discussion, thank you very much.” — C. “Wow, thank you so much for all of this”. — W.H. “Thank you for your time!” — K. “Really appreciate your time to help us today, Kathi.” — P. “AWESOME! THANK YOU SO MUCH!” — J.M. “Thank you for taking the time to speak at the event” — K.S. “Thank you everyone. Great information” — G.E. “Vidal seems to be very capable” — G.F. Learn how to make money from your ideas. Free Resources to help you sell your ideas: https://inventright.com/free-inventor... Do you need help? https://inventright.com/services/ Stephen Key's books: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Stephen... Read our articles for Forbes, Inc., and Entrepreneur: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/ https://www.inc.com/author/stephen-key https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/s... Connect with us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenmkey/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/invent/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/inventrightllc Visit inventRight.com. Call: +1 (650) 793-1477 Hi, this is Stephen Key and Andrew Krauss. We are here to help you make money from your ideas. We started our company inventRight over two decades ago to teach people how to license (aka rent) their ideas to companies in exchange for royalties. This process is called “product licensing.” On our channel, we show you exactly how you to take an idea and license it to companies in exchange for passive income. Today, you do not have to start a business to make money from an idea. With product licensing, you don't have to write a business plan, raise money, manufacture, market, sell, or distribute any longer. Visit our website inventRight.com for more information. If you have a product idea and need some help, please contact us at: Phone: +1 (650) 793-1477 Toll Free: +1 (800) 701-7993 Email: support@inventright.com Email us: stephen@inventright.com andrew@inventright.com Stephen Key and Andrew Krauss are the cofounders of inventRight, a coaching program for entrepreneurs that has helped people from more than 65 countries license their ideas for new products. They are also the cofounders of Inventors Groups of America, an organization that hosts a free, popular monthly educational meeting for inventors online. They have more than 20 years of experience guiding people to become successful entrepreneurs. New videos every week, including interviews with successful entrepreneurs. Learn from the best! Pitch us your story to be featured on inventRightTV: youtube@inventright.com. Get your own inventing coach by contacting inventRight at #1-800-701-7993 or by visiting https://www.inventright.com/contact. inventRight, LLC. is not a law firm and does not provide legal, patent, trademark, or copyright advice. Please exercise caution when evaluating any information, including but not limited to business opportunities; links to news stories; links to services, products, or other websites. No endorsements are issued by inventRight, LLC., expressed or implied. Depiction of any trademarks/logos does not represent endorsement of inventRight, LLC, its services, or products by the trademark owner. All trademarks are registered trademarks of their respective companies. Reference on this video to any specific commercial products, process, service, manufacturer, company, or trademark does not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by inventRight, LLC or its hosts. This video may contain links to external websites that are not provided or maintained by or in any way affiliated with inventRight, LLC. Please note that the inventRight LLC. does not guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of any information on these external websites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.

Eli is joined by the legend of the patent bar, the virtuoso of Federal Circuit decisions – Tom Irving. They discuss the rise of the pharmaceutical patent practice, the creation and current state of the Federal Circuit, why and how Tom mentored 1000s of patent attorneys, best practices for patent prosecution, and much more! Chief Judge Moore's efforts to oust Judge Newman How Tom ended up practicing patent law Why there are so many patent attorneys from and in Utah Joining Finnegan, Henderson in the 70s How general patent practice firms getting into patent law spurred the growth of the pharma patent practice Working on the first Hatch-Waxman litigation Stories about helping pharma start-ups build multibillion dollar patent portfolios Advice for building valuable patent portfolios Why pharma patents generally manage to survive PTAB proceedings The cost of drugs How Tom predicted issues raised by Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC Whether the Federal Circuit should issue more en banc decisions Should the Federal Circuit be responsible for uniformity in decisions? Being law firm partners with Judge Kara Stoll Being mentored by PJ Federico and others Advice for mentoring others Who should consider retiring Tom's retirement plans in 2054  

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show. On Tuesday's show, we visit with our State Senator and Florida State Senate President, Kathleen Passidomo, about the achievements in the first half of the legislative session and what to expect in the last 21 days. The President of Less Government Seton Motley and I discuss the “PTAB” Board and the degradation of the patent process. We visit with Linda Harden about Gavin Newsom's Florida visit and Alvin Bragg's response to Jim Jordan's investigation of his office. We also visit with Boo Mortenson about evidence of growing pessimism in America. Please join us tomorrow when we visit with Bob Levy, Chairman Emeritus of the Cato Institute, and author and Professor Andrew Joppa. Please access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

David Jones is the Executive Director of the High Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA), which advocates on patent policy issues on behalf of some of the largest tech companies in the world.  When Dave became the head of HTIA in 2019, it seemed that DC was finally turning against the “patent troll” narrative driving patent policy in Congress and the executive branch.  However, that did not last long: efforts to pass Section 101 reform failed to gain traction in Congress; the current administration rolled back efforts to restrain the role of the PTAB under the previous administration; and an unprecedented lobbying effort spurred the Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas to randomly reassign new patent cases filed in Judge Alan Albright's division.  All outcomes that members of the HTIA supported. This episode features a wide-ranging and super fun conversation about if (and how) Dave has been so effective as head of HTOA over the last few years and/or if he's just that lucky. Prior to taking the helm at HTIA, Dave was assistant general counsel for IP policy at Microsoft and worked for Senator Orrin Hatch on IP issues for many years.  Dave is able to draw on those experiences to provide priceless – and often surprising - insights about how patent policies are shaped.  

