Podcasts about uspto

Stephanie Rupp (Hoffmann Eitle) and Ryan Phelan (Marshall Gerstein) explore how AI is reshaping medtech innovation and the IP strategies founders need to know. They break down key trends, from traditional model training to today's generative AI workflows, plus common pitfalls like novelty-destroying disclosures in pitch decks, websites, and investor conversations. Ryan explains why “file early” matters in the U.S. (and how provisional applications can backfire if they're too thin), while Stephanie shares how Europe's strict novelty rules and EPO “technical effect” requirements change how AI patents must be drafted. The conversation also covers cross-border collaboration, the Unified Patent Court, and why strong IP can become a startup's moat for investors and future growth. Guest links: https://www.marshallip.com | https://www.hoffmanneitle.com/ | rphelan@marshallip.com | srupp@hoffmanneitle.com  Charity supported: Save the Children Interested in being a guest on the show or have feedback to share? Email us at theleadingdifference@velentium.com.  PRODUCTION CREDITS Host & Editor: Lindsey Dinneen Producer: Velentium Medical   EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Episode 089 - Stephanie Rupp & Ryan Phelan [00:00:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Hi, I'm Lindsey and I'm talking with MedTech industry leaders on how they change lives for a better world. [00:00:09] Diane Bouis: The inventions and technologies are fascinating and so are the people who work with them. [00:00:15] Frank Jaskulke: There was a period of time where I realized, fundamentally, my job was to go hang out with really smart people that are saving lives and then do work that would help them save more lives. [00:00:28] Diane Bouis: I got into the business to save lives and it is incredibly motivating to work with people who are in that same business, saving or improving lives. [00:00:38] Duane Mancini: What better industry than where I get to wake up every day and just save people's lives. [00:00:42] Lindsey Dinneen: These are extraordinary people doing extraordinary work, and this is The Leading Difference.  Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Leading Difference podcast. I'm your host, Lindsey, and today I'm delighted to welcome as my guests Stephanie Rupp and Ryan Phelan. Stephanie's technical expertise stems from working in various fields of electrical engineering and information technology. She is particularly interested and experienced in communication technology, telecommunications engineering, and artificial intelligence due to her time at the university and various projects in the industry. For example, Stephanie gained industry experience with a leading technology company of measurement and high-frequency technology in the field of measurement technology for LTE. Working with a variety of clients from all over the world, Stephanie specializes in prosecution and oppositions at the European Patent Office and German Patent Office, freedom to operate, and patent drafting, in particular in the fields of computer-implemented inventions. Stephanie studied electrical engineering at the Technical University of Munich. She wrote her master thesis at the Chair of Communication Networks in the field of artificial intelligence with a focus on reinforcement learning. Ryan is a registered patent attorney who counsels and works with clients in all areas of intellectual property with a focus on patents. Clients enjoy Ryan's business-focused approach to IP. With an MBA from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, Ryan works with clients to achieve their business objectives, including developing and protecting their innovations and businesses with IP. Ryan has been published in several well-known IP publications, including World Intellectual Property Review, Bloomberg Law, and IP Litigator, and has spoken as a panelist at various IP conferences, including for the International Intellectual Property Law Association and for the University of Illinois Chicago Annual IP Conference. Since 2024, Ryan has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America list in the practice of patent law. All right, Ryan and Stephanie, welcome to the show. I'm so glad that you are here. Ryan, this is your second time. Delighted to have you return, and Stephanie, I can't wait to learn more about you and all the ways that you both contribute to the industry. So thank you both so much for being here. [00:02:54] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Glad to be back. [00:02:56] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. [00:02:56] Stephanie Rupp: And thank you v- very much for having me. [00:02:58] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes, of course. Well, I would love, if you don't mind, starting off by sharing just a little bit about yourself, your background, and what led you to medtech. [00:03:09] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. So I'll kick it off. My name's Ryan Phelan. I'm a partner at Marshall Gerstein, which is an IP boutique here in Chicago. I have a computer science background, so I see the world through, you know, everything computers and, of course, nowadays that means AI. On the, the medtech side you know, I, I have, experience in robotics and so, a lot of medtech devices are in the robotics field, so it's very natural for me to apply my skill set, to that, area of expertise, one of which is, prosthetics. So you have a robotic, prosthetic medical device, and that lends itself to, you know, some type of computational control. And there's certain, legal issues that usually come up in, the US practice. So I enjoy, applying that skill set, to the, to medtech space. also, you know, family members als- have, you know, ailments and things that, I have, grown up with, you know, as a, you know, young boy and, now I'm very happy to you know, give back in my own way. I'm not a doctor. I'm just a-- I'm a, I'm a humble patent attorney, but, helping the, IP world, and, doctors and physicians, with not only, you