Podcasts about uspto

Beulah was such a prolific inventor in the early 20th century that the press nicknamed her Lady Edison. She was an outlier as an unmarried woman who got her foot in the door as an inventor by pounding the pavement in 1920s New York. Research: Bengtson, Harlan H. “Beulah Louise Henry.” EBSCO. 2021. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/beulah-louise-henry “Beulah Louise Henry.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/beulah-louise-henry Dick, Gerry. “Beulah henry Sits in Chiffon Laboratory Inventing Almost Everything But Excuses.” The Rockford Argus. April 8. 1937. https://www.newspapers.com/image/531344097/?match=1&terms=%22Beulah%20Henry%22&search-id=22e1b59c-1edb-4d9c-895d-9454b6343852&search-rank=7 Hart, Alicia. “Meet Beulah henry, the Inventor.” The Salisbury Post. Sept. 1, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1026874682/?match=1&terms=%22Beulah%20Henry%22&search-id=be53d62d-90f0-4084-8868-9b0e0a4dbb37&search-rank=3 Henry, B.L. “DOUBLE CHAIN STITCH SEWING MACHINE.” April 21, 1936. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/US-2037901-A?source=USPAT&requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiI4NTA2NjMxNi1kZTRmLTRlNzQtOGJhYS1kYTRjMzhhMGZkNmYiLCJ2ZXIiOiJjY2M5MGE0NS02ZGRhLTQ5YTAtOTQzZS1lOTIyMzBhMjI0MjEiLCJleHAiOjB9 Henry, B.L. “DUPLICATING ATTACHMENT FOR TYPEWRITERS.” Aug. 30, 1932. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e7/a5/7d/a7e3bbcd163f09/US1874749.pdf Henry, B.L. “Hand Bag.” U.S. Patent Office. May 27, 1913. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0a/6d/16/4d8139d4025580/US1063031.pdf Henry, B.L. “Ice Cream Freezer.” U.S. Patent Office. Sept. 3, 1912. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/dc/d8/5c/1c61ca65b0339b/US1037762.pdf Henry, B.L. “Indicator Top.” U.S. Patent Office. March 2, 1926. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/US-1575264-A?source=USPAT&requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiIxMzU2NTdlNi03OWNkLTQyZGUtYTgwNi0yYzRhYmM3OGU5OGIiLCJ2ZXIiOiI2MzIxNTg0Yy1iOTZjLTRhYmItOTZhNC04OGUxNTI3ODY3NjUiLCJleHAiOjB9 Henry, B.L. “Parasol.” U.S. Patent Office. Nov. 18, 1913. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/fe/25/726c19533c2b0f/US1079240.pdf Henry, B.L. “Parasol.” U.S. Patent Office. May 6, 1924. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5c/ad/88/868b750b1d9c44/US1492725.pdf Henry, B.L. “Radio Doll.” U.S. Patent Office. Dec. 8, 1925. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/US-1565145-A?source=USPAT&requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiJhMTUwM2E5YS04MzYzLTRmYTgtYjRmOS1lZDU5OGIyMDllNGEiLCJ2ZXIiOiI2MjZkN2M5OS05OGVkLTQzY2EtOGE2YS02NTU2ZWIzYzY0MzgiLCJleHAiOjB9 Henry, B.L. “SEAM AND METHOD OF FORMING SEAMS.” U.S. Patent Office. Feb 4. 1941. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/US-2230896-A?source=USPAT&requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiI4NTA2NjMxNi1kZTRmLTRlNzQtOGJhYS1kYTRjMzhhMGZkNmYiLCJ2ZXIiOiJjY2M5MGE0NS02ZGRhLTQ5YTAtOTQzZS1lOTIyMzBhMjI0MjEiLCJleHAiOjB9 Henry, B.L. “Simulated Dispensing Device.” U.S. Patent Office. Dec. 11, 1951. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6d/80/75/d6a9df36c75df0/US2577849.pdf Henry, B.L. “Water Sport Apparatus.” U.S. Patent Office. August 16, 1927. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/US-1639607-A?source=USPAT&requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiIxMzU2NTdlNi03OWNkLTQyZGUtYTgwNi0yYzRhYmM3OGU5OGIiLCJ2ZXIiOiI2MzIxNTg0Yy1iOTZjLTRhYmItOTZhNC04OGUxNTI3ODY3NjUiLCJleHAiOjB9 Jones, Stacy. “A Single Unit Serves for Mailing and Also Returning.” New York Times. Jan. 27, 1962. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1962/01/27/90129637.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 LaRiccia, Dante. “Electricity Consumption: Culture, Gender and Power.” Energy History Online. Yale University. https://energyhistory.yale.edu/electricity-consumption-culture-gender-and-power/ Mydans, Seth. “Overlooked No More: Beulah Henry, Inventor With an Endless Imagination.” New York Times. March 14, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/obituaries/beulah-henry-overlooked.html “Synesthesia.” Cleveland Clinic. May 3, 2023. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/24995-synesthesia “"There's a better way of doing that." USPTO. https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/journeys-innovation/historical-stories/theres-better-way-doing See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Watch the show on television by downloading the SuperCrowd.tv Channel app to your Roku or Amazon Fire TV or e360tv channel app to your Roku, LG or Amazon Fire TV. You can also see it on YouTube.Devin: What is your superpower?Eric: I've been thinking about that since we booked this. Um, you know, I, I think if I was to really boil it down, my superpower is being mission-driven.ARTHIA AI is building a privacy-first behavioral governance layer so ambient AI can support people in real time without putting them at risk.During today's episode, Eric Coury, founder and CEO of ARTHIA AI, helped me see both the promise and the danger of the AI future racing toward us. As a former teacher, Eric watched social media change the way young people communicate. Now, as a father of three daughters, he is determined not to let the next wave of technology arrive without guardrails.“Regardless of whether we like it or not, AI will be embedding itself more and more in our lives,” Eric told me. “I thought about my three daughters. I thought about, you know, hopefully their kids someday. I thought about other kids. And I realized that I think it's important to have a protection layer.”ARTHIA is not another large language model. Eric describes it as infrastructure any AI model can plug into to become ambient. In other words, it helps AI know when to speak, what to say and how to say it inside live human interactions. The company is building what Eric calls a signal stack, a longitudinal profile and a set of evidence-based frameworks drawn from fields like psychology, sociology and linguistics.The goal is to make AI useful in moments that matter: difficult conversations, medical appointments, learning challenges, coaching, therapy and daily life. At the same time, Eric is focused on privacy and safety. He explained, “There's no recording of raw audio. All of your data is encrypted and stored on your device. It's never in the cloud for access to others. Data is never sold. It's never shared.”That commitment is built into the business structure. ARTHIA is a Public Benefit Corporation, making privacy protection and human safety part of the company's charter. Eric also said ARTHIA has filed 11 patents covering more than 70 inventions, aiming to create a standard for safe ambient AI.I was especially excited that ARTHIA is raising capital through regulated investment crowdfunding on Wefunder at wefunder.com/arthia. This gives everyday investors a chance to participate before institutions dominate the opportunity.Eric's motivation is deeply personal. “The people who should own a part of the future of ambient AI should be the people that it's going to impact the most,” he said.I love that philosophy. If ambient AI is going to be in our homes, workplaces and ears, then all of us deserve a voice in shaping it.tl;dr:Today's episode explores how ARTHIA AI aims to make ambient AI safer for everyone.Eric Coury draws on teaching experience to design privacy-first AI behavioral infrastructure.ARTHIA helps AI know when to speak, what to say and how.Today's episode highlights ARTHIA's regulated investment crowdfunding campaign on Wefunder.Eric's superpower is mission-driven service focused on helping people thrive.How to Develop Mission-Driven Service As a SuperpowerEric describes his superpower as being “mission-driven,” rooted in a lifelong desire “to leave the world a better place than it was when I came into it.” For him, that mission includes “a deep understanding of people and what they need and what they deserve.” ARTHIA represents the culmination of that service: working with children with special needs, teaching for 14 years, building companies and now creating infrastructure to “ensure that AI serves people and not the other way around.”As a teacher, Eric repeatedly heard students say, “I can't do it, Mr. Corey. I'm stupid.” His answer was always, “Stupid doesn't exist.” He taught them that some people work hard, believe in themselves and keep going. He told them smart is something you earn. That experience shaped his belief that confidence often comes from having a mentor or guide. ARTHIA grew from that insight. Eric wants to put that kind of mentor into everyone's life, privately and safely, so one person's growth can compound into help for many others.Define a mission bigger than yourself and return to it when decisions get difficult.Step outside yourself and turn off preconceived notions before judging people or problems.Practice seeing situations as a neutral observer so you can better understand what others feel and need.Do not take everything at face value; look for the deeper human context behind behavior.Build confidence in others by helping them believe effort, persistence and support can change outcomes.Choose structures, partners and business models that protect the mission rather than compromise it.By following Eric's example and advice, you can make mission-driven service a skill. With practice and effort, you could make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileEric Coury (he/him):Founder & CEO - former educator, ARTHIA AI, Inc.About ARTHIA AI, Inc.: ARTHIA AI, Inc. PBC is a Rhode Island Public Benefit Corporation building the behavioral intelligence infrastructure layer for ambient AI — the foundational architecture that governs when AI speaks, what it says, and how it says it inside live human interactions. As a Public Benefit Corporation, privacy protection and human safety are legal charter obligations, not product features, and certainly not an afterthought. ARTHIA's architecture is model-agnostic, 11 patents pending at the USPTO, and designed so any AI model can operate safely and effectively alongside real people — in coaching, therapy, sales, education, healthcare, and into the inevitable future of 24/7 ambient ai companions. We believe everyone deserves someone in their corner, and we're building the infrastructure to make that possible safely at scale.Website: arthia.aiCompany Facebook Page: facebook.com/ARTHIAaiOther URL: wefunder.com/arthiaBiographical Information: Eric Coury is the Founder and CEO of ARTHIA AI, Inc. PBC, who conceptualized and invented the behavioral intelligence infrastructure layer for ambient AI. A former classroom teacher and first-generation college graduate, Eric paid for his undergraduate education by working full-time in a psychiatric hospital as a behavior therapist while attending college full time - simultaneously. He holds a B.A. in Sociology and an M.Ed. in Leadership — disciplines rooted in human behavior, not software engineering. After a decade teaching in classrooms watching social media reshape young lives — including those of his own three daughters — Eric made a decision: he would not watch the most powerful technology of his lifetime get built without guardrails a second time. He self-funded and spent his life savings filing patents on the foundational behavioral infrastructure layer for ambient AI. No engineering degree. No law firm. No team. Six weeks. Alone. Eric incorporated ARTHIA AI as a Public Benefit Corporation before raising a single dollar — making privacy protection and human safety legal obligations of the company charter. He is currently raising on Wefunder, (wefunder.com/arthia) offering regular people access before any institutional investor. Because everyone deserves the chance to invest in and benefit from the early architecture of the next big technology.Personal Facebook Profile: facebook.com/ecouryLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/ericcourySupport Our SponsorsOur generous sponsors make our work possible, serving impact investors, social entrepreneurs, community builders and diverse founders. Today's advertisers include PurposeBuilt100™ Winners and supercrowd.tv. Learn more about advertising with us here.Max-Impact Members(We're grateful for every one of these community champions who make this work possible.)Brian Christie, Brainsy | Cameron Neil, Lend For Good | Carol Fineagan, Independent Consultant | Eric Coury, Arthia AI | John Berlet, CORE Tax Deeds, LLC. | Justin Starbird, The Aebli Group | Ken Steele, Rotarian | Lory Moore, Lory Moore Law | Marcia Brinton, High Desert Gear | Mark Grimes, Networked Enterprise Development | Mike Babbit | Coledger Solutions | Mike Green, Envirosult | Nick Degnan, Unlimit Ventures | Paul Lovejoy, Stakeholder Enterprise | Pearl Wright, Global Changemaker | Scott Thorpe, Philanthropist | Sharon Samjitsingh, Health Care Originals | Add Your Name HereUpcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.Join the SuperCrowd Impact League! You can be recognized for making impact investments via Reg CF. See how your activity compares to your peers. It's free. Win valuable prizes. Start now!SuperCrowd Impact Member Networking Session: Impact (and, of course, Max-Impact) Members of the SuperCrowd are invited to a private networking session on August 11th at 8:00 PM ET/5:00 PM PT. Mark your calendar. We'll send private emails to Impact Members with registration details. Upgrade to Impact Membership today!SuperCrowdHour, August 19, 2026, at 12:00 PM Eastern. Devin Thorpe, CEO and Founder of The Super Crowd, Inc., will lead a session on “How to Make Money As an Impact Investor Starting with $10.” Drawing on his experience as a former investment banker, impact investor, and crowdfunding expert, Devin will demonstrate how anyone can begin building wealth while investing in companies that create positive social and environmental impact—even with as little as $10. In this session, he'll explore how impact crowdfunding has opened investment opportunities to everyday investors, explain how to identify promising mission-driven companies, and share practical strategies for building a diversified portfolio over time. Attendees will learn how to get started with limited capital, manage risk, evaluate investment opportunities, and avoid common mistakes new investors make. Whether you're completely new to investing or looking for an affordable way to expand your impact investing portfolio, this SuperCrowdHour will provide actionable insights to help you invest with purpose, build long-term wealth, and make a meaningful difference. Register now!SuperCrowd26 featuring PurposeBuilt100™: This August 25–27, founders, investors, and ecosystem leaders will gather for a three-day, broadcast-quality global experience focused on disciplined capital formation, regulated investment crowdfunding, and purpose-driven growth. We're bringing together leading voices in impact investing, compliance, digital marketing, and circular economy innovation to deliver practical frameworks, real-world case studies, and actionable strategies. The event culminates in the PurposeBuilt100™ Showcase, recognizing 100 of the fastest-growing purpose-driven companies in the U.S. Register now to secure your seat and get all the details. August 25–27, streaming worldwide.Community Event CalendarSuccessful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET - Click on Events.Register Now! October 20th and 21st will be the Crowdfunding Professional Association Regulated Investment Crowdfunding Summit for 2026. This is the event of the year for everyone in the crowdfunding ecosystem.If you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 10,000+ changemakers, investors and entrepreneurs who are members of the SuperCrowd, click here.Manage the volume of emails you receive from us by clicking here.We share educational information—not investment advice. Some links may generate compensation. See our full disclosure.We use AI to help us write compelling recaps of each episode. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

How might artificial intelligence (AI) reshape the way trademark professionals evaluate "likelihood of confusion"? This is one of the most important—and rapidly evolving—questions in trademark law. INTA's recently released study, Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Likelihood of Confusion Analysis, is the first major attempt to provide an answer.It takes a close look at how AI technologies—from machine learning and natural language processing to image and audio recognition—could be applied to one of the most fundamental critical aspects of trademark law: determining whether consumers are likely to be confused between two competing marks.The likelihood of confusion analysis is undertaken in three significant phases of the trademark lifecycle. The first use is made by a brand owner looking to adopt and likely register a new mark.  The second is in intellectual property (IP) offices where trademark registration decisions include this analysis. The third area where the likelihood of confusion analysis becomes critical is when a dispute arises.Likelihood of confusion is certainly a legal test, but that legal test is rooted in the core functions of a trademark, that is how brands build trust with their consumers and how the brand owner's investment in the trademark can be protected.  Turning to the report, what makes it particularly timely is the context? Firstly, IP offices around the world are facing increasing application volumes and growing complexity, from multilingual word marks to logos, sounds, and even motion-based trademarks. At the same time, AI is already transforming how we search, compare, and analyze data. Importantly, the study does not advocate for or against AI. Instead, it offers a practical, forward-looking framework, highlighting both the opportunities and the risks, from improved speed and pattern recognition to concerns around bias, transparency, and over-reliance on automation. This episode of Brand & New is hosted by David Gooder, former Commissioner for Trademarks at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), who also contributed to this report. To explore and help explain the report's findings, he is joined by two colleagues who played a central role in developing this report.Lori Schulman is Senior Director of Internet Policy at INTA. Ms. Schulman has long been at the forefront of INTA's work on digital policy issues, including the intersection of emerging technologies and IP. She was part of the core INTA project team that worked closely with FTI Consulting to shape this report, contributing both policy insight and practical perspective on how AI is already affecting the IP ecosystem. Jose Londoño is Associate Senior Director for External Relations and Policy Development at INTA. Mr. Londoño also served on the report's internal project team and brings extensive experience working with IP offices and policymakers around the world. Mr. Londoño's background in public-sector IP administration—which includes serving as Deputy Superintendent for Industrial Property at Colombia's IP office—adds an important global and operational perspective to how AI could be implemented in practice. Related ResourcesAbout David GooderAbout Jose LondoñoAbout Lori SchulmanExploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Likelihood of Confusion Analysis (INTA, June 2026)IP Office of the Future: Digital Transformation Think Tank Report (INTA, July 2026)INTA Board Resolution of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights Foundational Principles (INTA, May 2025)Likelihood of confusion (USPTO)