Kathi Vidal returns to the Clause 8 podcast to talk about her first year as the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  In an expansive conversation, Director Vidal talks about what she hopes to accomplish, explains and defends the current process for exploring and making changes to the patent system, and responds to criticisms regarding the state of the system.  Even close observers of her time as Director are bound to be surprised by many comments she offers on this episode. On this episode, Director Vidal and Eli discuss: Offer to become Director & preparation for role Big-picture vision & importance of listening to all stakeholders How stakeholder input drove administration's decision regarding standard essential patent (SEP) policy statements Healthy state of America's patent system & need for improvements on the margins Negative impact of information that discourages use of patent system Reliance of American companies on other jurisdictions to enforce their patent rights Efforts to increase diversity of patent applicants, including efforts to expand pro bono programs Weighing stability of patent system v. implementing change USPTO's willingness to pivot, pause, and extend Are requests for comments (RFCs) destabilizing patent system? Correct way to view USPTO's RFCs – why you shouldn't read too much into individual questions Proposal to record examiner interviews Coordination with USPTO labor unions Indispensable role America's patent system played in creation of the COVID-19 vaccines How lack of patent eligibility for diagnostic tests impeded innovation for COVID-19 tests Efforts of drug companies to make sure that those who needed COVID 19 vaccines got them Message to independent inventors (who hear Molly Metz's story) Upcoming plan to solve for problems faced by independent inventors “Patent troll” narrative – are there too many “bad patents”? Reputation of the PTAB & desire of PTAB judges to get it right Has the PTAB worked out as intended? Purpose of new guidance & rulemaking regarding Fintiv discretionary denials Approach to Director review & importance of independence of PTAB judges Plan to solicit input regarding role of 3rd parties in PTAB proceedings Need for more clarity regarding Section 101 Providing examiners with ability to do pattern recognition for Section 101 analysis Selection of Commissioner for Patents Vaishali Udupa Surprising alignment with America's allies on innovation & IP issues Advice on overcoming career setbacks   

Five-time world jump rope champion Molly Metz and her husband Dirk Tomsin talk about the highs and lows of innovation, entrepreneurship, and relying on America's patent system.  A serious car accident spurred Molly to invent a new type of jump rope that revolutionized jump roping and the use of jump roping for CrossFit.  Thanks to patents that were awarded to her by the US Patent Office (USPTO) for the invention, Molly's company – JumpNrope – started making the jump ropes completely in America and licensing the patents to various fitness companies that eagerly relied on her jump roping technology.   It should've been the perfect story that the USPTO could tout about how America's economy benefited from a woman inventor taking advantage of the patent system.  Instead, Rogue Fitness - the largest fitness distributor for CrossFit –challenged Molly's patents at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Molly and Dirk are now dealing with the aftermath of that and fighting for a better future for other inventors.   On this episode, Molly, Dirk, and Eli discuss: Molly's start in the world of jump roping in Boulder, Colorado How a car accident spurred her to invent  Decision to file patent applications  Examination process at the USPTO & rewarding feeling of obtaining a patent Decision to manufacture the jump ropes in Colorado and not China Experience of successfully licensing the patented jump rope technology to other companies  When the patent system worked for Molly Rogue Fitness' initial interest in selling Molly's jump rope, licensing negotiations, and decision to infringe Negative impact of Rogue Fitness' refusal to license the technology Working with patent litigation attorneys to enforce patents Rogue Fitness challenging the patents at the PTAB based on two patents from 1978 and 1979 Molly and Dirk's experience with the subsequent PTAB proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal Prof. Dennis Crouch's analysis of the PTAB decision Supreme Court petition to secure pre-cancellation damages USPTO's effort to increase number of women patentees  Advice for other women and small business inventors

Blaine Hackman focuses his Wolf Greenfield practice on post-grant proceedings before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and related patent litigation, prosecution, and counseling. He regularly represents clients in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with an emphasis on biotechnology and pharmaceutical technologies. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Blaine offers an overview of the firm's post-grant practice. Here are some of the highlights: 00:49 - An overview of Wolf Greenfield's post-grant practice. 03:12 - The difference between a jury trial and post-grant proceeding. 05:57 - For biotech and pharma companies, choosing the right path is a crucial choice.  07:51 - Changes for companies looking to claim newly discovered life science technologies or improvements to existing technologies. 08:55 - How to evaluate the likelihood of success prior to either a PTAB proceeding or jury trial. 11:04 - Recent changes to post-grant proceedings. 14:40 - The importance of expert testimony in PTAB proceedings and jury trials.16:32 - Life sciences companies often miss opportunities by overlooking the PTAB. 18:50 - Implications for future legal proceedings after going the post-grant route. 20:10 - Wolf Greenfield's expanding post-grant practice in 2023.