know, in the robotic space, but also, software medical inventions as well, and I, enjoy working in this space. [00:04:22] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. Thank you so much. Stephanie? [00:04:26] Stephanie Rupp: Yes. So as you hear from my accent, I'm from Germany, specifically from Munich, so that's a city in the southern part of Germany, close to the Alps. people might probably know Munich from the Oktoberfest that we have each year. And, so I'm a German and European patent attorney at Hoffmann Etile. I also throw it in as well, I'm also UPC representative, so we have, for three years now, we have the Unified Patent Court, so a really new court in Europe for centralized litigation for infringement and revocation actions. So I can also represent clients there. yeah, Hoffmann Etile is a, also a p- a IP boutique firm. not only in Germany, we also have offices, in other places in, Europe. And, yeah, my technical background is electrical engineering and information technology. And, during my studies, I just didn't work a lot in the medtech space. I was, ... my work concentrated more on the telecommunications side, working in a, bigger f- company that, concentrated on measurement and high-frequency technology. But, my master thesis was already about AI, so it was at the Chair of Communication Networks, and it was about, like, reinforcement learning, virtual network embedding. I won't say too much about that. I think it will bore the listeners. But so I didn't know at that time, but it opened my way to the medtech space afterwards. because when I joined Hoffmann Etile nine years ago with my training, the partners were really happy to hear that I have experience in the AI field and the technical background on that. And, around nine years ago, we saw a lot of patent applications being filed in the AI space, like using AI technology in different technical fields, and especially also in the medtech, field. And, so I had the opportunity to jump in there, like, right away when I started and was really happy to do that and also, like, still very glad to have that opportunity to work with the medtech, companies and to get the best patents for them in that, especially in that field. [00:06:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you both. So, all right. I have so many questions, but I will start here. I'll just, 'cause I'm curious. So how, how did you two meet? Do the firms come together and, and, collaborate? [00:06:38] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, absolutely. so Marshall, Gerstein and Hoffmann, Eitel had a relationship prior with, attorneys, that go back a generation or two, before Stephanie and I met. And so, their-- one firm would send attorneys to the other and vice versa. And then, after a while, given that Stephanie and I have similar backgrounds, it was very, simple just to connect us. And then we've worked together on matters, before and have similar backgrounds like Stephanie mentioned. She has electrical background, but has done a lot of stuff with AI. And so whenever you're doing, matters across the pond, as they say, you need expertise, in the EPO and the US and the laws are different, so you have to collaborate. And it's great to have, have people that you can collaborate and work with. [00:07:21] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, and a lot of clients, they're not only interested in getting an EP patent, but they also want to get a US patent. And, I'm not a US patent attorney, so, usually tell them, "Oh, yeah, I know a really good patent attorney in the US." And, thank you ... so I will, like, hand over the work to him and then the other way around if they have, like, clients that they want to get a EP patent, and that's how we work together and, also dis-discuss these cases together. And, so yeah, I'm currently in Chicago for a week, also to meet Ryan in person again. I do that, usually once a year. And, yeah, just have time to discuss some cases more regularly. [00:07:55] Lindsey Dinneen: I love that. That's cool. [00:07:56] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I was in, And I was in beautiful Munich last year, so it was, it was great. [00:08:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Very nice. That's wonderful. Okay. So again, so many things to talk about, but I, I, I'm curious in your interpretation of how AI has affected, especially the legal components of, say, filing a patent or IP protection or all of those things. When it comes to medtech founders, what are you seeing the trends to be, and also, what are some of the pitfalls to avoid? [00:08:29] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. So I've seen AI affect everything from filing strategy or information, gathering, like on the pre-stage of a patent, and then also, the invention itself, has also included AI. I think about it as like AI 1.0 and 2.0. before, 1.0 AI is, a lot of software inventions would train their own models with their own data. Maybe you have a, a cardio, application or something like that, that would use existing, information from patients and, that information, would be used to train a model, and that model would be able to output some type of response for a future patient. Maybe that model was inside of a device that was, implanted or, put on top of, a patient where that sensor data would be collected.  