Send us Fan MailSomeone messaged me saying ChatGPT claims I organize the National Shed Show. I do not. That awkward moment turns into a bigger conversation about what happens when AI, search engines, and online rumors reshape your brand without your permission and why clear communication and real brand protection matter in the shed industry.I also use this mid-year monologue to share what we are seeing across sheds, steel buildings, carports, and portable structures: lots can be busy while growth still stalls. The culprit is often not demand, it is the quiet stuff underneath like your website path, lead follow-up, and the small operational leaks that keep buyers from becoming deliveries. We talk through industry events like the Shed Sales Summit in Knoxville and the Shed Expo, plus the simple truth about advertising: it builds awareness and it keeps you top of mind.Then we get practical and a little nerdy: trademark and copyright basics, how scammers send fake “bills” after USPTO filings, and what to watch for. We also dig into digital marketing trends like SEO and Answer Engine Optimization as Google AI Overview drives more zero-click searches and changes website analytics. I wrap with ways we can help through marketing time blocks, a call for more guests and shed stories, and a genuine thank-you to listeners and partners who keep this community moving.If this helped, subscribe, share it with someone in the shed business, and leave a review so more builders and dealers can find the show.For more information or to know more about the Shed Geek Podcast visit us at our website.Would you like to receive our weekly newsletter?  Sign up on our website: shedgeek.comFollow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or YouTube at the handle @shedgeekpodcast.To be a guest on the Shed Geek Podcast visit our website and fill out the "Contact Us" form.To suggest show topics or ask questions you want answered email us at info@shedgeek.com.This episodes Sponsors:Studio Sponsor: Shed ProNewFound SolutionsShed SuiteFirst Choice Metals

The evolution from leather-soled shoes of the 19th century to the sneakers people wear today started slowly, then built momentum. Many of the big names in sneakers today got their start surprisingly early in the process. Research: “A Column for the Girls.” Brooklyn Eagle. July 28, 1895. https://www.newspapers.com/image/50411759/?match=1&terms=%22sand%20shoes%22 Barrett, Jennifer. “The History of Adidas and Puma.” Newsweek. March 13, 2008. https://www.newsweek.com/history-adidas-and-puma-86373 Bisno, Adam. “The search for lost X-patents.” USPTO. July 13, 2022. https://www.uspto.gov/blog/the-search-for-lost-x “Brand Story.” Dunlop. https://www.dunlopboots.com/why-dunlop/brand-story Carpenter, Julia. “Adidas vs. Puma: The Family Rift That Shaped the Sportswear Industry.” History. May 6, 2026. https://www.history.com/articles/adidas-puma-rivalry-dassler “Chuck Taylor Converse All Star: The Man Who Made the Shoe.” Indiana Historical Society. https://indianahistory.org/events/chuck-taylor-converse-all-star-the-man-who-made-the-shoe-2/ “The Company.” New Balance. https://www.newbalance.gr/en/etaireia/profil/?__cf_chl_f_tk=TZRFzU2s58Jw3z.lFjWqe.bQmjADyBkIMMpMI4v.Cuk-1783279660-1.0.1.1-sWRq2n.zJUdoWCA6sKXCjtDKIRGvxztpX5Rhq4MRJ4s Cousens, Nico. “Inventions that made the modern running shoe.” Kilburn & Strode. April 17, 2018. Cunliffe, Paul and Lauren Hirst. “Co-founder of £2.5bn brand started out as factory help.” BBC. Oct. 1, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8jdlndg0xo Department of Nike Archives. “From Waffle Iron to World Stage: The True Story of the Nike Moon Shoe.” Nike. Sept. 15, 2025. https://about.nike.com/en/magazine/nike-moon-shoe-waffle-iron-true-history “Fashion Notes.” The Times-Union. July 22, 1882. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1275226621/?match=1&terms=%22lawn-tennis%20shoe%22 “The History of the Sneaker.” The Washington Post. May 14, 2002. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/05/14/the-history-of-the-sneaker/aa2096d1-a7e2-4427-a324-cb603512722d/ Hunt, Kristin. “11 Comfy Facts About Keds.” Mental Floss. March 26, 2022. https://www.mentalfloss.com/culture/fashion-beauty/11-comfy-facts-about-keds “The Invention of the Iconic Vans Skateboarding Shoe.” The Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation.” https://invention.si.edu/invention-stories/invention-iconic-vans-skateboarding-shoe “Journey of an Icon: The History of the Chuck Taylor All Star.” Nike. https://about.nike.com/en/magazine/converse-chuck-taylor-all-star-iconic-sneaker-true-history Keller, Kate. “A Brief History of America’s Obsession With Sneakers.” Smithsonian. May 18, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/brief-history-americas-obsession-sneakers-180969116/ Lorge, Barry Steven, Aberdare, Morys George Lyndhurst Bruce, 4th Baron. "tennis". Encyclopedia Britannica, 16 Jun. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/sports/tennis Lou, Michelle. “Nike’s rare ‘Moon Shoe’ is sold for $437,500, shattering the auction record for sneakers.” CNN. July 23, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/nike-moon-shoe-sold-auction-trnd “Notice! Tennis Players!” Des Moines Register. June 8, 1888. https://www.newspapers.com/image/127760140/?match=1&terms=%22lawn-tennis%20shoe%22 “Off The Wall- Since 1966. The Story Of Vans.” Vans. https://www.vans.com/en-us/about#early-1970s “Patent India Rubber or Gum Elastic Shoes.” Monmouth Democrat. January 22, 1835. https://www.newspapers.com/image/496911351/?match=2&terms=Wait%20Webster “Peachtree Through the Years 1970-2021.” Atlanta Track Club. https://www.atlantatrackclub.org/event-information-history “Plaint of an Old Shoe.” The Boston Globe. Aug. 23, 1894. https://www.newspapers.com/image/430680218/?match=1&terms=sneaker “Plimsoll Draws the Line.” Nautilus International. April 24, 2026. https://www.nautilusint.org/en/news-insight/telegraph/plimsoll-draws-the-line/ “Puma and Adidas' rivalry has divided a small German town for 70 years — here's what it looks like now.” Business Insider. October 2018. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-puma-and-adidas-rivalry-divided-their-founding-town-for-70-years-2018-10 Rickey, Melanie. “Flash of Genius.” The Independent. June 28, 1996. https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/flash-of-genius-1339404.html “Sneakers.” Record-Journal. Aug. 8, 1898. https://www.newspapers.com/image/674954692/?match=6&terms=sneaker “Sneakers Latest in Women’s Wear.” The Battle Creek Enquirer. May 18, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1044420723/?match=1&terms=sneaker “’Sneakers’ the Things.” L'abeille De La Nouvelle-Orléans (New Orleans Bee). Nov. 11, 1904. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1323250586/?match=1&terms=sneaker “Sneakers – Worldwide.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/footwear/sneakers/worldwide Sun, Michael. “‘Everyone owns at least one pair’: $75bn sneaker industry unboxed in Gold Coast exhibition.” The Guardian. Nov. 25, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2023/nov/26/sneakers-unboxed-hota-shoe-exhibition-gold-coast-queensland-australia Tikkanen, Amy. "history of sneakers". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 Oct. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-sneakers Turner, Thomas. “The Production and Consumption of Lawn-Tennis Shoes in Late-Victorian Britain.” Journal of British Studies. JULY 2016, Vol. 55, No. 3 (JULY 2016), pp. 474-500. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26598891 Turner, Thomas. “The Sports Shoe: A History from Field to Fashion.” Bloomsbury. 2019. Umoh, Ruth. “Here’s how much Nike’s billionaire founder paid for the infamous swoosh logo in 1971.” CNBC. Sept. 5, 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/heres-how-much-nikes-billionaire-founder-paid-for-its-swoosh-logo.html “Value of the sneakers market worldwide from 2018 to 2030.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1017918/sneakers-market-value-forecast-worldwide/ “Where Basketball was Invented: The History of Basketball.” Springfield College. https://springfield.edu/about/birthplace-of-basketball “40. For a method of attaching leather soles to boots and shoes of India rubber; Wait Webster, city of New York, May 21.” Journal of the Franklin Institute. Volume 14, Issue 6. 1832. Page 391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(32)90275-0. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Question: When is correspondence submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system accorded a receipt date? Answer: Correspondence submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office without regard to whether that date is a […] The post MPEP Q & A 358: When is correspondence submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system accorded a receipt date? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Fredrik Ljungman, grundare Feather IP, gästar podden Framtidens E-Handel. De går igenom klassiska varumärkestvister som Vessla mot Vespa, förklarar varför H&M betalade mer för Monki och Weekday tack vare gjort IP-arbete, och bryter ner kostnaderna för att registrera ett varumärke i EU. Samtalet rör sig vidare från domänstrategi och lokala toppdomäner till licensiering som affärsmodell.02:04 - Vessla-Vespa-tvisten - varumärkeskonflikt som krävde snabb lösning08:00 - H&M köpte Monki och Weekday tack vare skydd11:08 - Säkra domäner och sociala konton redan från start13:47 - Väntar du för länge blir domänen dyrare15:16 - Lokala domäner slår ofta .com utomlands19:49 - PRV, EUIPO, USPTO - vem registrerar vad? 22:03 - EU-registrering kostar cirka 2 000 euro totalt26:41 - Under Armour-tvisten kostade Gustav Ohlsson två år29:09 - Recept går inte att varumärkesskydda, bara varumärket34:03 - Färger går sällan att skydda - formen kan58:44 - AI gör kopiering enklare - skydda ditt varumärkeHär hittar du Fredrik & Feather IP:https://www.linkedin.com/in/fredrikljungman/ https://featherip.com/ Sponsor Airmee & Orange Juice:https://www.airmee.com/en/ https://www.ohjay.co/ Framtidens Berns Event:https://framtidensehandel.se/products/roast Följ Björn på LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/bjornspenger/ Följ Framtidens E-handel på LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/framtidens-e-handel/ Besök vår hemsida, YouTube & Instagram:https://www.framtidensehandel.se/ https://www.instagram.com/framtidens.ehandel/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEYywBFgOr34TN8NtXeL5HQPoddproducent och klippare Michaela Dorch & Videoproducent Fredrik Ankarsköld:https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaela-dorch/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankarskold/ Tusen tack för att du lyssnar!Support till showen http://supporter.acast.com/framtidens-e-handel. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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/