Lionel Hutz discusses his thesis for Liquidia (LQDA) and why the thinks they are likely to win their patent battle against United Therapeutics (UTHR). Lionel's LQDA write up: https://lionelhutz.substack.com/p/waiting-with-bated-breath-for-liquidia Chapters 0:00 Intro 2:50 LQDA overview 8:05 Diving into the patent background 16:10 Breaking down the conflicting rulings on the '793 patent 19:55 Why the PTAB ruling is the most important for '793 21:55 What's so unique about the judge's ruling on '793 28:30 Why PTAB ruled the '793 patent invalid 37:40 LQDA's primary argument for invalidating '793 43:30 Discussing the expert reports around the '793 patent 53:30 Timeline to monetization and why delaying LQDA is so important for UTHR 59:00 LQDA's upside if they win 1:13:00 LQDA's cash runway

It is rare to find someone in the field of intellectual property, in particular patent law, who is a scholar and a practitioner. Today, we have with us Jay Kesan who is both. Listen in for a great episode full of information about the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and the impact it has had on the patent system after 10 years. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Jay Kesan discuss: Jay's professional career as both a law professor and a practicing patent attorney/litigator. The impact of IPRs and PGRs on the patent system. Challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR proceeding versus district court litigation. Key Takeaways: The PTAB was created as an alternative forum for challenging issued patents. It was hoped that the PTAB would provide a lower-cost means of challenging already-issued patents.In the past few years, the number of patent validity challenges has leveled out to about 1,500 IPRs per year.The vast majority of IPRs involve parallel district court infringement actions.The USPTO, under its new director, has issued new guidelines for discretionary denials of PTAB proceedings. A fair comment, at this stage, would be that these discretionary denials are only going to continue to decrease even when there is parallel district court litigation. “If you're a patent owner and you believe that your patents are being infringed and you're contemplating an infringement action, you have to take into account the new world that you have to deal with.” — Jay Kesan   About Jay Kesan: Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D., is a well-recognized and accomplished patent attorney with more than 25 years' experience. His work encompasses all aspects of patent enforcement, patent strategy, and licensing. He has been lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous patent lawsuits in various federal district courts around the country. He has argued numerous appeals before the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has also served as lead counsel in more than 30 IPRs and argued several times before the PTAB. He has been actively involved in every aspect of patent litigation as counsel, Special Master, appellate counsel, technical expert, legal expert, and mediator. Jay has a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and worked for several years as a research scientist at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. As a result, he works with clients on IP disputes that involve a wide variety of technologies and innovations. Jay is also an active empirical scholar, and his recent works have focused on cyber risk and patent policy. He has published numerous articles and six books on patent law and policy and cybersecurity and privacy with an emphasis on empirical research methodologies. He is a professor and H. Ross and Helen Workman Research Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is an active and widely cited scholar. Connect with Jay Kesan: Website: https://jaykesan.com/ Email: jay@jaykesan.com Books: https://jaykesan.com/books/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayKesanP LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykesan/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCENwROk5ywajSVoJWUX9SBA/featured Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

In this part 2 episode, Bill is joined once again by the Founder and Managing Partner of Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, Keegan Caldwell. Today they talk more about intellectual property, creating and applying for patents, and how you can use them. Keegan also shares what keeps him motivated to take action daily.   Dr. Caldwell has extensive and diverse experience with advising clients from innovation conception to 9-figure monetization events.  Keegan works with start-ups and established entities to develop patent portfolios with as many options as possible for an ROI.  Keegan has assisted clients with a broad spectrum of tech and life sciences patent issues and takes pride in curating high-value patent portfolios.   Keegan is exceptionally knowledgeable with respect to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) procedures. His experience working at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the Central Reexam Unit and his deep patent prosecution experience uniquely position him to provide valuable insights during a PTAB procedure to help clients win.   Outside of work, Keegan enjoys contributing to his community and his family.  He has served as both a volunteer and an executive board member of RESET since 2010.  RESET is a DC-based philanthropic organization that enhances STEM programs with hands-on science and related field trips. He has served as the Chair of the MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge's Innovation Series since 2018. The MITEF is a thought-leadership program that features a wide variety of speakers from multiple industries and technologies, bringing a wide-ranging look at the issues, technologies, and market forces that drive innovation, commercialization, and market adoption. Additionally, Keegan sits on the Board of Trustees at the Boston Children's Museum.   Learn more about Keegan at: Website: https://caldwellip.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/keegancaldwellphd/ Email: keegan@caldwellip.com   Show notes: [2:15] What was his motivation to run daily? [6:17] What is patentable? [12:45] Creating and applying for patents [25:43] What can you do with IP? And how do you enforce it? [32:17] His advice for someone who wants to create value for their company [37:04] Outro   Connect with Bill Bloom  Web: https://www.bloomfinancialco.com/ https://bloomfinancialco.kartra.com/page/bNJ87 Email: bill@bloomfinancial.us  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bloomfinancial/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/retireasyoudesirepodcast     Securities and investment advisory services offered through Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (WFS) member FINRA/SIPC. WFS. is separately owned and other entities and/or marketing names, products or services referenced here are independent of WFS.     Views expressed in this podcast are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide or be a substitute for specific professional financial, tax or legal advice or recommendations for any individuals. Information is based on sources believed to be reliable; however, their accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed.