Nowadays, in, in tho-those inventions, usually incorporated some type of trained model. Nowadays, you have a lot of generative AI, where newer inventions are using out-of-the-box models from OpenAI, ChatGPT models, or Anthropic's Claude models. And, a lot of the same issues are still being addressed, where data will, will come from various sources, whether it's a patient's data or clinician's, or maybe it's, a diagnostics or maybe it is more in the robotic space for, prosthetics. But that data is now, instead of being pushed into more traditional models that would be trained, is now being used by these generative, LLMs. And then you can have combinations of the two. So it's, become an explosive field in AI at least from what I have seen. People are getting excited that you have these large treasure troves of data that you can synthesize, the information inside of it and then get some type of, useful output, and then you also have inventors that are seeking solutions, asking, LLMs to help find a particular solution, and they'll add to it. And our invention disclosures that we get, I, I typically joke and say, "Used to, it was hard to get an invention disclosure from an inventor." They would send you, like, a paragraph or two of the invention, and you'd be, "Well, is there anything else?" And now it's, they'll send you 100 pages of stuff. And like, "Well, let's, well, let's talk about what's relevant. Let's find the needle in the haystack here." So AI is, is influencing all sides of the invention from when it's coming in the door and then how, how, what the invention makeup is itself and how that's gonna be protected in the future. I, I see a lot-- In, in the future, I, I can predict or hopefully predict, there's gonna be, a lot of litigation or a lot of, like, questions about who owned what in the future for patents. So that's, that'll be interesting to see, too. [00:11:06] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Absolutely. [00:11:07] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah- I think what I just want to add is, that it also changes how we work. I think in the past it was, so we had, like, these different departments. We had mechanics, e-tech, biotech, chemistry, and it was, like, very clear when you get a new patent, like an invention disclosure in which department you will push it and, like, who will work on that. But now we have, like, more these interdisciplinary inventions especially, like, in medtech, pharmaceutical companies that are using AI and, and that also changes how we work, that we are trying to then find a interdisciplinary team as well, having, like, patent attorneys from different technical backgrounds, because I'm looking at a invention disclosure differently than a patent attorney with a chemistry background. And, so that makes very interesting for us as well, 'cause we have to work together and, that's why sometime I get a call from the biotech department saying, "Oh, we have a invention disclosure with a lot of AI in there. Could you maybe help us out?" And, so that, yeah, it, like, changes our way of working in there as well. That makes it very interesting. [00:12:12] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. That's very interesting, and I actually love that. It seems like a lot of, ability to learn from each other in that way, and so yeah, I love that exposure. So, okay, when it comes to filing patents, and protecting your IP in general, I'm, I'm curious what your advice is for, for founders that maybe have, like, basically timeline, when should they be thinking about engaging with you all, and h- how do they go about that? Just what is, especially for these younger startup founders, what's some advice that you just, you go, "Okay, now's the time. Here's what we need," and, and whatnot? [00:12:51] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I always advise as early as possible. Okay. usually it's-- usually most founders or startups are not thinking about patents in the beginning. But, you know, I always like to, to tell them when, when I'm speaking to a founder of a startup, think about it as insurance or similar to insurance, because at the end of the day, if you become very successful with your, medtech product, whatever it may be, people are gonna wanna copy you. [00:13:13] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:13:13] Ryan Phelan: And, that, that's probably not only important to you, but also to your investors, if you have them. If, like, you're seeking money from others, whether it be seed money, angel money, or series A, series B the, these people are probably gonna ask you what's your moat, what's your, what's your barrier to entry for others, so if your product, takes off, because they're thinking in terms of, "How much money will I get back if I invest?" It's gonna be s- 20x. And so, it-- they know, and the startup founders should also be aware that if somebody else comes into the market, especially a big player, and they, replicate your product or your software, then that could take market share from you. And so having a patent or building that patent portfolio at the same time, it protects you, from that. It also, of course, there's times, timing, that you have to be mindful of. As soon as you disclose something in the US, it kicks off a, a one-year clock... [00:14:04] Lindsey Dinneen: Hmm ... [00:14:04] Ryan Phelan: ...for you to file something. Just to get an invention in the US, and Stephanie, can let you know about, you know, elsewhere- Mm-hmm ... and in the EU, I understand that there's an absolute bar. Yeah. But for that reasons, for that timing purpose of when someone discloses your invention, and that can be a part of a pitch deck to a set of in- investors, if you don't have a non-disclosure a- agreement, an NDA, then that could also start that clock ticking. So you wanna be mindful. Do this in parallel at the same time, seeking to get your, patent, at least a provisional patent, on file before you go forward. [00:14:37] Stephanie Rupp: Okay. Yeah, as Ryan said, at the, in Europe, we don't have this kind of this year to file a application. Once you publish something, then it's out on, out there in the world and, endangers your own patent application. Because if you want to get a patent the claimed subject matter needs to be novel and inventive. And if you have, like, published this before, then that's prior art with respect to your own patent application. So you always have to keep that in mind and, that's why it's so important to file the patent application first before you use that information for advertisement, for example. And I, we see that often, with startups, and I complete- completely understand. They're super excited with regard to their, like, great idea, and they want to shout it out to