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Nominated to the Supreme CourtOn July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan announced that he was nominating Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed, she would become the first woman ever to serve on the Court in its then-191-year history. The Senate confirmed her later that summer by a vote of 99 to 0, and she took her seat in September 1981.O'Connor's path to the Court was, in its own way, a commentary on the barriers women faced in the legal profession. She had graduated near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952—ahead of, among others, William Rehnquist, who would one day be her Chief Justice—and yet law firms in California would not hire her as a lawyer. One offered her a job as a legal secretary. She built her career instead in public service and in Arizona politics, eventually rising to become the majority leader of the Arizona state senate, the first woman in the country to hold such a post, before moving to the bench as a state judge. When Reagan, who had promised during his campaign to appoint a woman to the Court, chose her, he was reaching past the federal appellate judiciary—which had almost no women on it—into state government.On the Court, O'Connor became famous as a pragmatic, case-by-case decision-maker who resisted sweeping rules, and for roughly a quarter century she sat at the ideological center, casting decisive votes on abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, religion, and the limits of federal power. Her approach frustrated those who wanted bright-line doctrines from either side, but it made her, for a generation, arguably the most powerful jurist in the country—the swing vote whose reasoning lower courts and litigants had to anticipate.Her nomination matters in legal history not only because it broke a barrier that had stood since 1789, but because of what came after it. Once one woman had sat on the Court and served with distinction, the question was no longer whether a woman could do the job but why it had taken so long. O'Connor herself was characteristically understated about the symbolism, insisting that she wanted to be judged on the quality of her arguments rather than her place in history. But the two are not really separable. The fact that a brilliant lawyer could be turned away from every firm that interviewed her, and then go on to become the deciding vote on the highest court in the land, is a reminder of how much talent the profession wasted for how long—and of how quickly a barrier that seems permanent can fall once someone is finally allowed through it.Meta has disclosed that four states are seeking as much as $1.4 trillion in penalties heading into an August trial over claims that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict young users. The figure—close to Meta's entire market value of around $1.5 trillion—came out in a court filing in which Meta argued the number is wildly excessive and, in its words, “has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are among the states suing Meta, alleging that the company engineered features to keep teenagers compulsively engaged—infinite scroll, autoplay, manipulative notifications—while publicly downplaying the harm to young users' mental health. The case is set for trial in Oakland in August. The eye-popping penalty number comes from how state consumer-protection laws are structured: they typically set a fixed statutory fine per violation, and the states arrive at $1.4 trillion by multiplying that per-violation fine by an enormous number of alleged violations, one for roughly every affected young user, across years of conduct.Think about how that math works and why it produces such a staggering figure. If a law says you owe, say, a few thousand dollars per violation, that sounds modest—until the “violations” are counted in the tens or hundreds of millions because each affected teenager, each exposure, is its own violation. Statutes written to punish a corner store for mislabeling a product start to generate astronomical numbers when applied to a platform that touches nearly every teenager in a state. That's the tension at the heart of this filing: the states say they're simply applying the law as written, and Meta says applying it that way produces a number no legislature could possibly have intended.The significance here isn't really the trillion-dollar headline, which almost no one expects to be the actual outcome. It's what the fight over the number reveals. Penalty calculations like this are leverage—they shape settlement negotiations and signal how seriously a court might treat the underlying conduct. The case is one of the most important tests yet of whether decades-old consumer-protection statutes can be turned against the design choices of social media platforms, and whether “we built it to be addictive” can be treated as a deceptive or unfair business practice. However the penalty question resolves, the theory of liability is the thing to watch.Meta says US states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties in August youth safety trial | ReutersA coalition of twenty-two Democratic state attorneys general has come out against the Trump administration's plan to impose tariffs of up to 12.5% on 59 countries and the European Union, tariffs the administration justifies as a response to trade in goods made with forced labor. The attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, call the levies unlawful and describe them as a pretext to resurrect tariff authority the Supreme Court has already rejected.Tariffs are taxes on imports, and the Constitution gives the power to levy taxes primarily to Congress. Presidents can impose tariffs, but only when Congress has delegated them that authority through a specific statute, and each of those statutes comes with its own conditions and limits. Earlier tariffs from this administration were struck down when courts found the President had stretched his delegated power past what the law allowed. Now the administration is invoking forced-labor concerns as the legal basis for a new round. The Democratic attorneys general argue that this is the same overreach in a new costume—that dressing tariffs up as a human-rights measure doesn't cure the underlying problem, which is that the President is claiming a taxing power Congress never handed him.Consider the practical reach of what's proposed. The attorneys general say these tariffs would hit roughly 99% of imports. A tariff, whatever its stated purpose, is ultimately paid by importers and passed along to consumers in higher prices. So the debate isn't only an abstract argument about the separation of powers—it's about who gets to decide to raise the cost of nearly everything Americans buy from abroad, and whether that decision belongs to one person in the executive branch or to Congress. The forced-labor rationale is genuinely important on its own terms; forced labor in global supply chains is a real and serious problem. But the attorneys general are making a structural point: even a good goal doesn't authorize a power the law doesn't grant.The significance is that this is another front in an ongoing constitutional struggle over how far presidential trade power extends. The attorneys general are signaling they will litigate, and the courts have already shown, in striking down the earlier tariffs, that they are willing to police the boundary. Watch for whether this dispute follows the same path to the Supreme Court, because the answer will shape not just this set of tariffs but how much unilateral economic power any president can claim by pointing to a sufficiently sympathetic justification.Democratic AGs oppose Trump plan to impose tariffs on forced labor concerns | ReutersThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has abandoned an unusual set of trademark applications it had filed to register the phrase “Board of Peace” on behalf of President Trump, walking away from the filings after sharp criticism from congressional Democrats and questions about whether the agency had any legal authority to file them in the first place. The government filed an express abandonment of the applications, ending what one member of Congress called an unlawful venture.A trademark protects a brand—a word or logo used to identify the source of goods or services in commerce. Normally, a person or company files their own application, or has their lawyer file it for them. What happened here is that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, the head of the very agency that examines and grants trademarks, filed applications to register “Board of Peace” on the President's behalf. And that raised an immediate legal problem: the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, generally forbids filing an application on behalf of another person unless you are that person's attorney—and the Director specifically was not acting as Trump's lawyer.Think about why that rule exists and why the arrangement looked so troubling. The agency that decides who gets a trademark is supposed to be a neutral referee. When the head of that agency personally files an application for the President, the referee has stepped onto the field to play for one team. Even setting aside the specific statutory bar, it collapses the distinction between the government official who grants rights and the private party who receives them. Critics questioned not just the legality but the transparency of the whole exercise—who authorized it, on what authority, and why the trademark office was branding a presidential initiative at all.The significance is less about the phrase “Board of Peace” and more about the guardrails around a powerful administrative agency. Trademark law has technical rules about who may file and on whose behalf, and those rules are part of what keeps the system credible. The abandonment—prompted by oversight from the House Judiciary Committee's Democrats—shows those guardrails still functioning: an irregular filing was flagged, its legal basis questioned, and the agency backed down before a court had to intervene. It's a small episode in the scheme of things, but a clean illustration of how ordinary statutory limits and legislative oversight can check an official who reaches beyond his role.US trademark office abandons ‘Board of Peace' branding rights applications | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on the administration's threat to hit countries that have digital services taxes with 100% tariffs. My argument, in short, is that this is an ill-advised response—it isn't really a defense of the U.S. tax system at all, but an attempt to use consumer-funded trade pain to shield big tech from foreign tax bills.Let me set up the problem. A digital services tax, or DST, is a levy some foreign governments impose on the local digital revenue of companies like Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Amazon, or Netflix. These firms can earn enormous revenue from users in a country without ever having the kind of physical presence that the traditional international tax system was built to tax. Netflix can stream into a jurisdiction, pull revenue out of it, and never owe local tax. So foreign governments invented DSTs to capture some of that. The U.S. response, apparently, is to threaten tariffs on that country's completely unrelated goods until the tax goes away. The logic is that if Google has to pay France a modest tax on its digital revenue, someone in Cleveland might have to pay more for their champagne.I want to be fair to both sides here, because I actually think both have a point. DSTs genuinely deserve criticism—they're blunt instruments that tax gross revenue rather than profit, which means they can overtax low-margin business, and they're often designed with revenue thresholds conveniently set to catch every big U.S. tech firm while sparing domestic companies. So the U.S. complaint that these taxes are tailored to skim revenue from American firms is not baseless. But foreign governments also have a legitimate grievance: the old international tax rules really do struggle to tax digital businesses that earn a fortune from local users without setting foot in the country.Here's where I think the tariff response falls apart. A blanket 100% tariff doesn't fix any of a DST's design flaws. It doesn't determine where digital value is actually created, it doesn't allocate taxing rights, and it doesn't even fall on the foreign government. Tariffs are paid by importers, and most of that cost gets passed along to consumers. With last year's tariffs, as much as ninety percent of the economic burden landed on domestic firms and consumers. So think about how strange this is as tax policy: the companies facing the foreign tax are the largest and richest technology firms in the world, but the companies and consumers who'd actually feel the tariff are unrelated domestic players. No one is literally cutting Meta a reimbursement check, but the effect is the same—American consumers and importers become the leverage used to protect Silicon Valley from foreign tax exposure.And the bilateral approach has a nasty structural problem. The administration seems emboldened by the Canada episode—Canada moved to collect its DST, the U.S. threatened trade consequences, and Canada backed down. The apparent lesson the administration drew is that a big enough threat can make any foreign tax disappear. But if the U.S. treats tariff threats as a standing veto over other countries' tax policy, then every DST becomes a bilateral confrontation—France, Spain, Italy, the UK, one hostage negotiation after another—and it invites everyone else to adopt the same playbook the moment U.S. firms need something from them.So what I argue for instead is a binding, multilateral framework, and I lay out three pieces it would need. First, countries with DSTs agree to repeal them once a replacement is in place—the goal is to swap the ad hoc levies for something coherent, not stack a new rule on top of them. Second, market jurisdictions get, and help design, a predictable formula for their share of taxing rights over digital multinationals—something administrable and tied to a defensible theory of where digital profits are earned. And third, the U.S. keeps its powder dry: retaliation stays in reserve for countries that refuse the framework or discriminate against U.S. firms, applied with due process and proportionality, not as a one-size-fits-all tariff bazooka every time a foreign tax annoys Silicon Valley. Until we build that kind of system, the DST fight is just going to keep coming back.US Tariff Threat Is an Ill-Advised Digital Services Tax Reaction | Bloomberg Tax 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

Your trademark can last a very long time. Potentially forever. But, like a houseplant, a customer relationship, or the office printer that only works when spoken to respectfully, it needs care.This episode breaks down the question every founder eventually asks: how long does a trademark last? The answer is both encouraging and slightly paperwork-flavored. In the United States, a federal trademark registration can continue indefinitely if the owner keeps using the mark in commerce and files the required maintenance and renewal documents on time.That is the good news. The less glamorous news is that a trademark registration is not a trophy you place on a shelf forever. It has deadlines, use requirements, and renewal windows. It also has a talent for becoming a problem right when your business is busy launching, raising money, hiring people, or discovering that the website footer still says copyright twenty nineteen.In this episode, we explain why trademarks are different from patents. Patents have fixed terms. Trademarks are connected to marketplace identity. If customers still associate your mark with your goods or services, and you maintain the registration, protection can continue decade after decade.We also cover the major U.S. trademark maintenance windows business owners should know. After registration, owners usually need to file a declaration of continued use between the fifth and sixth year. Then, between the ninth and tenth year, renewal and maintenance documents are typically due. After that, renewals continue every ten years.We dig into what “use in commerce” actually means. A trademark needs real commercial use connected to the goods or services in the registration. For products, that could include packaging, labels, product pages, or point-of-sale displays. For services, it might include websites, proposals, ads, or booking pages.We also talk about abandonment, which is the legal version of your brand wandering off into the woods. If a business stops using a mark and has no intent to resume use, the mark can become vulnerable. Three consecutive years of nonuse can become strong evidence of abandonment under U.S. law. That is why “we might bring it back someday” is not a great trademark strategy unless there is a real plan behind it.Monitoring is another major topic. Registering a trademark does not mean the government automatically enforces it for you. The USPTO does not patrol the marketplace with a tiny badge and a suspiciously well-organized spreadsheet. Trademark owners usually need to watch for confusingly similar brands, copycats, partner misuse, and signs that consumers are getting confused.The episode also explains why enforcement should be strategic. Not every similar word deserves a legal battle. Smart trademark enforcement looks at similarity, related goods or services, customer overlap, actual confusion, market impact, and business goals. Sometimes the right move is a letter. Sometimes it is a coexistence agreement, takedown, or litigation.For founders and small business owners, the practical takeaway is simple: treat trademarks like active business assets. Calendar deadlines early. Save proof of use. Review registrations annually. Keep ownership records clean. Update goods and services when the business changes. Monitor the market. Use the mark consistently. And please, do not rely on memory as your legal operations system. Deadlines love disguises.This episode is especially useful for startup founders, small business owners, marketing leaders, brand managers, product companies, service businesses, franchise operators, and anyone who has ever said, “We registered the name, so we're good forever, right?”Your trademark is more than a name. It is the symbol customers remember, the asset competitors notice, and the brand signal investors may evaluate. Protect it like it matters, because it probably does.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

On this episode of AMSEcast, host and American Museum of Science and Energy executive director Alan Lowe sits down with Jason Clark of the USPTO to discuss the history and the relevance of trademarks, patents, and copyrights for inventions in America to celebrate America's big 250th birthday!

https://www.kellijoneslaw.com/ In this episode of The Attorney Post, trademark lawyer Kelli Jones shares how she transformed a traditional legal career into a modern, fully online law firm serving entrepreneurs across the United States. With a practice centered on trademarks and business law, Jones discusses why intellectual property protection is one of the smartest investments business owners can make and explains the common mistakes that often lead companies to expensive rebranding efforts. Kelli Jones operates an online trademark and business law firm that primarily serves entrepreneurs, small businesses, and women-owned companies. After years practicing in traditional firms, she decided to launch her own virtual practice in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. While many law firms struggled with courthouse closures and operational disruptions, Jones viewed the shift as an opportunity to redesign legal services around accessibility and technology. Today, her practice is conducted almost entirely through Zoom consultations and online communication, allowing her to represent clients nationwide while also assisting international businesses seeking trademark protection in the United States. Licensed in both New York and Tennessee, Jones has appeared before courts throughout New York while expanding her reach far beyond geographic boundaries through her virtual model. At the core of her practice is one simple mission: helping businesses protect the brands they work so hard to build. Jones shared examples of businesses that had built strong local reputations only to receive cease-and-desist letters from companies with prior trademark rights. Rather than filing immediately through the USPTO website, she encourages entrepreneurs to begin with a comprehensive trademark search. While the USPTO database provides a useful starting point, it does not uncover every potential conflict. Jones performs much deeper searches that evaluate similar names, related industries, common-law usage, and other legal risks before recommending whether a business should proceed with filing. Beyond legal work, Jones has embraced social media as both an educational platform and a marketing tool. Her Instagram and TikTok accounts regularly break down trademark issues using current events, celebrity disputes, and trending news stories to make intellectual property law easier to understand. Jones also offers a legal subscription service that allows business owners to receive ongoing legal support through monthly consultations, project requests, and business guidance. Instead of waiting until legal problems arise, subscribers can proactively address questions before they become larger issues. By combining modern technology with personalized legal strategy, Kelli Jones has built a practice that reflects the changing needs of today's entrepreneurs. Her conversation offers valuable guidance for anyone building a business and highlights why trademarks should be viewed not as optional legal paperwork, but as foundational business assets. Sponsors: RankWith.NewsThe Attorney PostNational ERCAndropology https://youtu.be/l2iIsYfcJEA

National Inventor Club Founder Brian Fried went LIVE for a powerful discussion on one of the biggest decisions inventors face: Should you license your invention or manufacture it yourself?If you had an invention idea and were trying to figure out the smartest next step, this session was for you. Brian drew on his extensive experience in both licensing and manufacturing, with products featured on QVC, in Target, Walmart, catalogs, online retailers, and more. During the live session, he broke down the real differences between these two paths and what inventors needed to know before investing serious time or money.In this LIVE session, attendees learned:The difference between licensing and manufacturingThe pros and cons of each pathWhat companies look for when evaluating productsWhat inventors often get wrongHow to choose the best route based on your goals and budgetManufacturing realities most inventors are not prepared forHow to protect yourself and your invention along the wayWhether you were just getting started or already moving forward with your idea, this session helped clarify your options and avoid costly mistakes.About Brian Fried Brian Fried is The Inventor Coach™. A serial inventor with 15 issued U.S. patents, Brian has lived every stage of the invention journey from idea to patent to licensing deal to retail shelf. His products have been featured on QVC and sold in major retailers including Target and Walmart. He is the founder of the National Inventor Club with over 15,000 members worldwide, a three-time author on invention commercialization, and host of the Got Invention Show. Brian is the creator of uinvent.ai, an AI-powered platform built specifically for inventors, and the Inventor Smart Community App. He provides licensing representation, manufacturing guidance, and commercialization coaching to inventors at every stage. He is an Alibaba Ambassador, serves on their SME Advisory Committee and International IP Enforcement Team, and is the Official Inventor Liaison for Licensing International. He has testified before Congress on patent programs and spoken at USPTO Inventor Day, SCORE, and major industry events nationwide.Watch the episode here: https://youtube.com/live/6R-1PLallzw-----------------------Become a member today @ https://nationalinventorclub.com. Unlock Your Invention's Potential with Inventor Smart! Inventor Smart Community - The Ultimate APP for Inventors to connect, collaborate, network, and drive invention ideas forward! Join social networking, participate in group chats, events, visit the library, and find the support you need! Download the Inventor Smart Community app on Google Play or Apple App Store or here http://inventorsmart.app Join us today! Have a great invention idea? Do you want to know if your idea will make you money? If you're just getting started, need help with product development, engineering, prototyping, finding a product licensing agent, or with bringing your invention idea to reality manufacturing, schedule a call with Brian Fried, The Inventor Coach @ https://brianfried.com

If you've ever told yourself "I'm too small to worry about trademarks," this episode is the wake-up call. Kelly sits down with trademark and IP attorney Berkeley Sweetapple — the rare lawyer who makes legal genuinely fun — to break down why protecting your brand isn't a someday problem, it's a business growth investment you make early. Kelly opens up about the most expensive lesson of her career. when she figured she was too small and insignificant to bother with a trademark, and ended up needing a full rebrand across thousands of files, podcasts, and videos, millions of dollars lost, and years of focus pulled off growth. Berkeley shares how she went from "most likely to quit law and become a housewife" to building a law firm serving online entrepreneurs, and gets into where IP is heading in the age of AI. Celebrities like Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey are already trademarking phrases, faces, and likenesses to control how their persona shows up online, and Berkeley explains why the law is always playing catch-up while AI moves at full speed. Berkley shares why everything in your business probably needs a legal refresh after the changes of the last couple years, and where to start if you're mid-panic. The common denominator: if you stay in business long enough, these things will happen to you. The move is to get the right people in place early, stay in your CEO energy, delegate the legal, and build the systems so you can keep moving the company forward. In this episode: Kelly's Unstoppable Entrepreneur lawsuit and the cost of trademarking too late How Berkeley turned a legal lifestyle blog into a law firm for online founders Trademarking your likeness, face, and voice as AI reshapes IP Real trademark horror stories (and one big USPTO win) What a legal VIP day / audit actually covers Why your business is probably exposed after recent changes Kelly's partnership cautionary tale Staying in CEO energy: delegate legal, build systems, expect the hard stuff Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: Kelly's Unstoppable Entrepreneur trademark story 00:44 — Welcome and introducing Berkeley, the "fun lawyer," and trademarking for Madison 01:56 — Berkeley's path: law school, a legal lifestyle blog, and finding her niche 04:06 — Trademarking your likeness, face, and voice in the age of AI 06:42 — Can you trademark your voice? Why the law is always behind 08:47 — Trademark horror stories (the conference and the 25K-follower takedown) 10:08 — Kelly's story: the Unstoppable Entrepreneur lawsuit with Entrepreneur Magazine 12:54 — The FTC scare, the company audit, and the Miracle Hour earnings disclaimer 15:30 — What a legal VIP day covers: audit, copyright, contracts, disclaimers 17:25 — Why everything in your business changed, and where you're now exposed 19:13 — Client win: getting Julie Solomon's Influencer Podcast trademarked after a refusal 20:22 — Where to start if you're having an "oh no" moment 21:03 — The Seven Figure CEO Bundle and code KELLY20 22:24 — Kelly's partnership cautionary tale 24:08 — "If these things aren't happening to you, you're not playing big enough" 25:58 — Staying in CEO energy: delegate legal, build the systems 26:51 — Closing: trademark before you need it, and licensing the Miracle Hour   RESOURCES:  Connect with Berkley on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/berkleysweetapple/  Check out Berkley's trademark packages HERE: https://berkleysweetapplelaw.com/trademarks/#start  Schedule a VIP day: https://berkleysweetapplelaw.com/vip-day/#start  Get Berkley's 7-figure CEO Bundle: https://www.thebusinessstudio.com/pages/7-figure-ceo-bundle  Schedule a free discovery call: https://berkleysweetapple.as.me/schedule/72c2f17c/appointment/41570219/calendar/13957087?calendarIds=13957087 