Today Bill is joined by the Founder and Managing Partner of Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, Keegan Caldwell. They talk about intellectual property law, how Keegan started in the industry, and what made him get into it. He also shares his journey from childhood, the Marine corps, and finally making the first step to his success.   Dr. Caldwell has extensive and diverse experience with advising clients from innovation conception to 9-figure monetization events.  Keegan works with start-ups and established entities to develop patent portfolios with as many options as possible for an ROI.  Keegan has assisted clients with a broad spectrum of tech and life sciences patent issues and takes pride in curating high-value patent portfolios.   Keegan is exceptionally knowledgeable with respect to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) procedures. His experience working at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the Central Reexam Unit and his deep patent prosecution experience uniquely position him to provide valuable insights during a PTAB procedure to help clients win.   Outside of work, Keegan enjoys contributing to his community and his family.  He has served as both a volunteer and an executive board member of RESET since 2010.  RESET is a DC-based philanthropic organization that enhances STEM programs with hands-on science and related field trips. He has served as the Chair of the MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge's Innovation Series since 2018. The MITEF is a thought-leadership program that features a wide variety of speakers from multiple industries and technologies, bringing a wide-ranging look at the issues, technologies, and market forces that drive innovation, commercialization, and market adoption. Additionally, Keegan sits on the Board of Trustees at the Boston Children's Museum.   Learn more about Keegan at: Website: https://caldwellip.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/keegancaldwellphd/ Email: keegan@caldwellip.com Show notes: [1:59] What was Keegan's childhood like? And how did he start his journey? [27:59] Was going to the Marine corps the smartest thing he did? [29:26] How did he start in IP? [41:04] Where to find Keegan [42:07] Keegan's core advice [44:08] Outro     Connect with Bill Bloom  Web: https://www.bloomfinancialco.com/ https://bloomfinancialco.kartra.com/page/bNJ87 Email: bill@bloomfinancial.us  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bloomfinancial/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/retireasyoudesirepodcast     Securities and investment advisory services offered through Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (WFS) member FINRA/SIPC. WFS. is separately owned and other entities and/or marketing names, products or services referenced here are independent of WFS.     Views expressed in this podcast are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide or be a substitute for specific professional financial, tax or legal advice or recommendations for any individuals. Information is based on sources believed to be reliable; however, their accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed.

Pink Sheet reporter and editors discuss another project to improve clinical trial diversity in the US, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board director review process, and the FDA promoting its head of controlled substance policy to deputy CDER director.

Steph Schonewald, Sophie Wang and Emily Miller discuss the recent memo issued by USPTO Director Vidal concerning the Fintiv factors and discretionary denials in AIA post-grant proceedings.

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the helm at the USPTO, and Congress ramping up debate on reforms to the AIA, is now the time for a reexamination? Our speakers will consider the role of the PTAB in resolving patent disputes and the legality of the exercise of significant discretionary authority by the USPTO Director to implement policy outside the authority granted the director under the AIA.Featuring:-- Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP-- Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.-- Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives

The Federal Circuit gave us important guidance with its recent Intel v. Qualcomm decision. What can we anticipate for Article III jurisdiction going forward? And is the Court quietly reviving the "gist" doctrine of old for claim construction? Featuring Wayne Stacy (BCLT) and Seth Lloyd (MoFo). SPEAKERS Seth Lloyd, Wayne Stacy Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series Podcast. I'm Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT and your host today. Today we have Seth Lloyd from Morrison Forrester to walk us through a recent interesting ruling from the Federal Circuit. We have two heavyweights, Intel and Qualcomm fighting it out. And as often happens, when you have two heavyweights fighting it out, a lot of issues get brought to the surface, the Federal Circuit had to clean them up. So in light of what you saw with Intel, and Qualcomm, Seth, where do you want to kick off maybe Article Three, which is everyone's favorite New Year topic? Seth Lloyd 00:45 Yeah, that seems like a good place to start and is where the Court starts to. So just to kind of set the stage a little bit here, as you said, we have two kind of heavyweights fighting it out in the the the forum that they were fighting it out in at least before the appeal was the the PTABs of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. So Qualcomm owns a patent to kind of these multi multi processor systems. It had asserted that patent not against Intel, but against one of Intel's customers and Intel in in response to that and kind of related litigation, then went to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and filed a petition for inter parties review on the patent. The process, the PTAB went forward, ultimately the the PTAB cancelled some of the claims that Intel had challenged, but not others. And Intel appealed the claims that were upheld. And that the Article Three issue came in at the appeal stage, which is sort of the kind of an interesting wrinkle that happens when you take this route from the PTAB to the Federal Circuit. And the reason, you know so in district court if there's an article three injury or issue that's generally going to be litigated in the District Court itself, and then you know, if the district court gets it right or wrong, people will fight about that on appeal, that the difference in the PTAB context is anybody right can go to the patent office and file a petition. I think the statutory language is basically anybody but the patent owner can file a petition for inter parties review. So there's no check out the PTAB. But once you try to invoke the the authority of an Article Three court by safe at filing your appeal, now your article three requirements are going to kick in. Wayne Stacy 02:37 Well, we saw some of this with some hedge funds filing early on. But are we really seeing this as an issue popping up? When you have two actual manufacturing corporations like Intel and Qualcomm? Do you see this