the world. But once it's out there that hinders you to get a patent. so- As Ryan said, it's good to think about patents from the beginning and also, the market you're interested in, maybe about competitors and where they're in, which countries they're involved, and then you could also think about, okay, maybe, that is a market of your interest, and then also get advice from patent attorneys in that country because it's different from which d- like, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction how to get a patent, and you want to get the broadest patent as possible. And, especially with AI inventions, where they're the requirements are so different in the different countries, it's, good to have the advice from the beginning on so the patent application is written in the right way. Because once the patent application is filed, we cannot add anything anymore, or we cannot change it. That's why it's, like, good to have really a, like, a well-written patent application also for the jurisdiction you want to go in. [00:16:25] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay. Yeah. Thank you both. That was really insightful. I'm, I'm curious about the patent application itself. Is there-- Well, two questions, I suppose. Is there also a kind of provisional patent opportunity outside of the US, just out of curiosity, as, as well as in the US? And then also, you know, you mentioned being very careful and cognizant about the way that it is written, which of course now you two being experts in this, you know, back, you know, like the back of your hand. But I wonder, if people try to do it themselves. I would love just to hear some advice about that as well. [00:17:06] Ryan Phelan: Yes. Stephanie, do you wanna talk about the provisional outside the US and- [00:17:09] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. So in Europe, we don't have that provisional applications or non-provisional applications. what you have though is the priority year. So you can, like file an application, for example, first in Europe, and then you have a year to decide which other countries you want to go to, and then claim priority from that European patent application. So, I file a EP application, then after a year I think, okay, I want to go in other countries, I want to maybe file it, one in the US, then you can claim the priority from there. And the previous patent application that you filed will not endanger the other patent application. So that's one way of doing it, to buying yourself a little bit of time. Also, sometimes clients when they're like very cost sensitive, especially for startups, would first think, okay, we file a patent application first to Europe, and you get a, a search report within the priority year from the EPO. And then you already know the prior art that is out there, and you can assess how strong your patent application is, and then you can still decide, how to proceed from there. So there are like some ways of how you could do that. [00:18:19] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Thank you. [00:18:22] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. In the US, of course, we have provisional applications. It, it causes a great, amount of confusion, though, the provisional applications. A lot of startup companies will think that they can file a provisional application and it'll be, you know, a page or two in length, and then they can wait a year and inflate that to 20 pages or, or something like this. And of course, the, the trap for the unwary is, of course, if the claims, when you draft those for the non-provisional or the conversion application, if they are not grounded in that first provisional application, if one element of one of the independent claims, for example, is, s- solely supported by the new material added in the, the new, you know, 20 pages or whatever it may be, then the support gets you the date of your non-provisional conversion filing and not of the provisional. So, usually for startup clients, I have to-- we ta- we have this conversation called the delta. What's the delta between your provisional and your non-provisional? If there's a lot of it, then, that could be a problem because if your claims aren't supported by the text of that provisional application, you're not gonna get that original date. And so, usually that kicks off a conversation of how much of a provisional that you want, or do you just wanna go all non-provisional. Now, I do litigation as well, and I can tell you, the, the, the pitfall is if you file that provisional and you file a non-provisional later and you end up getting that later date, if there is intervening prior art in between, the provisional date and the non-provisional date, that comes before your non-provisional date, that could invalidate your patent despite your provisional. And there's, parties debate this. They, excuse me, fight about this in court all the time. Now, did you have sufficient written description and enablement in your provisional application in order to substantiate your claims later? And if they can find intervening prior art between that year or whatever the time may be, that can be a real problem. So, I, I always c- I always tell clients, like, the, the more you can file up front, the better, because you're gonna get more support or more, possibility to have that support earlier in time. Of course, it takes more work. Most startups don't like to hear that, but it is, but it is the truth, and it does, it does protect them against that insurance policy. You, you add it up front. Like Stephanie said, you wanna, put that information, on file before you go out and do your advertising and marketing. That's also true in the US. Just filing a provisional application, does not in and of itself somehow protect you if, if you don't, if you don't say what it is that you're trying to protect. [00:20:48] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Okay. That makes a lot of sense, and thank you so much for that insight. So you mentioned a couple of times that sort of disclosure component, and so