Join us for a timely webinar examining the latest updates to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's examination policy under Director John Squires, with a focused look at how these changes are reshaping patent prosecution. Our panel will break down key shifts in examination practice—including updates to patent eligibility—and applicant strategies emerging in response, offering practical insights for navigating this evolving landscape. Designed for practitioners, in-house counsel, and policy observers alike, this discussion will highlight what matters most for day-to-day prosecution.Featuring:Dr. Julie Burke, Founder, IP Quality Pro, LLCNoel Egnatios, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Legal Officer, DivXEli Mazour, Of Counsel, Foley & Lardner LLPClint Mehall, Partner, Davidson Kappel LLC(Moderator) John M. Rogitz, Managing Attorney, Rogitz & Associates

Explore the "middle" phase of intellectual property protection. The period between filing and final protection is a crucial phase where strategy, negotiation, and risk management take shape. Using pop culture references ranging from Quentin Tarantino films to Willy Wonka and Jurassic Park, hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushe connect famous middle acts in entertainment to the middle stages of the patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright processes. This episode of IP Goes Pop!® breaks down:  What "patent pending" actually means from publication to examination How the patent examination process can strengthen a patent How the "middle" for trade secrets effectively becomes the entire lifecycle of protection The importance of preserving trade secret rights via NDAs, restricted access, and confidentiality measures  Common law trademark rights versus federal registration Trademark examination process and USPTO requirements The crossovers between copyright process "middle" and trademarks Along the way, the hosts question whether Willy Wonka's factory tours would survive modern confidentiality practices and whether Jurassic Park had one of the least effective trade secret protection programs in movie history. Whether you are protecting technology, building a brand, or managing confidential business information, this episode offers a practical look at the "middle" phase of IP protection where rights are often shaped, tested, and strengthened the most. Key Moments: (00:55) IP First, Lasts, and Middles S7, EP 1: We're #1! Intellectual Property Firsts S7, EP 2: If You're Not Firsts, You're Lasts (01:40) "Stuck in the Middle With You" and Reservoir Dogs (05:01) Malcolm in the Middle and Famous "Middle" Stories   (07:31) Why The Empire Strikes Back Became the Most Famous Middle Movie (11:22) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Obtaining a Patent Protection (17:10) Why Strong Patents Are "Battle Tested" (19:02) Expanding Patent Protection During "Patent Pending" Process (20:52) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (26:16) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Trademarks (30:06) After Trademark Issuance (33:48) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Copyrights Past IP Goes Pop! Episodes on Copyright S6 Ep 3: The (Copy)Right Tool for the Job- The Copyright Tool Kit S4 Ep 2: Streamlining Copyright Disputes: The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) S3 Ep 11: You Can't Do That-What IP Cannot Protect S3 Ep 1: Escape of the Famous Cartoon Characters- IP and the Public Domain S1 EP2: Intellectual Property Urban Legends -Taking on Myths About IP in Popular Culture (34:25) Final Thoughts   For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. You can stay connected with us on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter, and Instagram using the handle @volpeandkoenig.  

Your business name may be one of your most valuable assets, but is it actually protected?In this episode-style breakdown, we explore word mark trademarks and why they matter for startup founders, small business owners, creators, consultants, product companies, and anyone building a brand that customers need to recognize.A word mark trademark protects the wording of your brand name, slogan, product name, or phrase. It does not depend on your logo, font, color, or design style. That is why word marks are often so useful. Logos change. Websites change. Packaging changes. Sometimes the entire brand kit changes because someone discovered a new shade of blue and called it “strategic.” But the name often remains the anchor.This matters because customers usually search, recommend, and remember names. They type your name into Google. They say it in conversations. They tag it online. They compare it with competitors. If another business uses a confusingly similar name, the harm may happen even if the logos look completely different.We cover what a word mark is, how it differs from a logo trademark, and why the USPTO commonly refers to these as standard character marks when no particular font, style, size, or color is claimed. We also explain why distinctiveness matters. A made-up, arbitrary, or suggestive name is often stronger than a name that merely describes the product or service.That creates a real business tension. Descriptive names can be easier to market at first because customers immediately understand what you do. But they may be harder to protect. Distinctive names may require more explanation upfront but can become stronger long-term brand assets.We also talk through common mistakes. Registering an LLC does not automatically give you trademark rights. Buying a domain name does not mean you own the brand. Using ™ is not the same as having a federal registration. Filing a logo mark is not the same as protecting the wording of your name.For founders, these details matter because rebranding is expensive. It can affect your website, social profiles, packaging, signage, customer trust, SEO, ads, contracts, app listings, and every pitch deck you already sent into the wild.This episode also breaks down the practical steps: choose the exact wording, confirm it functions as a brand, evaluate distinctiveness, conduct a clearance search, identify the correct goods and services, decide whether to file based on current use or intent to use, file carefully, monitor the application, and maintain the registration after approval.We also discuss why trademark registration is not the finish line. A mark must be used consistently, monitored, and maintained. Enforcement should be strategic and proportionate. Not every conflict requires a lawsuit, but ignoring real confusion can weaken your position and damage customer trust.The big lesson is simple: your brand name is not just decoration. It is a business asset. A word mark can help protect that asset before competitors, copycats, or confusingly similar names start creating problems.If you are building a company, launching a product, creating a course, naming a podcast, or scaling a service business, this topic is worth understanding before you invest heavily in branding.Because copycats rarely arrive with a warning label. They usually show up with a similar name, a cheaper logo, and the confidence of someone who skipped the trademark search.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

OA1268 - Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, ach mein! How did the Fender Stratocaster, a guitar that has been in continuous manufacture since 1954, Suddenly become the subject of an intellectual property dispute? Well, maybe this didn't exactly come from Out of the Woods. Fender has had 5 utility patents, 1 design patent, and 3 trademarks relevant to the Stratocaster Through the Years. But the one thing that's been Slipping Through Their Fingers all this time was protection for that iconic (or is it?) body shape. After their design patent expired, their trademark application was Denied, and US copyright was definitionally Forbidden, anyone could see that Nothing Really Matters to the US Patent and Trademark Office, and Fender was left Walking in the Snow. Very similar (some might say identical) body shapes entered the market. It's Late, but perhaps not too late. Fender sailed the Seven Seas to another country with different copyright laws. But with only a German court order in hand, will Fender be able to make this exclusive protection Live Forever, or is it just Cheap Talk other guitar makers can ignore? Contrary to the hot takes everywhere, it could be A Hard Day's Night before we get a definitive answer. Is any of it JU$T? You decide. Tune in for the history that got us here, an overview of US IP law, and to hear Jenessa argue with a computer, and 90% of people talking about this, who just cannot seem to link to the documents they're referencing… Fender patents, relevant to Stratocaster: Guitar shape (utility/functional features): U.S. Patent No. 2,960,900 (issued Nov. 22, 1960) Guitar shape (design/ornamental features): U.S. Patent No. Des. 169,062 (issued Mar. 24, 1953) Bridge and pick-up assembly: U.S. Patent No. 2,573,254 (issued Oct. 30, 1951) Tremolo: U.S. Patent No. 2,741,146 (issued Apr. 10, 1956) Pickup and circuit: U.S. Patent No. 2,817,261 (issued Dec. 24, 1957) Adjustable neck: U.S. Patent No. 3,143,028 (issued Aug. 4, 1964) Dating a Fender Stratocaster, Adirondack Guitars. Relevant Fender trademarks Fender brand name: FENDER, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 0805075 (issued/renewed Mar. 8, 1966) Stratocaster name: STRATOCASTER, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 0839997 (issued Dec. 5, 1967) Headstock: U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1148870 (issued Mar. 3, 1981) USPTO, 1512 Relationship Between Design Patent, Copyright, and Trademark. Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, 94 USPQ2d 1549 (TTAB 2009) [precedential]. Düsseldorf Regional Court (Az. 14c O 64/25) Carolin Thurner, The Fender Stratocaster before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf - First application of the ECJ Principles from Mio/konektra to a work of applied art in Germany, Lexology. Katheriner Sayer (May 28, 2026), The Brewing Fight Over the World's Most Popular Electric Guitar, Wall Street Journal. Josh Gardner, Fender reportedly demands boutique builders stop making Stratocaster-style guitars: This is what it means for the industry, Guitar.com. Wayne's World clip Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Someone once held a patent on the swing. A piece of wood. Two ropes. The US Patent Office granted it. How often does that actually happen, and what does it cost when the system gets it wrong? Or, how often is a valid patent claim rejected?Until now, no one knew. Tim Phillips talks to Mark Schankerman of LSE and CEPR, who with co-authors William Matcham spent eight years building the tools to find out. Using natural language processing across a dataset of around one million patent applications, twenty million claims, and fifty-five million examiner decisions, they measure how similar each incoming claim is to the hundred million claims that preceded it, going back to 1976. They find that 81% of initial patent claims fall below the patentability threshold; examiners must negotiate that figure down round by round. And they do a pretty good job. But around a third of all abandoned applications contain at least one valid claim the system failed to protect. You don't see patents that aren't awarded, so those errors have, until now, been invisible.The research behind this episode:Matcham, William, and Mark Schankerman. Forthcoming. "Screening Property Rights for Innovation." Econometrica. Available as CEPR Discussion Paper DP18334 (gated). Current version dated January 2026.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Mark Schankerman. 2026. “How “well does patent screening work? VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestMark Schankerman is Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, where his research spans innovation, intellectual property, and the economics of technology. His work has examined how patent rights shape R&D incentives, the market for technology, and the behaviour of innovative firms, with particular attention to the institutions that govern how property rights are allocated and enforced.Research cited in this episodePrior art. In patent law, prior art is any publicly available knowledge that predates a patent application. Examiners are required to search prior art and reject claims insufficiently distinct from it. The concept defines the outer boundary of what can be granted protection; the closer a claim is to prior art, the weaker the case for granting it.Type I and Type II errors in patent screening. A Type I error occurs when an examiner grants a claim that should have been rejected, typically because it is too similar to prior art. This allows the holder to charge royalties and, in the US context especially, to bring litigation. A Type II error occurs when a valid claim is refused or abandoned, depriving the applicant of protection they deserve and reducing future incentives to innovate. Schankerman argues that Type II error is systematically under-discussed in public debate: you can point to a patent that should not have been granted; you cannot point to the invention that was never protected.Structural model. The paper uses a dynamic structural model, meaning it models the actual institutional rules, incentives, and decision sequences that govern patent prosecution at the USPTO. Structural models allow researchers to run counterfactual experiments, asking what would happen if specific rules or incentives were changed, without running those experiments for real. This is the methodological basis for the paper's policy analysis.Patent distance measure. The paper's key methodological innovation is a quantitative measure of how similar a patent claim is to existing claims, constructed using natural language processing. The algorithm is trained on existing patent documents and compares the textual content of each incoming claim against all prior claims, covering roughly a hundred million filings going back to 1976. This produces a scalar distance figure that can be compared against an estimated patentability threshold.Deadweight loss. The standard economic term for the welfare cost created when prices are raised above competitive levels. In the patent context, a wrongly granted claim allows its holder to charge higher licensing fees than the market would otherwise bear, generating a cost for users without a corresponding social benefit.Request for Continued Examination (RCE). A procedural mechanism in the US patent system that allows applicants to re-open a finally rejected application in exchange for a fee. Unlike the European Patent Office or China's patent system, the USPTO places no hard limit on how many times an applicant can return. Schankerman's counterfactual analysis finds that restricting rounds to one substantially reduces screening costs and discourages strategic padding of claims.Unified Patent Court (UPC). A specialised European court that began operating in June 2023. Its remit covers the enforcement of patent rights across participating EU member states; it does not conduct patentability examinations. Schankerman argues that by reducing the cost of enforcement, the UPC raises the stakes of the upstream screening process: a wrongly granted patent becomes cheaper and easier to assert.Amazon one-click patent. Amazon received a US patent on the one-click online purchasing process. Schankerman uses the case to illustrate the core economic argument: the relevant question is not whether an invention is valuable, but whether patent protection was necessary to induce its development. If the invention would have occurred regardless, the grant creates costs without providing the intended innovation incentive.Intrinsic motivation. The tendency for individuals to pursue a task for its own sake rather than for external rewards. Schankerman's model estimates that USPTO examiners exhibit substantial intrinsic motivation and that this is the primary driver of screening quality. In counterfactual simulations, removing intrinsic motivation causes outcomes to deteriorate markedly; removing the credit-based extrinsic incentive system has a much smaller effect.Padding. Schankerman's term for the strategic behaviour in which patent applicants include claims that are broader than what is strictly novel, hoping some will survive examiner scrutiny and expand the scope of their eventual property right. The paper measures the extent of padding directly from the distance data and confirms it is widespread.More VoxTalks Economics episodesPatent pools for generic drugs, Mark Schankerman talks about how diffusion of new drugs is painfully slow in low-income countries. Do patent pools accelerate the process, and how we could still do a better job of licensing life-saving medicines?Related reading on VoxEUPatent screening, innovation, and welfare, Florian Schuett and Mark Schankerman, 6 Nov 2020. Critics of the patent system claim that patent rights are becoming an impediment to innovation, and an instrument to extract rents through patent litigation. This column develops a framework to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the current US patent system and the welfare impact of reforms.

Dead trademarks create one of the most misunderstood areas of business law — and in this episode/article, we unpack why reviving an abandoned brand name can either become a brilliant strategic move or a costly legal disaster.Many entrepreneurs believe that once a trademark registration expires, the name instantly becomes available for anyone to use. Unfortunately, trademark law is nowhere near that simple. Businesses may still retain common law rights, consumer recognition, and ongoing commercial protections long after a federal registration becomes inactive.That means companies trying to revive dead trademarks can accidentally walk straight into lawsuits, cease-and-desist letters, forced rebrands, and expensive intellectual property disputes.In this discussion, we break down:What legally qualifies as a dead trademarkHow trademarks become abandonedWhen the USPTO may allow trademark revivalWhy common law trademark rights still matterThe biggest mistakes businesses make during branding searchesHow nostalgic brands are strategically revivedThe hidden risks of resurrecting old company namesWhy due diligence is essential before launching a revived brandWe also explore how nostalgia marketing has fueled renewed interest in abandoned trademarks. Across fashion, entertainment, gaming, food products, and technology, businesses increasingly search for forgotten brands that still hold consumer recognition.The logic is understandable.Building a recognizable brand from scratch is difficult and expensive. Reviving a familiar name may create instant emotional connection and marketplace attention.But nostalgia branding comes with risks.Some abandoned trademarks carry lingering legal claims. Others maintain regional usage that can still create enforceable rights. Some simply come with outdated reputations or historical baggage that modern consumers may rediscover quickly online.And then there's the issue of consumer confusion — one of the core concerns trademark law is designed to prevent.If customers mistakenly believe your revived company is affiliated with the original business, courts may become very interested in your branding strategy very quickly.This episode/article also explains why trademark law differs from many other forms of intellectual property. Trademark rights often depend heavily on actual marketplace use rather than registration alone. That creates complicated situations where “dead” registrations may still carry active legal consequences.For startups, entrepreneurs, marketers, and business owners, understanding these distinctions can prevent massive financial headaches later.Because discovering trademark problems after investing in websites, packaging, advertising, and product launches is significantly more painful than spending time on proper legal research upfront.Whether you're considering reviving an old trademark, evaluating a rebranding opportunity, or simply trying to avoid avoidable business mistakes, this conversation provides practical insights into one of the stranger corners of intellectual property law.It turns out that in business, some brands never fully die.They just wait for someone brave enough to dig them back up.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