This week, we interview Brian Matsui: Is the USPTO bonus system for APJs still vulnerable if challenged by a factually-armed patent owner? And how much clearer can the Federal Circuit be—District Court judges have significant discretion on inequitable conduct. Every other week, BCLT Executive Director Wayne Stacy conducts interviews with a Morrison & Foerster team member to discuss the Federal Circuit’s recent patent decisions. We all know the basic holdings. The key, however, lies in the nuances of how the Federal Circuit reached its decision. If you want to know more—with an eye toward predicting the future—we have the nuanced information for you. SPEAKERS Brian Matsui, Wayne Stacy Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series Podcast. I'm Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT. And today, Brian Matsui from Morrison Foerster will walk us through a few of the recent interesting rulings from the Federal Circuit. Brian, thanks for joining us again. Brian Matsui 00:20 Thanks a lot, Wayne. Wayne Stacy 00:21 Well, Brian the last two weeks have been lied at the Federal Circuit on on precedential decisions. But we did get two interesting cases. So I'd love to start with the Mobility Workx case, which is another constitutional challenge to the PTAB structure. As we maybe haven't had enough yet. We get another one that's fairly unique. So you want to tell us about this one? Brian Matsui 00:45 Yeah, I mean, this is sort of like the ghost of Arthrex, or something like that, since we're right around the time of Halloween right now. This is another IPR appeal, and the patent owners claims were cancelled. So again, since it's a constitutional challenge, we don't ever get to the merits of the actual IPR decision on what happened to the claims themselves. There were a couple of constitutional issues here. The patent owner requested to remand under the Supreme Court's Arthrex decision, you know, which, of course everybody knows, found an appointment clause violation. But actually, rather than just remanding the case and being done with it, the Federal Circuit first addressed a couple other constitutional challenges that the patent owner made. And I think that's probably the reason why we have a precedential opinion here, rather than just a straight remand, the Federal Circuit was able to sort of address these two issues and potentially, you know, foreclose them or make them more difficult for future litigants that want to raise them. Wayne Stacy 01:46 So Brian, one of the issues that that came up earlier in this case, and that seems to be coming up frequently is the government forfeiture arguments. You want to explain why the government keeps raising and losing this one? Brian Matsui 01:59 That's a good question. I mean, I think to take a step back, we should just look at why the government's involved in this case, because you know, it's an IPR dispute. And, of course, you know, the government can defend and does defend the final written decisions, but they're not usually in these IPR decisions. And whenever you raise a constitutional challenge to a federal law on appeal, you have to tell the Court of Appeals that you're doing so, so the court can tell the attorney general, and then the Department of Justice typically comes in and intervenes to defend the law. And that's what happened here. And what the government has been doing in these types of constitutional challenges to IPRs,

Would anyone tolerate Federal judges being paid based on the number of cases they dispose of? Probably not—it looks bad and erodes faith in the system. With faith in the USPTO at a low point, why then does the USPTO compensate PTAB judges using a bonus system that appears biased? Judge Newman elegantly points out that the appearance of propriety is critical to build faith in any adjudicative process—including those at the PTAB. More on Sarah Guske and Eliot Williams, Baker Botts. SPEAKERS Sarah Guske, Wayne Stacy, Eliot Williams Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. I'm your host, Wayne Stacey, the Executive Director of BCLT. And today we're talking about the USPTO. And a few issues that the next director might want to look into quickly. Two issues in particular, were recently raised by Judge Newman, the bias and appearance of bias and the director review ability of institution decisions. So both of these came up in a wonderful dissent written by Judge Newman in the mobility works case. To talk about these issues today. We have two experts from Baker Botts, Sarah Guske and Eliot Williams. Thank you both for joining us today. Sarah Guske 00:41 Thanks for having us. Eliot Williams 00:42 Good to be here, Wayne. Wayne Stacy 00:43 So I want to talk about the the bias issue first, this case had a really interesting section in the majority opinion about how PTAB judges are bonused. And how bias may or may not arise from those bonuses. So Eliot, I wanted to kick it to you first, you want to give a little background on how PTAB judges are paid and why somebody might perceive a bias. Eliot Williams 01:09 Yeah, this is definitely an interesting issue that comes out of out of this this opinion. And, you know, here the patent owner obtained some information through the Freedom of Information Act, although I think generally most practitioners knew this was how PTAB judges are paid. But essentially, the way they're evaluated, they're obviously several components that go into that. But one of them is sort of how many decisions they write. And for PTAB judges, those come in a couple from a couple different places. One is the institution decision, which I'm sure we'll talk more about in this conversation, which is kind of the beginning of an PTAB trial proceeding. And it's the first the first step in deciding whether the petitioner has made enough of a showing that patents may be invalid to sort of begin the trial. The second phase is in the final written decision, which is of course, the decision that comes at the very end of the trial. The third thing that PTAB judges can do, however, is to write decisions in ex parte appeals, which has nothing to do with these sort of IPRS and PTAB trials, but has to do with just regular prosecution coming up from the examiner core. And, so in this particular case, what the petitioner noted is, the patent owner should say noted is that because the PTAB judges are paid based on the number of decisions they write, or that goes into their bonus calculations, they have an incentive to institute, because they know that if they write the institution decision, they would then have the chance to get another, you know, piece of work product out at the end of the process when they write the final written decision. So that essentially, as I understand it, was the argument that was being made

This week, we interview Seth Lloyd: Alternative rationales, attorney fees, and NDAs stretched too far. Can parties contract away their rights to file an IPR? And what can a party expect when it fails to appeal an alternative rationale? Every other week, BCLT Executive Director Wayne Stacy conducts interviews with a Morrison & Foerster team member to discuss the Federal Circuit's recent patent decisions. We all know the basic holdings. The key, however, lies in the nuances of how the Federal Circuit reached its decision. If you want to know more—with an eye toward predicting the future—we have the nuanced information for you. SPEAKERS Seth Lloyd, Wayne Stacy Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Federal Circuit podcast. I'm your host, Wayne Stacey, the Executive Director for BCLT. And we're here again to talk about some of the nuances from recent Federal Circuit decisions. We have today with us again, one of the experts from Morrison and Forester, Seth Lloyd specializes in appellate litigation, including appellate litigation at the Federal Circuit. So thank you for joining us today. Seth Lloyd 00:28 Thanks for having me. Wayne, really great to be here. Wayne Stacy 00:31 So there were two cases that popped out in the last two weeks that they can be glossed over when you when you look at some of the reporters that come out, but that really deserve a little bit of extra attention. The first is the Kannuu case. And you flag that one, because it really seems to tell us something about NDAs and this idea of pre litigation discussions. So would you walk us through kind of how it got to the Federal Circuit? Seth Lloyd 01:02 Yeah, sure. I think it's a little bit of a hot topic right now in the interplay between NDAs or arbitration agreements and the availability of review at the patent office. So IPR is in PTAB. So that's kind of this case, really, right in the center of all that, I thought was interesting, because it actually drew amicus briefing during the initial appeal briefing. So sometimes, at the Federal Circuit, it's not uncommon to see amicus briefing once there's a petition for rehearing but but this one actually had amicus briefing on both sides of the issue at the kind of initial appeal stage. And the cases, just kind of the background facts are, you have Kannuu, who's the plaintiff and patent owner. They're an Australian startup company focused on media related products. So kind of navigation of smart TVs. And several years ago, Samsung contacted Kannuu expressing apparently some interest in in technology. And before the parties got too far along, they entered into a standard kind of non disclosure agreement so that they could speak freely about their respective technologies and businesses. The agreement contained a fairly common forum selection clause. And the clause stated that any legal action suit or proceeding, and this is kind of that the key language arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the transactions contemplated here by, must be instituted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction in Manhattan in New York. So that was the forum selection clause. The parties talked for a bit more than a year, but basically failed to reach any agreement. nothing came of it, at least initially, but about six years after the initial discussions Kannuu sued Samsung in District Court in New York, alleging patent infringement and breach of the NDA agreement, and Samsung responded as many defendants now do by filing several petitions for IPR, for intra parties reviews at the patent off