Bruce Lehman, head of USPTO from 1993 to 1998, joins Clause 8 for a wide-ranging conversation about the modern IP system, the internet boom, and why the AI era may require a new copyright response from Congress.Lehman helped shape internet-era copyright policy from the USPTO, including the work that led to the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He also played a major role in the broader 1990s pro-IP moment, when the United States was strengthening IP rights globally through TRIPS, WIPO, and trade policy.Now, Lehman argues that courts have spent the last two decades weakening copyright through an expansive view of fair use — creating a system where AI companies can train on massive amounts of human-created content without giving creators a meaningful stake. Asked whether new legislation is needed to protect creators in the AI age, Lehman does not hesitate: “The short answer is yes.”The episode also covers:*Lehman's “patent pendulum” theory and why he believes the US is now in a low-protection IP era*How the DMCA emerged from the Clinton administration's internet copyright work*TRIPS, WIPO, and the globalization of IP rights in the 1990s*Bayh-Dole and the rise of the university-to-startup pipeline*Lehman's historic confirmation as the first openly gay man confirmed by the Senate*His role in turning the USPTO into a “prominent perch” for national IP policy*Gilbert Hyatt, submarine patents, and SAWS*USPTO telework, examiner retention, and modernization*His message that current leadership should “stop tormenting the Patent Corps”*The limits of AI — and why Lehman thinks it lacks the "metaphysical" spark behind true invention*Judge Pauline Newman and her pro-patent legacyWatch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8Disclaimer 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

Send us Fan MailA great brand can be stolen quietly, one search result at a time, until your customers can't tell who's real anymore. That's why we sit down with trademark attorney Justin Clark, who helps business owners protect the names and logos they've worked so hard to build, especially as marketing gets more digital and competition gets tighter.We dig into the biggest misconception we see in small business branding: that using a name, registering an LLC, or buying a domain automatically protects you. Justin explains the difference between common law trademark rights and a federal USPTO trademark registration, why nationwide protection matters even if you only sell locally today, and how a trademark search can save you from an expensive rebrand after you've already invested in websites, signage, and customer awareness.Then we get practical about intellectual property and online brand protection. We compare trademarks vs copyright vs domain ownership, talk through who actually owns a logo when a designer creates it, and why contracts and assignments matter when you grow, sell, or get acquired. We also cover the real risk of using images, fonts, or designs you “found online,” plus what changes when you expand into multiple states or franchising and need consistent brand standards.If you want to protect your shed business brand, construction brand, or local service brand the right way, hit play, subscribe, share this with a business owner, and leave a review. What part of your brand protection plan is the most unclear right now?For more information or to know more about the Shed Geek Podcast visit us at our website.Would you like to receive our weekly newsletter?  Sign up on our website: shedgeek.comFollow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or YouTube at the handle @shedgeekpodcast.To be a guest on the Shed Geek Podcast visit our website and fill out the "Contact Us" form.To suggest show topics or ask questions you want answered email us at info@shedgeek.com.This episodes Sponsors:Studio Sponsor: Shed ProVelocity 360RTO SmartShed SuiteFirst Choice Metals

In this episode of The CX Tipping Point Podcast, Martha Dorris spoke with Charles Thomas, the 2025 Customer Experience Trailblazer, whose leadership has transformed how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office delivers digital services to the public. From launching the Trademarks program to leading USPTO's enterprise-wide customer experience strategy, Charles has championed a user-first approach that makes trademark protection and innovation more accessible for entrepreneurs, attorneys, and business owners nationwide.We discuss how customer journey mapping, usability testing, and strategic research helped USPTO surpass key satisfaction goals, achieving more than 80% customer satisfaction and trust scores across its digital services. Charles also shares insights from leading the development of Trademark Center, the modernized platform simplifying trademark applications for more than 500,000 users each year.Tune in to hear how human-centered design, thoughtful innovation, and a commitment to public service are helping reshape the future of government digital experiences.Thank you for listening to this episode of The CX Tipping Point Podcast! If you enjoyed it, please consider subscribing, rating, and leaving a review on your favorite podcast platform. Your support helps us reach more listeners!Stay Connected:Follow us on social media:LinkedIn: @DorrisConsultingInternationalTwitter: @DorrisConsultngFacebook: @DCInternationalResources Mentioned:Citizen Services Newsletter2024 Service to the Citizen Awards Nomination Form

What happens when you leave behind security, move across countries with almost no plan, and trust that life will somehow work out? I talk with stand-up comic and creative entrepreneur Sadia Carone about her wild path from Ohio to Paris, New York, Brazil, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. Sadia shares how she walked away from a difficult family life, built careers in software testing and entertainment, survived 9/11 in New York, took huge risks to chase comedy and acting, and learned how to handle rejection, failure, and negative people without losing herself. You will hear honest lessons about resilience, creativity, career pivots, faith, comedy, and why success is rarely instant. Highlights: 00:01:32 – How music helped Sadia teach English in Paris. 00:10:32 – Why she left tech to pursue comedy and acting. 00:14:45 – What it was like living in New York during 9/11. 00:27:07 – Why she moved to Las Vegas with no real plan. 00:35:41 – How faith helped her through major setbacks. 00:51:21 – Why creative careers take patience and preparation. About the Guest: SADIA CARONE was born in the Midwest and has since lived in Paris, France and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She currently lives in Las Vegas, Nevada where she regularly performs stand-up comedy. Sadia was brought up to choose "the safe path" and she graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia with a BA English and a BA in French. She wanted to go to music school  -- but at the time, that was out of the question ( = her parents forbid it). Well her parents were wrong! Sadia took voice lessons and started writing songs. Atlantic Records was going to sign her -- then 9/11 happened and both the record executives and her music producer had other things to deal with.  And now Sadia has a comedy album! She performs her original songs on stage! Along the way, she got her SAG card (national actors' union) and earlier this year, she taught a stand-up comedy workshop in Reno, Nevada for the SAG Conservatory! Sadia's approach to life is "follow your heart" and "carefully assess the risks". In other words -- timing is everything! Do your research. Make informed decisions. Then when the time is right -- take that leap of faith! Sadia's career highlights include   * IT manager for the USPTO * software tester for the National Red Cross HQ * TEDx Speaker * Host, Jimmy Kimmel's Comedy Club * Karaoke DJ at Vegas #1 karaoke spot * Tour Guide, Big Bus Las Vegas * Yellow M&M, The M&M Store in Las Vegas * Apartment Building Manager, West Hollywood / Northern Hollywood / Studio City, California  * Official SongBird and Queen of Culture and Creativity, Shitshow Creative * Founder, Music for Emotions which received a grant from SEED Vegas. Sadia speaks English natively, fluent French and Portuguese, business-level Spanish, intermediate Hindi/Urdu and bits of Russian and Arabic. Ways to connect with Sadia: LinkedIn  www.linkedin.com/in/sadiacarone Instagram @sadiacarone 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:

When Alice came down in 2014, much of the patent prosecution bar reacted with denial. Most practitioners hoped the USPTO, the Federal Circuit, or Congress would clean things up — and that adding some magic language to claims and specifications would eventually be enough.Eli Mazour and Ngai Zhang, separately, came to a different conclusion: there had to be a new, better way to obtain strong patents in the post-Alice world. They started comparing notes more than a decade ago, eventually converged on a shared approach, and now implement these strategies together at Foley & Lardner.On this episode of Clause 8, Eli and Ngai walk through what they actually do — their unique strategies for avoiding and overcoming Section 101 issues, why it's difficult for other attorneys to implement these strategies, and how they think their practice will be impacted in the age of AI.In this episode:* Why relying only on art unit prediction tools & wordsmithing is a losing strategy for § 101* Why claim 1 shouldn't be your broadest claim* How taking features out of independent claims helps advance prosecution - and how the strategy also leaves clients routinely surprised by how broad their issued claims end up* Examiner interviews as hostage negotiations: Ngai's framework based on Chris Voss's Never Split the Difference* Differing approaches that Ngai and Eli have on whether to push for an explicit on-the-record agreement before ending an interview* AI as a collaborator for patent drafting and prosecution* The importance of human interactions and communication for patent prosecution even in the age of AIWatch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8

President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pride themselves on being dealmakers and on making the kind of unconventional deals for America no one else could have gotten done. Gil Hyatt is offering them one that sounds like a no-brainer. However, the question remains whether that dealmaking reputation is enough to overcome thirty years of inertia from prior administrations focused on opposing Hyatt, including most notably on keeping any more of his patents from ever issuing.Inventor Gil Hyatt returns to Clause 8 to discuss his proposal to donate foundational AI patents to the Pioneering AI Foundation, a nonprofit he says could help give the U.S. government new leverage to advance American interests. Hyatt also reflects on his decades-long battle with the USPTO, the motivation behind the foundation, and why he sees the project as a gift to America ahead of the nation's 250th birthday.Will America accept the gift?The episode covers:* 00:23 — the ongoing battle with the USPTO* 02:44 — the Pioneering AI Foundation* 05:35 — using the ITC and trade agreements as leverage* 07:11 — human rights and labor unions: leveling the global playing field* 10:24 — AI in the classroom: the “super headstart” for children* 12:35 — relieving drudgery: AI as a catalyst for creative thinking* 14:27 — addressing skepticism: motives and financials* 16:16 — repaying the dream: the legacy of immigrant parents* 17:34 — advice for the next generation of inventors* 18:22 — final thoughts: destiny and helping America

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become nearly ubiquitous in everyday life, and given AI's widespread use across industries, it is no surprise that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken a keen interest in AI, issuing guidance on how AI should be treated and used by USPTO personnel and patent practitioners alike.Questions and Comments: ARabinowitz@bakerlaw.com

Trademarking your game name and logo might not be the most exciting part of development—but it's one of the most critical. In this episode, we break down why protecting your intellectual property is essential in today's competitive gaming landscape.We start with the basics: what a trademark actually is and why it matters. From there, we walk through the full process, including how to conduct a trademark search, choose a strong name, and file your application with the USPTO.You'll also learn about the timeline involved. Trademark registration isn't instant—it can take months—but understanding the process helps you plan effectively and avoid unnecessary delays.One of the key topics we explore is risk. What happens if you don't trademark your game? The answer: potential legal disputes, forced rebranding, and lost opportunities. We share real-world examples of companies that faced these challenges—and what you can learn from them.We also dive into strategy. Should you trademark early, or wait until your game gains traction? Both approaches have pros and cons, and we break them down so you can make an informed decision based on your situation.Another important aspect is brand strength. Not all trademarks are created equal. We discuss how to choose a name that's not only creative but also legally defensible.For indie developers, this episode is especially valuable. Limited resources make it even more important to get things right the first time. A strong trademark strategy can save time, money, and stress down the line.We also touch on international considerations. If you plan to expand globally, trademark protection becomes more complex—but also more important.By the end of the episode, you'll have a clear understanding of how trademarking works, why it matters, and how to approach it strategically.Whether you're just starting out or preparing to launch, this is information every game developer should have.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

The patent landscape in 2026 looks nothing like it did just a year ago. Sweeping changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office throughout 2025 have reshaped how patents are challenged and enforced, dramatically elevating their strategic importance.In this episode of BakerHosts, Jason Hoffman explores the Great Patent Pivot, a fundamental shift that has made post‑grant challenges harder to access while strengthening the tools available to patent owners. Jason walks through the forces driving this change and explains what it means for patent owners, accused infringers, and businesses navigating patent risk today.

Send us Fan MailIn this episode...--> The USPTO has rejected Nintendo's controversial "summon character and let it fight" Pokémon patent, after it was heavily criticized by IP lawyers last year.--> Sony has announced price increases for PS5, PS5 Pro, and PlayStation Portal, blaming “continued pressures in the global economic landscape.”--> Microsoft has confirmed that its new Xbox boss scrapped the controversial “This is an Xbox” ad campaign as part of brand reset.--> A new Star Fox game and a Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake are among numerous unannounced Nintendo games reportedly headed to Switch 2 this year.--> Also: Top 3 New Releases, Gaming History 101Help support ShrfSnax (a.k.a. Brandon) in his fight against cancer: https://gofund.me/5d7c63a15We love our sponsors! Please help us support those who support us!- Check out the Retro Game Club Podcast at linktr.ee/retrogameclub- Connect with CafeBTW at linktr.ee/cafebtw- Get creative with Pixel Pond production company at pixelpondllc.com- Visit Absolutely the Best Podcast: A Work in Progress at linktr.ee/absolutelythebest**Use this link to get a $20 credit when you upgrade to a paid podcast hosting plan on Buzzsprout! buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=1884378**Get 15% off gaming chairs at blacklyte.com/Gamersweekpodcast using code GWP26!Hosts: donniegretro, retrogamebrews, wrytersviewOpening theme: "Gamers Week Theme" by Akseli TakanenPatron theme: "Chiptune Boss" by donniegretroClosing theme: "Gamers Week Full-Length Theme" by Akseli TakanenSupport the show

Nintendo's patent war on Palworld just got wrecked in the US -- the USPTO slapped a full non-final rejection on all 26 claims of their brand-new "summon a sub-character and let it fight in auto or manual mode" patent after the Director himself ordered a rare reexamination citing prior art from Konami and even Nintendo's own old filings. This was one of the key US patents they rushed through to bolster the Japan lawsuit against Pocketpair's creature-catching survival hit -- yeah the same mechanics Nintendo's been trying to lock down retroactively while Palworld keeps shipping updates. 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. #News #Podcast #FYP #Shorts #Gaming #GamingNews #NintendoPalworld #PalworldLawsuit #NintendoPatent #USPTORejection #PalworldDrama #GamingLawsuit #NintendoVsPalworld #PatentFail Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this episode, associates explore the "Squires era" at the USPTO, examining how Director John Squires has leveraged the Arthrex decision to centralize power and drastically lower PTAB institution rates. From the procedural shock of the Blackhawk ruling to the rise of summary denials, the group analyzes whether this shift brings necessary accountability or introduces a new era of unreviewable discretion.

Register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting at https://inta.org !! In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, I spoke with Deborah Hampton, President of the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Global Brand Enforcement and Trademark Team Leader at the Chemours Company. I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 173 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Deborah Hampton. She is the Global Brand Enforcement & Trademark Team Leader at The Chemours Company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademarks Association. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you: The US Department of Justice and the USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the right of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) to seek injunctions against patent infringers. This position challenges established post-eBay case law, which has made it difficult for NPEs to obtain injunctive relief. The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that security for costs can be provided through specialized insurance policies. This significantly lowers the financial barriers to bringing patent actions at the UPC, as companies no longer need to deposit large amounts of liquid capital as security. Huawei has filed a new lawsuit at UPC Mannheim against twelve Walt Disney Group companies (Ref. UPC-CFL-0000352/2026), asserting EP 3 211 897 relating to transform coefficient coding under the HEVC standard used by Disney+. Two additional suits were filed at Munich Regional Court I. In a parallel action, Huawei is suing Meta and Facebook at the UPC over EP 3 471 419, covering video compression in end devices. This continues Huawei’s strategy of pressuring streaming and platform providers into licensing its SEP portfolios. In a landmark first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): whether the UPC has jurisdiction over defendants without a seat in a UPC member state, provided a co-defendant is domiciled within the UPC territory (“long-arm jurisdiction”). The case arose from a dispute between Dyson and Chinese competitor Dreame; the first-instance injunction was simultaneously extended to cover newer Dreame hair dryers. For German companies, this signals a gradual expansion of UPC jurisdiction beyond its territorial borders, with significant implications for cross-border patent strategy. And now let's jump into the interview with Deborah Hampton: Our conversation covered one central question:How must intellectual property enforcement evolve in a world that is more global, digital, and complex than ever before? A Career Built on Intellectual Property Deborah Hampton has spent more than four decades in the field of intellectual property. She began her career as a paralegal in a small IP firm in New York and quickly discovered her passion for the subject. Over the years, IP has taken her around the world. She has worked with leading professionals, governments, and institutions. Her experience reflects a key truth: IP is not a narrow legal discipline. It is a global ecosystem that connects law, business, innovation, and policy. Counterfeiting: A Much Bigger Problem Than Many Think One of the key topics in our discussion was counterfeiting. Many people still see counterfeit goods as a minor issue—cheap handbags or fake T-shirts bought on holiday. But the reality is far more serious. Counterfeiting creates real risks for consumers because products often bypass safety and quality standards. It damages trust in brands and undermines legitimate marketplaces, especially online. The economic impact is also significant. Companies lose revenue, innovation slows down, and jobs are affected. Smaller businesses suffer the most because they often lack the resources to fight counterfeiting effectively. Perhaps most concerning is the link to organized crime. Counterfeiting is not an isolated activity. It is often part of larger illegal networks. From Deborah Hampton's perspective, effective enforcement must address both supply and demand. That includes stronger border measures, better online enforcement, and, importantly, consumer education. The Core Problem: Fragmentation in IP Enforcement A central theme of the interview was fragmentation. Many companies approach IP protection in silos. Legal teams, cybersecurity experts, business units, and external advisors often work separately. Even when they pursue the same goal, their efforts are not aligned. This leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and unnecessary risks. To address this, Deborah Hampton has launched a Presidential Task Force at INTA. The goal is to create a unified approach to IP protection and enforcement. The idea is simple but powerful:Bring all stakeholders together and align strategy, enforcement, and measurement. This includes not only companies and their advisors but also regulators, courts, customs authorities, and IP offices. Only a coordinated approach can effectively address global challenges like counterfeiting. The Changing Role of IP Professionals Another important insight is how the role of IP professionals is changing. In the past, IP work was often reactive and focused on legal protection. Today, expectations are much higher. IP professionals are now expected to: Act as strategic advisors to the business Align IP with commercial goals Manage global and digital portfolios Use data to make better decisions At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming how IP is managed and enforced. These tools create efficiencies but also raise new legal and strategic questions. Budget constraints add another layer of complexity. Teams must achieve more with fewer resources. In short, IP professionals must become more strategic, more integrated, and more business-focused. Why the INTA Annual Meeting Matters We also discussed the upcoming INTA Annual Meeting in London. For many in the field, this event is the most important gathering of the year. It brings together more than 10,000 professionals from around 140 jurisdictions. According to Deborah Hampton, the value lies in three areas: First, the return on investment is exceptionally high. The combination of education, networking, and business development is difficult to replicate elsewhere. Second, the educational program is extensive. It covers law, policy, technology, and the business of intangible assets. Third, the networking opportunities are unmatched. The meeting creates a unique environment where a year's worth of work can be done in a single week. At the same time, Hampton addressed a sensitive issue: attending without registering. She made it clear that this practice undermines the entire system. Without proper support from participants, events like this would not be possible. A Clear Message for the Future If there is one key takeaway from the conversation, it is this: Intellectual property protection must become more coordinated, more strategic, and more closely aligned with business objectives. The challenges are growing. Counterfeiting is more sophisticated. Markets are more global. Technology is changing rapidly. But the opportunity is also clear. By breaking down silos and working together across functions and borders, companies can protect their IP more effectively and create real value. For IP professionals, this means stepping into a broader role. Not just as legal experts, but as strategic partners in the business. Rolf Claessen: Today’s guest on the IP Fridays podcast is Deborah Hampton. If you don’t know Deborah, she’s the global brand and enforcement and trademark team leader at the Chemours company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademark Association. Thank you for being on our podcast IP Fridays, Deborah. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Rolf Claessen: So you have been in the field of IP for more than 25 years now. How did you get there and where did it lead to you? Deborah A. Hampton: I’ve actually been an IP practitioner for 43 years. I started at a small IP firm in New York; it was my first paralegal position, and I fell in love with IP from the very beginning. This field has allowed me to travel the world meeting some amazing and brilliant colleagues as well as high-ranking government, judicial, and IPO officials. I’ve also worked extremely hard to stay abreast of trends, statutes, precedent cases, and practices that enhance the way we do our jobs. Rolf Claessen: Wow. That sounds really exciting. I didn’t know you’ve been in the field so long. Great to hear that. So I’m personally very interested in the fight against counterfeit goods. Why, in your personal opinion, is it so important to fight counterfeit goods? Maybe you can share your thoughts on why it is important and a little bit about how you do it. Deborah A. Hampton: There are a number of factors that I always take into consideration when it comes to counterfeit goods. Starting with consumer safety, counterfeits often bypass safety and quality standards, putting consumers at real risk. Then there’s consumer trust; fake goods undermine confidence in brands and legitimate marketplaces, especially online. Economic harm is another factor; counterfeiting drains revenue from lawful businesses, weakens innovation, and ultimately costs jobs. Smaller businesses (SMEs) are hit the hardest because they lack resources to combat fakes at scale. The factor that scares me the most is organized crime, as counterfeiting fuels criminal networks and is linked to broader illicit activity. There is also the issue of fair competition, where fake goods distort markets by undercutting compliant, responsible producers. Finally, strong enforcement protects the integrity of the IP system and the trademarks that drive investment, innovation, and growth. It is important to combat the production, sale, and demand for counterfeit goods. At INTA, our anti-counterfeiting priorities focus on customs and border measures, criminal enforcement, online counterfeiting, and consumer education. Our Anti-Counterfeiting Committee leads initiatives to address the production and sale of fakes by monitoring worldwide developments in treaties and legislation and proposing policy recommendations to the board. We also partner with stakeholders to promote cooperation across agencies and borders. Additionally, the Unreal Campaign Committee addresses the demand for counterfeit goods by educating young consumers ages 14 to 23 about the importance of brands and the dangers of fakes. I remember being that age and wanting low-priced goods that looked good, but now I realize I probably wasn’t always getting genuine products. Rolf Claessen: Yes, that helps me explain to friends who buy fake clothes on holiday in Turkey and don’t realize the harm they are doing. You’re also on the presidential task force for unifying IP protection and enforcement strategy. Can you tell us more about who is part of this task force and what the agenda is? Deborah A. Hampton: When I was nominated to become an officer, I immediately wondered what my presidential task force topic would be and what I would wear for the opening ceremonies. The 2026 task force is titled “Unifying Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Strategy”. The goal is to eliminate value leakage and risk caused by fragmented approaches to IP protection. We want to deliver a unified global operating model that aligns strategy and enforcement, allowing organizations to work smarter and quantify their impact across all jurisdictions. Many organizations, including my own, currently operate in disconnected silos that sometimes work at cross purposes. The challenge is to maintain internal coordination across all intangible-related aspects. We have many stakeholders—business, security, cybersecurity, outside counsel, customers, the judiciary, and IPOs—all striving for the same goal, but the road we take is not always unified. I hope to build a strong cross-functional partnership focused on protecting all forms of IP, including patents and designs, not just brands. Rolf Claessen: Right, IP includes patents and designs and everything. Most importantly, you are this year's INTA president. What is your agenda for the year and what do you want people in the field to realize? Deborah A. Hampton: As president, I chair the board and steward our strategy and governance. I am also an ambassador, representing INTA globally to IPOs and government officials. My agenda has three pillars. First is the 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, which is the roadmap for our future. Second is my Presidential Task Force on unifying IP strategies. Third is volunteer mobilization; with a new committee structure in 2026, I want to energize our volunteers and recognize their contributions. I want people in the field to prioritize mentorship and professional development for the next generation. We need to ensure young practitioners are prepared to lead. I also want them to embrace the unified approach to IP protection we are advocating. Rolf Claessen: That's a powerful vision. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for the work you’re doing with INTA. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you again for the opportunity. I really enjoyed the interview

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

The story of how John Squires became USPTO Director doesn't start inside the Beltway. It starts on the Appalachian Trail, with Doug Pittman camping under shooting stars the night after Trump won the election.Pittman — a serial entrepreneur, inventor, and self-described “foxhole buddy” and “wingman” of Squires — drove up from Georgia to sit down with Eli for this episode., fresh off a meeting with the new director himself. What he shared was a rare inside account of how Squires ended up in the job, what he walked into, and why Pittman believes the USPTO finally has the right person at the helm.“Andrei went to Trump and said I've Got Your Man”The short version: it was Pittman who planted the seed.The moment Trump won, Pittman texted Andrei Iancu — the former USPTO director — from a campsite on the trail. Other names were circulating, and he wasn't a fan of what he was hearing. His answer was John Squires, his own patent attorney. Iancu's response: Do you think John would do it? Pittman said he'd ask.When he did, Squires' reaction was immediate: “Doug, you've lost your mind.”But Pittman kept pushing, and Iancu worked his magic with the new admistration. Then Howart Lutnick got confirmed as Commerce Secretary. Squires and Lutnick already had a bond forged after 9/11. When Lutnick landed at Commerce — the patent office's parent agency — the pieces fell into place.“Andrei went to Trump and said, ‘I've got your man.' Long story short, that's how John became USPTO nominee.”In this episode, Doug discusses:* Journey from son of a pig farmer to serial entrepreneur — including selling his first company in 1998 without ever opening his own envelope* How a billboard spotted on a drive to college with his son inspired the invention that led his first patent, and the years-long journey to get that first patent granted* Why he cried when the patent arrived — and why tears of joy turned into “tears of unhappiness”* How John Squires led his enforcement strategy and and the twists & turns of that impacted Squires' view of the patent system* Litigation funders walking away over Section 101 and PTAB exposure* The litigation saga, including the experience of having a judge handle a patent case for the first time* Meeting with former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal and Doug's unvarnished take on her legacy* The PTAB problem, the injunctive relief gap, and what needs to happen for independent inventors to feel comfortable with the patent system* Squires' upcoming testimony before the House IP committee — and why Pittman thinks it's a pivotal moment* His “1-8-8 Project,” his advice to Squires to “push the limit,” and the personal picture he sent the director to serve as a daily reminder in his role

Eli Mazour is joined by Juristat's Francesca Cruz and patent attorney Clint Mehall to look at what the examination data actually says about recent USPTO changes. The conversation moves past anecdotes to analyze how new examiner performance appraisal plan (PAP), new Section 101 guidance, and the end of the AFCP program are affecting day-to-day patent prosecution.The guests discuss a new framework for examiner seniority based on "At-Bats"—the total number of applications an examiner has handled—rather than just years at the Office. The data reveals surprising trends in office action consistency and why mid-level examiners might be more difficult than juniors. The discussion also covers the measurable decline in after-final allowances, why practitioners are defaulting to RCEs, and whether new guidance is actually moving the needle on Section 101 rejections in difficult art units.Chapters: 00:00 - Introduction03:00 - What Practitioners are Hearing: An "Incredible Year of Change"04:39 - Examiner Morale and the New Performance Appraisal Plan06:24 - Redefining Seniority: Measuring "At-Bats" vs. Tenure12:07 - Data Reveal: Junior vs. Senior Behavioral Trends15:47 - The "Confidence Gap" and Obviousness Theories18:19 - Art Unit Volatility: Why Individual Stats Matter More Than Averages22:52 - Interviews and AFCP: Addressing the USPTO "Myth-Busters"28:44 - The Shift to RCEs and the Decline of After-Final Allowances34:52 - Section 101 Trends: Has AI Guidance Changed Rejection Rates?44:47 - Final Thoughts: Preparing for Prosecution in 2026Subscribe to the Voice of IP Substack: https://voiceofip.com/

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.  

Artificial intelligence has been raising foundational questions for patent law long before generative tools entered the mainstream. In this episode of Clause 8, host Eli Mazour speaks with Wen Xie, U.S. Patent Attorney and Founder of Lux Lumen Intellectual Property, about how legal thinking around AI, inventorship, and patent eligibility has evolved—and where it appears to be heading.The conversation traces early debates sparked by the DABUS cases, which framed AI inventorship as a question of whether a machine could be named as an inventor. While those cases clarified that U.S. patent law requires a human inventor, they also highlighted a more practical issue that remains unresolved: how to evaluate human contribution when AI tools play a role in the inventive process, including in areas such as industrial design.The episode also examines the USPTO's shifting approach to AI-related inventions, from post-Alice uncertainty to more recent Section 101 guidance and new USPTO Director's John Squires Ex parte Desjardins PTAB decision. Wen discusses how applicants can position AI inventions as genuine technological improvements, avoid overreliance on “black box” disclosures, and manage Section 112 risks.The discussion concludes with a forward-looking look at using AI tools for patent practice, the USPTO's new pilot for AI-powered pre-examination search, and what these developments mean for practitioners and innovators navigating a rapidly changing IP landscape.Watch the full episode or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.Chapters00:01 – Wen Xie's early interest in AI and patent law02:10 – AI disruption before ChatGPT: imaging, medicine, and automation04:56 – How AI reshaped Wen's legal career05:55 – DABUS, Thaler, and the AI inventorship debate08:56 – Human contribution vs. AI output10:40 – Should companies restrict inventors from using AI?11:59 – What in-house counsel should ask about AI use14:20 – Duty of candor, recordkeeping, and litigation risk18:06 – Section 101 and AI as technological improvement22:50 – USPTO guidance, PTAB trends, and examiner behavior32:01 – Section 112 issues and describing machine learning33:40 – Using generative AI in patent drafting39:40 – Advice for junior attorneys in an AI-driven practiceDisclaimer 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

In the latest episode of Clause 8, recorded in December 2025, Eli Mazour sits down with Peter-Anthony Pappas, Director of Intellectual Property Policy for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary under Senator Thom Tillis, at a moment when the USPTO's direction is in significant alignment with what Senator Tillis and Senator Chris Coons have been working toward since reviving the Senate IP Subcommittee in 2019. Under new USPTO leadership, the agency has taken meaningful steps to strengthen patent rights over the last year—from significantly reining in the role of the PTAB in invalidating patents to bringing greater clarity to how Section 101 is applied within the USPTO. But as Peter-Anthony explains, while the steps taken by the agency are promising agency action alone is prone to change and limited to what happens at the USPTO.That's where Senator Tillis comes in. Peter-Anthony walks through how PREVAIL and PERA will lock in much of the what the USPTO is doing and provide long-term certainty for innovators. The conversation explores the progress made last Congress, where the sticking points remain, and what it will take for the legislation to finally pass during Senator Tillis final term.Peter-Anthony is candid about the reality of iterative progress – the coalition building, education, and compromise required - as well as the entrenched interests who have resisted all legislative efforts. At the same time, he describes the slow but meaningful momentum he's seeing, and why this moment presents an opportunity for the USPTO, Congress, and stakeholders to work together. Before being chosen as USPTO's acting Director, Coke Morgan Stewart sounded a similar note of optimism about a second Trump administration supporting bi-partisan patent bills.Peter-Anthony brings a rare vantage point to that assessment. Before coming to Capitol Hill, he served as a frontline Patent Examiner, a Supervisory Patent Examiner, PTAB Branch Chief, and Special Advisor to former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. He shares the story of following that path and provides insights into how that experience gives him a unique understanding of how patent policy works in practice and what it takes to make meaningful, long-term changes.The episode also touches on other IP issues at the top of Senator Tillis' agenda, including copyright and AI, commercial piracy, and performance rights — including Peter-Anthony's role in planning a recent IP Subcommittee hearing that drew attention for testimony from Gene Simmons.Eli and Peter-Anthony also discuss their shared North Jersey roots, and how they first met while Peter-Anthony was at the USPTO.