Obviousness proves to be tricky for partial product designs. After the Federal Circuit's ruling, what is the future of secondary considerations? And will the guidance on primary references make it harder to obtain design patents? More on Emily Bullis. SPEAKERS Wayne Stacy, Emily Bullis Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. I'm your host Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT. And today we're here to talk about the world of design patents and the rule on what qualifies as a primary reference. It seems that the Federal Circuit in the Campbell Soup case gave us unique guidance, things that we don't don't hear a lot from the Federal Circuit. So we brought today Emily Bullis of Fenwick to discuss this. Emily is a patent prosecution expert, with that rare specialty in the prosecution of design patents in both the US and abroad. So welcome, and thank you for joining us, Emily. Emily Bullis 00:44 Morning. Thanks, Wayne. Thanks for having me. Wayne Stacy 00:46 So, you know, maybe we start with a little bit of a negative question here. But how did the PTab get it so wrong? Emily Bullis 00:55 Yeah, so I think we need to look at this in the wider context of how the PTO handles design patents, the allowance rate for designs is is incredibly high. I think the most recent number I saw on the PTO website was something like 85%. So for the most part, these these applications are not receiving art rejections, when we do get pushback from the examiner, it's usually on, you know, minor drawing inconsistencies, or, or wanting a fix to the broken line statement. But for the most part, we're really just not seeing art rejection. So these cases are getting allowed very regularly. I also think it's a little trickier in this case, than normal, because these these two patents at issue are for multi article designs, which is fairly unusual as well. The drawings both show this this soup dispenser that you might see in the grocery store, as well as a portion of the can itself this this cylindrical object, but not all of that is claimed, there are a ton of broken lines here, which which indicate unclaimed subject matter. And in each of the patents, the area that's actually claimed is it's it's really minor, it's just some vertical lines in the label area. It's a portion of the cylindrical object. And in one of the two patents, it's these these little tabs that are keeping the can in place. So I think coupling the fact that this is a multi article design, with the large number of broken lines here kind of creates even more ambiguity than there is for for more straightforward products. It makes the scope of the design patent harder to parse. Wayne Stacy 02:39 Let me bring everyone up to speed on something that's pretty fundamental. And that's really the the guard for issuance of both utility and design patents. And that's obviousnes

Ropes & Gray's podcast series Talkin' Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. On this episode, IP attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Brendan McLaughlin are joined by special guest Scott McKeown, a leading PTAB litigator, to discuss the issues arising when a patent asserted in an ITC investigation also has its validity challenged at the PTAB—including whether and to what extent the respective agencies defer to each other's decisions or schedules, and what considerations are important for litigants to keep in mind to get the optimal resolution. 

Ropes & Gray's podcast series Talkin' Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. On this episode, IP attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Brendan McLaughlin are joined by special guest Scott McKeown, a leading PTAB litigator, to discuss the issues arising when a patent asserted in an ITC investigation also has its validity challenged at the PTAB—including whether and to what extent the respective agencies defer to each other's decisions or schedules, and what considerations are important for litigants to keep in mind to get the optimal resolution. 

Arthrex grabbed headlines, but will it actually be a useful tool for PTAB oversight? Will the USPTO Director be willing to take a hard look at PTAB decisions? And what can we expect from a new Director? More on Nimalka Wickramasekera and Juan Yaquian. SPEAKERS Wayne Stacy, Juan Yaquian, Nimalka Wickramasekera Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. I'm Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT. And today we're talking about Arthrex. And what we can expect going forward. I'm here with two attorneys from the law firm of Winston & Strawn that are both leading experts in patent litigation and PTab litigation. We have Nimalka Wickramasekera, she's a senior IP trial litigator specializing in life sciences and the medical device sector. And also we haveJuan Yaquian. He's an IP litigator specializing in PTab, litigation and PTab practice. I want to thank you both for joining us today and helping us look into the future and figure out what Arthrex may mean for us. So starting with you, Juan, I wanted to ask you, does any of this make a difference? We've been fighting about arthrex for over a year. And the Supreme Court finally gave us an answer and gave us the director review process. But the real question is, does any of it matter? Juan Yaquian 01:12 No. And I think that's that was, so the short answer is probably not there, this probably isn't going to make a big difference to the way parties approach the PTab and you know, probably isn't going to make a big difference. And one of the main reasons why probably doesn't make any difference to the way parties are going to approach PTab is because most parties and most people don't believe that this, what came out of the US Supreme Court's Arthrex decision is going to result in a big difference. A big difference being seen at the end of PTab proceedings. And I think that's the view probably there's a general view that most likely one we don't really see the director probably stepping in to overturn the board and we don't see the director being too involved. And so there's quite a few reasons why we probably see they're and they're really just practical reasons. I think, you know, if you look at this, there's a ton of activity going on at the IPR, there's hundreds of PTab judges alone, just to handle the entire PTab docket. And now to expect that one director is going to be able to go through with a fine, fine, detailed review and be able to identify issues to to pick up on review, I think nobody really expects that you would be able to do that. And at the same time know, the Supreme Court doesn't really even say that, the director has to do that the director just has to have the ability to review. And so just the volume alone of what's going on at the PTab we no one really expects the director to really be stepping in and cause any major disruption to the results of the what's going on at the PTab. And we also think about the the just the social aspects of the fact that the director is dealing with colleagues. And he doesn't also want to undermine his the the administrative pen judges of the USPTO. They want to support you know, the the staff, and all these administrative judges and the detailed work they do because in the riving edit boundary This is because we have to remember that really the the director review is only going to come into place after a final written decision. And to arrive at that final written decision. These PTab judges spent a lot of time detailed consideration to arrive at these final room decisions hearings went