Disinformation expert Craig Silverman joins the crew to break down why AI makes scams and fake news easier, faster, and nearly impossible to spot—while Big Tech quietly profits. If you think spotting digital deception is tough now, wait until you hear how deep the rabbit hole goes. Claude Code Indonesia and Malaysia block Grok over non-consensual, sexualized deepfakes Apple taps Google to power a new Siri and future AI tools Introducing Cowork "In China, driverless delivery vans have become a total meme, they plow through crumbling roads, fresh concrete, motorcycles, anything. Nothing stops them." : r/SelfDrivingCars Meta refocuses on AI hardware as metaverse layoffs begin Creepy Link Matthew McConaughey has secured eight trademarks of himself from the USPTO in the past several months to protect his likeness and voice from unauthorized AI use Senate Passes a Bill That Would Let Nonconsensual Deepfake Victims Sue X says Grok will no longer edit images of real people into bikinis Newsom Vows to Stop Proposed Billionaire Tax in California J.R.R. Tolkien, Using a Tape Recorder for the First Time, Reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952) | Open Culture Digg launches its new Reddit rival to the public Postal Arbitrage New protein tests The Traitors Season 4 WikiFlix MTV REWIND - 33,000+ Music Videos • Zero Ads • Zero Algorithms 'A bombshell': doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Craig Silverman Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit zscaler.com/security

Disinformation expert Craig Silverman joins the crew to break down why AI makes scams and fake news easier, faster, and nearly impossible to spot—while Big Tech quietly profits. If you think spotting digital deception is tough now, wait until you hear how deep the rabbit hole goes. Claude Code Indonesia and Malaysia block Grok over non-consensual, sexualized deepfakes Apple taps Google to power a new Siri and future AI tools Introducing Cowork "In China, driverless delivery vans have become a total meme, they plow through crumbling roads, fresh concrete, motorcycles, anything. Nothing stops them." : r/SelfDrivingCars Meta refocuses on AI hardware as metaverse layoffs begin Creepy Link Matthew McConaughey has secured eight trademarks of himself from the USPTO in the past several months to protect his likeness and voice from unauthorized AI use Senate Passes a Bill That Would Let Nonconsensual Deepfake Victims Sue X says Grok will no longer edit images of real people into bikinis Newsom Vows to Stop Proposed Billionaire Tax in California J.R.R. Tolkien, Using a Tape Recorder for the First Time, Reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952) | Open Culture Digg launches its new Reddit rival to the public Postal Arbitrage New protein tests The Traitors Season 4 WikiFlix MTV REWIND - 33,000+ Music Videos • Zero Ads • Zero Algorithms 'A bombshell': doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Craig Silverman Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit zscaler.com/security

Disinformation expert Craig Silverman joins the crew to break down why AI makes scams and fake news easier, faster, and nearly impossible to spot—while Big Tech quietly profits. If you think spotting digital deception is tough now, wait until you hear how deep the rabbit hole goes. Claude Code Indonesia and Malaysia block Grok over non-consensual, sexualized deepfakes Apple taps Google to power a new Siri and future AI tools Introducing Cowork "In China, driverless delivery vans have become a total meme, they plow through crumbling roads, fresh concrete, motorcycles, anything. Nothing stops them." : r/SelfDrivingCars Meta refocuses on AI hardware as metaverse layoffs begin Creepy Link Matthew McConaughey has secured eight trademarks of himself from the USPTO in the past several months to protect his likeness and voice from unauthorized AI use Senate Passes a Bill That Would Let Nonconsensual Deepfake Victims Sue X says Grok will no longer edit images of real people into bikinis Newsom Vows to Stop Proposed Billionaire Tax in California J.R.R. Tolkien, Using a Tape Recorder for the First Time, Reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952) | Open Culture Digg launches its new Reddit rival to the public Postal Arbitrage New protein tests The Traitors Season 4 WikiFlix MTV REWIND - 33,000+ Music Videos • Zero Ads • Zero Algorithms 'A bombshell': doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Craig Silverman Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit zscaler.com/security

Disinformation expert Craig Silverman joins the crew to break down why AI makes scams and fake news easier, faster, and nearly impossible to spot—while Big Tech quietly profits. If you think spotting digital deception is tough now, wait until you hear how deep the rabbit hole goes. Claude Code Indonesia and Malaysia block Grok over non-consensual, sexualized deepfakes Apple taps Google to power a new Siri and future AI tools Introducing Cowork "In China, driverless delivery vans have become a total meme, they plow through crumbling roads, fresh concrete, motorcycles, anything. Nothing stops them." : r/SelfDrivingCars Meta refocuses on AI hardware as metaverse layoffs begin Creepy Link Matthew McConaughey has secured eight trademarks of himself from the USPTO in the past several months to protect his likeness and voice from unauthorized AI use Senate Passes a Bill That Would Let Nonconsensual Deepfake Victims Sue X says Grok will no longer edit images of real people into bikinis Newsom Vows to Stop Proposed Billionaire Tax in California J.R.R. Tolkien, Using a Tape Recorder for the First Time, Reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952) | Open Culture Digg launches its new Reddit rival to the public Postal Arbitrage New protein tests The Traitors Season 4 WikiFlix MTV REWIND - 33,000+ Music Videos • Zero Ads • Zero Algorithms 'A bombshell': doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Craig Silverman Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit zscaler.com/security

Disinformation expert Craig Silverman joins the crew to break down why AI makes scams and fake news easier, faster, and nearly impossible to spot—while Big Tech quietly profits. If you think spotting digital deception is tough now, wait until you hear how deep the rabbit hole goes. Claude Code Indonesia and Malaysia block Grok over non-consensual, sexualized deepfakes Apple taps Google to power a new Siri and future AI tools Introducing Cowork "In China, driverless delivery vans have become a total meme, they plow through crumbling roads, fresh concrete, motorcycles, anything. Nothing stops them." : r/SelfDrivingCars Meta refocuses on AI hardware as metaverse layoffs begin Creepy Link Matthew McConaughey has secured eight trademarks of himself from the USPTO in the past several months to protect his likeness and voice from unauthorized AI use Senate Passes a Bill That Would Let Nonconsensual Deepfake Victims Sue X says Grok will no longer edit images of real people into bikinis Newsom Vows to Stop Proposed Billionaire Tax in California J.R.R. Tolkien, Using a Tape Recorder for the First Time, Reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952) | Open Culture Digg launches its new Reddit rival to the public Postal Arbitrage New protein tests The Traitors Season 4 WikiFlix MTV REWIND - 33,000+ Music Videos • Zero Ads • Zero Algorithms 'A bombshell': doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Craig Silverman Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit zscaler.com/security

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠is joined by Mike Lawson (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@Mikesonoflaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) to reunite for a Mike & Mike edition tackling the latest sports law stories of the week.The trio opens with the Demond Williams NIL saga, breaking down the Washington quarterback's $4 million revenue-sharing agreement, his abrupt transfer announcement, the Washington blockade, and his dramatic reversal to stay with the Huskies. The trio discusses the enforceability of NIL contracts in a post-House settlement world, who pays buyout clauses when players breach deals, and why Williams split with Wasserman mid-process. The conversation shifts to Trinidad Chambliss and his denied sixth-year waiver appeal. The Ole Miss playoff quarterback, who led Ferris State to a Division II title before transferring, faced NCAA rejection over insufficient medical documentation from 2022. Tom Mars entered the fight to appeal, but Mike K explains why four-year-old medical records and Ferris State's lack of documentation create a difficult case.Next, the episode dives into trademark chaos surrounding the Las Vegas Athletics. The USPTO denied the team's applications for "Las Vegas Athletics" and "Vegas Athletics" as geographically descriptive and too generic—despite the same name working in Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Oakland. Mike K unpacks the Oakland fan group Last Dive Bar's competing trademark claim, the reality of what the USPTO website actually shows, and whether the A's will rebrand entirely or fight through appeals before their 2028 Vegas stadium opens. Mike L closes baseball with the breaking news of Max Kepler's 80-game PED suspension.The discussion then turns to Anthony Joshua, where Dan provides an update on the recent car crash in Nigeria that left two dead. Dan walks through what this means, the evidentiary challenges of a destroyed vehicle, and the tragedy of Joshua's world flipping from a knockout victory over Jake Paul to losing friends in a crash.Mike L and Dan tackle the ugliest side of sports: online harassment and death threats aimed at kickers. Following Tyler Loop's missed playoff kick for the Ravens and Chris Boswell's blocked extra point for the Steelers, both faced vicious online attacks.The episode wraps with quick hits on Stefon Diggs, whose felony strangulation arraignment was postponed until after the Super Bowl despite originally facing arraignment during the AFC Championship—raising questions about the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy and why he's still suiting up for the Patriots. Mike L shares his what to watch for: a preview of the Supreme Court's January 13th arguments on transgender athlete bans in Idaho and West Virginia.Let us know your thoughts!***Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team.As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring: Mike Lawson (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@Mikesonoflaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email⁠

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠is joined by Mike Lawson (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@Mikesonoflaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) to reunite for a Mike & Mike edition tackling the latest sports law stories of the week.The trio opens with the Demond Williams NIL saga, breaking down the Washington quarterback's $4 million revenue-sharing agreement, his abrupt transfer announcement, the Washington blockade, and his dramatic reversal to stay with the Huskies. The trio discusses the enforceability of NIL contracts in a post-House settlement world, who pays buyout clauses when players breach deals, and why Williams split with Wasserman mid-process. The conversation shifts to Trinidad Chambliss and his denied sixth-year waiver appeal. The Ole Miss playoff quarterback, who led Ferris State to a Division II title before transferring, faced NCAA rejection over insufficient medical documentation from 2022. Tom Mars entered the fight to appeal, but Mike K explains why four-year-old medical records and Ferris State's lack of documentation create a difficult case.Next, the episode dives into trademark chaos surrounding the Las Vegas Athletics. The USPTO denied the team's applications for "Las Vegas Athletics" and "Vegas Athletics" as geographically descriptive and too generic—despite the same name working in Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Oakland. Mike K unpacks the Oakland fan group Last Dive Bar's competing trademark claim, the reality of what the USPTO website actually shows, and whether the A's will rebrand entirely or fight through appeals before their 2028 Vegas stadium opens. Mike L closes baseball with the breaking news of Max Kepler's 80-game PED suspension.The discussion then turns to Anthony Joshua, where Dan provides an update on the recent car crash in Nigeria that left two dead. Dan walks through what this means, the evidentiary challenges of a destroyed vehicle, and the tragedy of Joshua's world flipping from a knockout victory over Jake Paul to losing friends in a crash.Mike L and Dan tackle the ugliest side of sports: online harassment and death threats aimed at kickers. Following Tyler Loop's missed playoff kick for the Ravens and Chris Boswell's blocked extra point for the Steelers, both faced vicious online attacks.The episode wraps with quick hits on Stefon Diggs, whose felony strangulation arraignment was postponed until after the Super Bowl despite originally facing arraignment during the AFC Championship—raising questions about the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy and why he's still suiting up for the Patriots. Mike L shares his what to watch for: a preview of the Supreme Court's January 13th arguments on transgender athlete bans in Idaho and West Virginia.Let us know your thoughts!***Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team.As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring: Mike Lawson (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@Mikesonoflaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email⁠

This Day in Legal History: Schenck v. United StatesOn January 9, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Schenck v. United States, a foundational case in American free speech law. Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, had been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The case raised critical constitutional questions about the boundaries of the First Amendment in times of national crisis. Schenck's defense argued that his actions were protected political speech. However, the government maintained that his words posed a threat to wartime recruitment and national security.The Court would go on to unanimously uphold Schenck's conviction in a decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Although the ruling came in March 1919, the arguments heard on January 9 and 10 set the stage for what became a pivotal moment in legal history. In his opinion, Holmes introduced the “clear and present danger” test, writing that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of causing substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent. He famously noted that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.This standard marked the beginning of a more nuanced approach to free speech jurisprudence, where context and consequences mattered. It reflected the tensions between civil liberties and national security during wartime. Although later cases would refine or move away from the “clear and present danger” test, Schenck remains a foundational precedent in American constitutional law. The case also marked the rise of Holmes as a central figure in shaping First Amendment doctrine.The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue at least one opinion this Friday, potentially including a highly anticipated decision on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case represents a significant test of presidential authority, especially in the context of Trump's use of emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump imposed these tariffs after returning to office in 2025, targeting nearly all U.S. trading partners and citing national emergencies such as trade deficits and drug trafficking, including fentanyl, as justification.During oral arguments in November, justices from both ideological sides expressed skepticism about the legal basis for the tariffs. Lower courts previously ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority, prompting his administration to appeal. Trump has defended the tariffs as strengthening the U.S. economy and warned that a ruling against them would severely harm the country.The case was brought by affected businesses and a coalition of 12 states—mostly led by Democrats—arguing that the tariffs were unlawfully broad. The outcome could have major implications for global trade and executive power. The Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, is also considering other significant cases, including a challenge to part of the Voting Rights Act and a First Amendment dispute over a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBT minors.Supreme Court set to issue rulings as Trump awaits fate of tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled in favor of New York Yankees star Aaron Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association, rejecting a Long Island man's attempt to trademark the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes The Judge.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision that Michael Chisena's filings infringed on Judge's common law trademark rights.Chisena filed for the trademarks in 2017 during Judge's breakout rookie season, claiming he planned to use them on clothing. He denied any connection to professional sports and insisted he had never seen Judge play. However, the USPTO's appeals board cast doubt on his good faith, noting the suspicious timing of the filings and their close link to Judge's rising fame.Judge and the MLBPA opposed the applications in 2018, arguing they would likely confuse consumers by associating the phrases with Judge's well-known public persona. They emphasized that the baseball star's last name, with its clear legal overtones, naturally lent itself to those phrases, which had become synonymous with him early in his career.The appeals court affirmed that Judge had built strong common law trademark rights through commercial use, and that Chisena's applications lacked merit. Chisena, who represented himself in court, also lost a related claim involving an image of a gavel and scales over a baseball diamond.Yankees' Judge clinches win in ‘All Rise,' ‘Here Comes The Judge' trademark case | ReutersLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile Manhattan shooting in December 2024, is set to appear in federal court Friday to challenge the possibility of facing the death penalty. Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges including murder, stalking, and firearms offenses, and remains in custody while awaiting trial.His attorneys will argue before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett that prosecutors failed to meet legal standards for the firearm-related murder charge—the only count that could result in a death sentence. They are also seeking to dismiss the entire indictment, claiming Mangione's constitutional rights were violated, which they argue should disqualify the government from pursuing capital punishment.While New York outlawed the death penalty in 2004, the ban applies only to state prosecutions. Because Mangione is being tried in federal court, the death penalty remains a legal possibility. He also faces separate charges at the state level, where a conviction could carry a life sentence.Judge Garnett has yet to decide on either the motion to dismiss the death-eligible charge or the broader request to throw out the indictment. No trial date has been set for the federal or state proceedings.Mangione, suspect in health insurance CEO murder, fights death penalty charge in court | ReutersVice President JD Vance announced the creation of a new assistant attorney general role focused on fighting fraud involving taxpayer money. The position will have nationwide jurisdiction and is intended to strengthen federal oversight and enforcement against misuse of public funds. Vance stated that a nominee for the role will be named in the coming days, signaling the administration's commitment to addressing financial misconduct within programs funded by taxpayers. The announcement was made during a White House press briefing, reflecting a broader effort to enhance government accountability—at least, ostensibly.Vance announces new assistant attorney general role to combat taxpayer fraud | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week's closing theme features one of the most charming and instantly recognizable pieces in the classical repertoire: the first movement of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso.” Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata showcases Mozart's extraordinary ability to blend elegance, wit, and emotional nuance with apparent ease. The opening movement is not a fast-paced sonata-allegro form, as one might expect, but rather a gentle theme and variations, a structure that allows Mozart to explore the same musical idea through shifting textures, moods, and embellishments.“Andante grazioso” lives up to its title—graceful and moderately paced, it opens with a lilting, almost courtly theme that feels both poised and playful. As the variations unfold, Mozart's genius becomes more apparent: he adds rhythmic complexity, dynamic contrasts, and increasingly virtuosic flourishes, while always keeping the original melody in sight. The movement is accessible but never simplistic, classical in form yet deeply expressive.K. 331 is the same sonata that ends with the famous “Rondo alla Turca,” but it is in this opening Andante that we see Mozart at his most refined and imaginative. He draws the listener in not through drama, but through balance, warmth, and an almost conversational intimacy between performer and listener. This piece has been beloved for centuries, not only by pianists but also by those new to classical music.As we close the week, the delicate ornamentation and unhurried beauty of “Andante grazioso” offers a kind of musical exhale—a moment of elegance and clarity in contrast to the noise of modern life. It's a quiet reminder of why Mozart remains one of the most enduring voices in Western music.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso” – enjoy! 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

Happy New Year from all of us at Wolf Greenfield.In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, we take our annual look back at the year just concluded and ahead to the new year, 2026, just begun.  From anticipated activity, such as the forward march of artificial intelligence (AI) to unexpected developments, most prominently the new procedures at the PTAB, it was an eventful year.  Here are a few highlights from the conversation:00:53 - Scott McKeown discusses the new administration's impact on the PTAB 02:55 - Ed Russavage offers suggestions for dealing with the backlog of patent applications waiting for examination at the USPTO 03:58 - Christina Licursi on the growth of artificial intelligence04:54 - Dan Young believes strong, creative claiming strategies are critically important in today's environment06:39 - In the Pharmaceutical industry, Jonathan B. Roses sees the potential for easier treatment of diagnostic method claims in 2026 08:27 - Zach Piccolomini on the evolving landscape for standard essential patents 09:52 - Greg Corbett provides a summary of the factors that may result in an increase in litigation in 202610:39 - Christina Licursi sees AI's impact on law firms and clients growing throughout 2026 and in the years beyond

Brian is: Managing Director, GlassRatner LinkedIn bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianbuss I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 170 of our podcast IP Fridays! We also want to wish you a happy holiday season and a successful year 2026! Today's interview guest is Brian Buss. He is the managing director of GlassRatner and my co-host Ken Suzan talks with him about the valuation of intellectual property rights and damages in infringement cases. But before we jump into the interview, I have news for you! A US start-up called Operation Bluebird is trying to take over the “Twitter” trademark. It has asked the USPTO to cancel Twitter word marks, arguing that Elon Musk's company X no longer uses them after the rebrand. Led by a former Twitter trademark lawyer, Operation Bluebird also filed its own “Twitter” trademark application. Commentators note that X could face challenges defending the legacy marks if they are truly no longer in use. In parallel, the US debate on patent quality and review procedures is intensifying. The USPTO proposed controversial rule changes that would restrict Inter Partes Review (IPR). The proposal triggered substantial backlash, with more than 11,000 public comments submitted—over 4,000 of them via the civil liberties group EFF. In the EU, a major trademark reform will take effect on 1 January 2026. It aims to simplify procedures, recognize new types of marks (including hologram, multimedia, and motion marks), and make fees more SME-friendly (e.g., lower base fees for the first class and discounts for timely renewals). Opposition procedures will be further harmonized across the EU, including a mandatory “cooling-off” period, so mid-sized brand owners should adjust filing and monitoring strategies accordingly. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to see strong uptake, especially in Germany. In the first 18 months since its launch on 1 June 2023, well over 900 cases were filed, with German local divisions (Munich, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg) leading in patent actions. While many early cases were filed in German, English now dominates as the main language of proceedings. The court has largely met its timelines, with oral hearings typically held within 12 months of filing. China has reached a milestone in its patent system: for the first time, a country has surpassed 5 million active invention patents. CNIPA emphasizes a strategic shift from “quantity to quality,” citing growth in “high-value” patents and higher commercialization rates for university inventions. China has also led global PCT filings for six consecutive years—signals of rapid technological progress relevant to IP planning for German SMEs. On 4 December 2025, the USPTO issued new guidance on “Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations.” These declarations allow applicants to submit additional evidence to support patent eligibility for emerging technologies such as AI systems and medical diagnostics, aiming to reduce the risk that breakthrough inventions are excluded from protection under strict eligibility case law. In December, the European Patent Office (EPO) introduced new patent-quality measures. Third parties can now submit observations on published applications or granted patents via a simplified online form. These Third-Party Observations—supported by evidence and even filed anonymously—go directly to examination teams to flag potential obstacles early. The Interview with Brian Buss: Ken Suzan interviews Brian Buss, a valuation and damages expert who describes his work as “financial detective” work: identifying what intellectual property and other intangible assets are worth and how they translate into measurable economic benefits such as sales, profit, earnings, or cash flow. Buss emphasizes that “IP” should be understood broadly, not only as formal rights (patents, trademarks, copyrights), but also as brands, technology portfolios, internet and social media assets, know-how, and other business intangibles that help generate economic value. A central point is that IP is often a company's most valuable resource but is rarely measured well. Buss cites a “value gap” he observed in middle-market public companies: market capitalization often exceeds the asset values shown on balance sheets, and much of the gap is explained by intangible assets and IP. He argues that valuation helps companies understand ROI on IP spend (prosecution, protection, enforcement) and supports better strategic decision-making. He outlines common scenarios that trigger IP valuation: internal management needs (understanding performance drivers), disputes about resource allocation (e.g., technology vs. marketing), external events (M&A, licensing, partnerships, franchising, divestitures), and pricing strategy (how exclusivity supported by IP should affect product/service pricing). On “how” valuation is performed, Buss summarizes the three standard approaches—cost (replacement/replication cost), market (comparable transactions), and income (present value of future benefits). He adds that strong IP valuation requires integrating three dimensions of analysis: financial factors (performance data and projections), behavioral factors (customer demand drivers, perceptions, brand recall, feature importance), and legal factors (registration/enforcement history and competitive IP landscape). For practical readiness, he advises companies to improve data discipline: maintain solid books and records; develop credible budgets, forecasts, and business plans; document marketing activities; and actively collect/monitor website and social analytics (e.g., traffic sources, engagement). He stresses that these datasets inform valuation even for technology assets like patents, because they reveal whether protected features are actually marketed and valued by customers. A concrete example is domain names, which he frames as “virtual real estate.” In due diligence for a domain sale, he would focus on analytics showing whether the domain itself drives traffic (direct type-ins, branded search terms, bookmarks) versus traffic driven by other marketing efforts. The key question is whether the address is known and used as a pathway to the business. In closing, Buss argues that while gathering the necessary information requires effort, the investment typically pays off through greater awareness of the most valuable assets, better strategic decisions, and stronger support for growth opportunities. He presents IP valuation as a virtuous cycle of information, insight, and improved decision-making—summed up in his recurring theme: knowledge of IP value is “power” to increase business profitability and enterprise value. Here is the full transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian Buss. Brian is a managing director with Glass-Rattner Advisory and Capital Group. Brian provides financial analysis, corporate finance, and expert testimony around the world. Ken Suzan: Mr. Buss provides strategic advice for owners of intellectual property portfolios, transactional services such as acquisition due diligence and purchase price allocation, and valuation services for trademarks, patents, copyrights, brand assets, trade secrets, technology assets, and intangibles. Ken Suzan: During his career, Mr. Buss has provided valuation opinions and financial analysis in business disputes and in transactions, and he has been retained as a testifying expert and consulting expert in federal court, state courts, and arbitration proceedings. Ken Suzan: As an expert, Mr. Buss has provided over 100 expert opinions, served as an expert witness at trial and deposition, and has been published in numerous journals and publications. He is also a participant in the International Task Force on Intellectual Property Reporting for Brands. Ken Suzan: Brian holds an MBA from San Diego State University and a bachelor's degree from Claremont McKenna College. Welcome, Brian, to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian Buss: Thank you, Ken, for having me. I appreciate the opportunity. Ken Suzan: Excellent, Brian. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your professional background and what you do in the world of IP? Brian Buss: Sure. I'm a valuation professional and an economic damages expert. Most of my work involves valuing intellectual property and intangible assets and, in litigation contexts, assessing economic damages—often related to IP disputes. My role is frequently to translate legal or technical issues into financial outcomes. Ken Suzan: When people hear “IP,” they often think patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In your work, how broadly do you define intellectual property and intangible assets? Brian Buss: I define it very broadly. Of course, there are the formal rights—patents, trademarks, copyrights—but there are many other intangible assets that drive value: brand reputation, customer relationships, proprietary know-how, trade secrets, data, software, domain names, social media assets, and the systems and processes a business builds over time. All of those can create economic value, even if they're not always captured well on a balance sheet. Ken Suzan: Why is IP valuation important for companies—especially mid-sized businesses that may not have a large in-house legal or finance team? Brian Buss: Because IP and intangible assets can be a large portion—sometimes the largest portion—of what makes a business valuable, yet they're often not measured or managed with the same discipline as tangible assets. Valuation can help companies understand what is actually driving revenue, profit, and enterprise value. It can also help them justify investment in IP creation, protection, and enforcement, and it can support strategic decisions like licensing, partnerships, acquisitions, or pricing. Ken Suzan: You've talked elsewhere about a “value gap” between what's on the balance sheet and what the market thinks a company is worth. Can you explain that concept? Brian Buss: Sure. If you look at many companies—particularly in the middle market—you'll often see that market capitalization exceeds the asset values recorded on the balance sheet. A significant portion of that difference is attributable to intangible assets and IP that accounting rules don't fully recognize unless there's an acquisition. That “gap” is essentially the market saying, “There is value here beyond tangible assets,” and much of it comes from intangibles. Ken Suzan: What are the most common situations where a company needs an IP valuation? Brian Buss: There are a few big categories. One is transactions—M&A, due diligence, purchase price allocation, and financing. Another is licensing and partnerships—setting royalty rates, structuring deals, or evaluating whether a proposed license makes economic sense. A third is internal management: understanding ROI on R&D, marketing, or IP spend, or resolving internal debates about what is really driving business performance. And of course, litigation—damages, reasonable royalties, lost profits, and other economic remedies tied to IP. Ken Suzan: In practical terms, how do you value IP? What methods do you use? Brian Buss: The valuation profession generally relies on three approaches: the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach. The cost approach looks at what it would cost to recreate or replace the asset. The market approach looks at comparable transactions—if you can find good comparables. The income approach is often the most relevant for IP: it looks at the present value of future economic benefits attributable to the IP, based on cash flows, risk, and time. Ken Suzan: In addition to the financial methods, what other factors matter? For example, legal strength or market perception? Brian Buss: Exactly. A strong valuation integrates financial, behavioral, and legal analysis. Financial is obvious—historic results, projections, margins, pricing. Behavioral is about demand drivers—what customers value, how they perceive the brand, how features influence purchasing decisions, and what drives loyalty or switching. Legal involves the nature of the IP rights, scope, enforceability, registration and maintenance history, and the competitive landscape. IP exists at the intersection of all three. Ken Suzan: What kind of information should a company have ready if they want to do an IP valuation? Brian Buss: Good books and records are essential—reliable financial statements, product-level revenue and cost data if possible, and credible budgets and forecasts. They should also document marketing activities, product positioning, and the role of IP in commercialization. For digital and brand assets, analytics matter—website traffic sources, conversion data, engagement metrics, and social media statistics. The more you can connect the IP or intangible asset to measurable economic outcomes, the stronger the valuation. Ken Suzan: That's interesting—people might not think that marketing analytics matter for patents. Can you explain how those link up? Brian Buss: Sure. A patent might cover a particular feature or technology, but the key economic question is: does that feature drive demand? If customers value it and it supports pricing power, adoption, or market share, that's important. Marketing materials, customer communications, sales training, and analytics can help show what the company emphasizes and what resonates with customers. It helps tie the legal right to real-world economic value. Ken Suzan: You mentioned domain names earlier. Many people underestimate them. How do you think about domain names as an asset? Brian Buss: I often describe domain names as virtual real estate. The question is whether the domain is a meaningful pathway to the business. In a valuation context, you'd look at the domain's role in generating traffic—direct navigation, branded search, bookmarks, and repeat visits. You'd also look at how much traffic is attributable to the domain itself versus paid marketing. If the domain is known and drives organic traffic and credibility, it can be quite valuable. Ken Suzan: So, if you're doing due diligence on a domain sale, what would you look for? Brian Buss: I'd look closely at analytics: traffic volume over time, sources of traffic, geographic distribution, conversion rates, and the relationship between marketing spend and traffic. If traffic is mostly paid and disappears when marketing stops, that's different than sustained direct navigation. I'd also look at brand alignment, risk factors, and whether there are disputes or competing rights. Ken Suzan: For a mid-sized company listening to this, what are the biggest “misses” you see—things companies do that reduce the value they can capture from IP? Brian Buss: A big one is not collecting and organizing information that demonstrates value. Another is not aligning IP strategy with business strategy—filing patents or trademarks without a clear plan for how they support products, markets, and revenue. Some companies also underinvest in documenting commercialization and customer impact, which becomes important in transactions and disputes. And sometimes they simply don't revisit their portfolios to understand what is still relevant and what is not. Ken Suzan: How should companies think about ROI on IP spend—both the costs of prosecution and the costs of enforcement? Brian Buss: They should start by identifying the economic role of the IP: is it supporting pricing power, is it protecting market share, is it enabling licensing revenue, is it reducing competitive entry? Then they can compare the costs—filing, maintenance, monitoring, enforcement—against the value it protects or creates. Valuation can provide a framework for that, and it can also help prioritize where to spend resources. Ken Suzan: When valuation is used in litigation, what are the typical types of damages analysis you're asked to perform? Brian Buss: Commonly, reasonable royalty analysis, lost profits, unjust enrichment, and sometimes disgorgement depending on the jurisdiction and the claims. The specifics depend on the legal framework, but the core is the same: quantify the economic harm and connect it causally to the alleged infringement or misappropriation, using financial data, market evidence, and assumptions that can be tested. Ken Suzan: Are there misconceptions about valuation that you'd like to correct for our audience? Brian Buss: One misconception is that valuation is purely subjective or that it's just an “opinion.” A good valuation is grounded in data, established methodologies, and transparent assumptions. Another is that intangibles can't be measured. They can be measured—often through the economic benefits they create and through evidence of customer behavior and market dynamics. It takes work, but it's doable. Ken Suzan: If a company wants to prepare for a future transaction—say a sale or a major partnership—what are some practical steps they can take now to make their IP story stronger? Brian Buss: Maintain clean records, develop credible forecasts, and document the link between IP and business results. Make sure registrations and maintenance are up to date. Track how IP supports products and competitive differentiation. Collect evidence of brand strength and customer loyalty. And if possible, structure internal reporting so you can see performance by product line or offering. That helps in due diligence and helps buyers or partners understand what they're paying for. Ken Suzan: Any final thoughts or advice for owners of intellectual property portfolios, transactional professionals, or executives listening to this? Brian Buss: I'd emphasize that the investment in gathering the information needed for evaluation typically pays off. It creates awareness of the most valuable assets, supports better strategic decisions, and makes it easier to pursue growth opportunities. IP valuation is a virtuous cycle of information gathering, analysis, deeper understanding, and then decision-making. Knowledge is power, and knowledge of the value of your IP is the power to increase the profitability and value of your business. IP valuation is a key element of the management toolkit. Ken Suzan: Brian, well said, and thank you so much for taking time today to be on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian Buss: Thank you, Ken. I really appreciate the opportunity.

Recent changes at USPTO are increasingly shaping the context in which Congress considers potential patent legislation.In the latest episode of Clause 8, the focus turns to how the USPTO's evolving approach to post-grant proceedings at the PTAB is shaping the broader patent policy debate—and influencing what Congress may (or may not) do next.The episode features David Jones, Executive Director of the High Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) and a longtime Clause 8 favorite, alongside Jeffrey Hantson, a former patent litigator and senior Senate Judiciary Committee staffer who most recently served as Deputy General Counsel to Sen. Dick Durbin after advising Sen. Mazie Hirono on IP issues. Dave and Jeff first crossed paths during the pre-pandemic Section 101 roundtables, and the episode captures their fun, wonky back-and-forth dynamic.A central theme is whether the USPTO's recent moves on IPR institution—including its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—create an opening for Congress to strike a bargain, or instead make legislative compromise harder. Dave and Jeff explore how the introduction of settled expectations, Director John Squires reclaiming institution authority, and broader institution trends are reshaping the conversation around proposals such as the PREVAIL Act.Jeff frames the core tension in familiar terms for staffers and stakeholders: at some point, should the USPTO be done reassessing a patent's validity? Dave, for his part, is skeptical that legislation is the answer when the agency is (in his view) drifting from what was envisioned when Congress created the PTAB under the America Invents Act (AIA).The conversation also explores why PREVAIL advanced further than PERA in the last Congress, why PTAB reform is often easier to grasp on Capitol Hill than Section 101 eligibility, and why Sen. Thom Tillis' likability—and impending retirement—may matter more than most people realize.Set against a backdrop of shifting IP leadership on Capitol Hill and mixed administrative signals on patents, the episode offers a candid look at where patent policy may be headed—and what it would take to change course.