Proving non-obviousness with secondary indicia is hard on the best of days. It is even harder when the PTAB creates additional hurdles. The Federal Circuit, in the Chemours case, had something to say about these new hurdles. More on Nitika Fiorella. SPEAKERS Wayne Stacy, Nitika Fiorella Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. This is Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT. And today I have Nitika Fiorella. From Fish and Richardson joining us. Nitika. Thank you for joining us today. And I wanted to lead off with the fact that you had a very successful Federal Circuit outcome. You'll be too modest to brag about it. But it was a it was an impressive win and a very interesting win. Before we talk about that, I think it's important to know who the client was and what that industry is. So would you please set the background for us? Nitika Fiorella 00:41 Sure, happy to and thank you, Wayne, for having me on, very excited to be here. So our client in this case is Chemours, which is a global Chemical Company. It traces its roots back over 200 years, to the start of the DuPont company, actually, which is a relatively household name, especially here in the northeast. It's both Chemour and DuPont are headquartered in my hometown of Wilmington, Delaware. But since separating from DuPont, Chemours really created a name for itself as a world leader, in really a host of different industries, ranging from everything from automotive, paints, plastics, to things like electronics, energy, you know, the list goes on and on. They are, they're really a company of innovation through chemistry. And you know, that, for me has been something that's been very exciting to get to work with a client like that, you know, who's just so their technology is so important to so many things that are essential in society, you know, they, they do things like make semiconductors, but they also help to fight climate change. So it's really just a very exciting company. And it's a really exciting client for a patent litigator, you know, to really be involved with and help them protect their many inventions and innovations in a lot of fields. Wayne Stacy 02:16 Well, in this particular case, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAP finding, which is somewhat rare in itself. But in this case that the Federal Circuit didn't even remand, which is even even more rare. Federal Circuit goes through several different reasons. But the one I wanted to focus on today was the the secondary indicia portion of the Federal Circuit decision. And and to some degree, what the the PTAB had to say. I mean, as anybody that litigates patent, no patents knows, wins on secondary indicia are almost non existent these days. But this was a win on secondary indicia. So can you tell us how, how the case developed and why this was different? Nitika Fiorella 03:03 Sure, yes. So I think it as you mentioned, getting the Federal Circuit to go against the PTAB is extremely difficult. So I I clerked at the Federal Circuit, you know, I've seen many of these cases come up. And as you mentioned, just just getting the Federal Circuit to disagree with the patent office is is hard. Getting it to reverse instead of remand is extremely rare. And getting it to do it on the basis of secondary considerations in particular, is is definitely something we were very excited to see. And I think can be a good guidance point, I guess, for future cases on secondary inicia. So So how we got here. Well, when we got the board decision, we really wanted to look at just like any good appellate l

When is winning an IPR a handicap in District Court litigation? One District Court issued—in its own words—a “counterintuitive” result allowing the patent owner to try claims invalidated by the PTAB in a FWD while prohibiting the accused infringer from challenging the validity of those same claims. More on Travis Jensen. SPEAKERS Wayne Stacy, Travis Jensen Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. I'm Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT and your host today. Today's topic is the world of PTAB estoppel. And some of the odd outcomes that are impacting litigations with me to go over this topic is Travis Jensen, one of the country's top patent litigators from Orrick. So, Travis, thank you for joining us today. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this odd case. Travis Jensen 00:31 My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Wayne Stacy 00:33 So the the case have been hinting at here is that the trust ID versus Next Caller case out of Delaware chat a little bit of write up and a little bit of head scratching. So tell us why this case is of any interest to people? Travis Jensen 00:49 Well, I think it's because the case contrasts two aspects of PTAB related estoppel. And those are the statutory IPR estoppel provision and the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel and it analyzed these in the same order and reached what the district court itself characterized as a counterintuitive result. It's something that I think a lot of practitioners kind of instinctively felt, you know, perhaps was unfair. And let me just read, I think, one statement from the the court's order that that highlights this, the court said, "The court understands that allowing plaintiffs to proceed at trial on claims that have been found by the PTAB to be invalid, while at the same time preventing defendant from asserting prior art defenses against these claims based on estoppel under 315 E2 seems counterintuitive. That said it is a permissible result that follows from the statute and relevant case law. So I think it's really the contrast of those two different types of estoppel that caught people's attention. Perhaps standing alone, you know, either of the court's rulings may not have been quite as interesting. Wayne Stacy 02:07 So we're 10 years into the AIA and this estoppel provision, you know, doesn't seem to me that when Congress drafted the original estoppel provision, they were contemplating this particular result. Not sure what, what exactly they were contemplating on this interplay. But, but why are we still talking about estoppel, 10 years into this? Travis Jensen 02:31 I think that's a fair question. And, you know, certainly the statutory estoppel provisions have received a lot of attention and airtime and have been, you know, the subject of numerous court decisions. But even those issues aren't fully resolved. Right, the Federal Circuit has yet to weigh in, at least in a definitive matter on the scope of the statutory estoppel. And, you know, what is reasonably could have raised mean, you know, on the collateral estoppel front here, the issue preclusion, you know, I think that's received a lot less attention for a few different reasons. You know, number one is, you know, in the early days, you know, the, the IPR's we're essentially validating a lot of patents, and so they wouldn't come back to the district court. Right, which is the only place or the primary place where this issue would would come up o