just to d- just be very specific about that whole thing you mentioned that could be-- that could look like even just a, a pitch deck where you think it's potentially within a, a private setting thing. Of course, I would imagine that also extends to talking about it on social media or a website or something like that. So I'm just curious what are some of the things that you see besides maybe perhaps the broader, more obvious, like a website, what are some of those things that you see that people don't think to, be aware of, I guess? [00:21:34] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. I've seen websites. It's super easy to create a website nowadays. You can ask ChatGPT or Claude to generate a website, and if you're putting your invention out in a website form before you file a patent, that could be a novelty-destroying disclosure. if you have a detailed pitch deck that you give to, potential investors without some type of control, like an NDA, that could also be a novelty form of disclosure. Like in the US, for litigation, I, I can tell you one of the questions that always gets asked in discovery is, "Did you disclose this prior to the, the filing date?" And, if that person, that person will be required to answer under oath, and if they're, "Yes, I had a website," or, "I, I gave this pitch deck to 50 people for investing," usually that's a problem because that--the opposing side that's defending against that patent will do a, a deep analysis and, and look-- and try to find when that was disclosed, and does it map up to the claims, and that could, create a problem with, validity in the US. [00:22:31] Lindsey Dinneen: Oof. That's no fun. That's why they should talk- Yeah ... to you early and often. [00:22:37] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. Yes. Again, another example of filing early, you know, eliminates some of those issues. i-in fact, I tell a lot of the startup companies or any, any client, like, before you go out there and, you know, have your conference or your, your pitch, then file. Most sophisticated clients know this, but a lot of times startups do not. [00:22:54] Lindsey Dinneen: Sure. Yeah, and if you're a first-time founder or something like that, you wouldn't-- you don't know what you don't know for many different categories, so I can see why that is so critical. Yeah. Okay. So, I was wondering if both of you could talk a little bit about maybe, maybe a moment that has stood out to you as, as you've worked, especially with-within medtech and, and working with some of these founders. Are there any moments that really stand out as just affirming that, "Wow, I, I am doing the right thing in the right industry at the right time"? [00:23:28] Stephanie Rupp: Shall I start? Yeah. yes, I, I've-- So for me it was, like, never the plan to become a patent attorney and, and, like, never had that in mind. And, so it was more of a coincidence that I stumbled upon that and did the training and became a patent attorney and... But I still remember my first day in the office and having the feeling of, "Yes, I think that's what I want to do for the rest of my life." Like, continue learning, like, having, like, this incredible opportunity to speak with so many great inventors. Having, like, I don't know, it's always amazing, to see how their mind works and that they're, like, finding solutions for s- like, very complex problems. And, so that, like, from the day, first day on, I had, like, the feeling, okay, I think I can really help here and, protect their asset the best way possible. And then especially within the medtech field, I think what Ryan also said in the beginning, there's like, it's also for me, sometimes it's a kind of s- scary part thinking about, okay, what if you get sick at one point, or like from closer family that got really sick, and, having like this helpless feeling like that you maybe can't change anything here. And then when you work with the medtech industry and you see that they are working on that problem and have these great idea- to help people to like, that there's also k- some kind of involvem- like involvement in this technology. And, so for example, I, there's like one of my clients, they are, working on histological images and analyzing them also with respect to cancer types, and how AI can be such a great help there. And of course, there are like a lot of these discussions about, how we should be careful with the new technology and how we could re- regulate that and stuff like that, but there's also like so much good in there that can really help people's lives. And I think that's like for me, always very nice that yes, Ryan said we're no doctors. So like, we're just like patent attorneys, but still we could contribute a little bit to that too. Yeah. [00:25:34] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. [00:25:35] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. I would just, I would just echo everything that Stephanie said. That certainly is why I enjoy working in this space too, is, you, you feel like you have a, a little bit of contribution that you make. [00:25:44] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Absolutely. I, I couldn't agree more. I think, to your point, Stephanie, it's, it's so inspiring to see the innovation that's coming out, and it makes you feel like, especially when there's difficult world news, it makes you think, "Okay, but at least there are still these change makers who are really trying to make the world a better place and, and improve patient lives." And I think that's just a, a wonderful thing to get to witness and be a, a part of. It helps the soul. So, I'm always curious about the personal side of things as well. So just what are, what are some of the things that you all en- enjoy doing, say, outside of work? maybe some hobbies or volunteering or interests and things like that. What are... Let's, let's talk about the people as well behind these amazing patent attorneys. [00:26:36] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. everybody has a hobby, so I, I was, I like to run. I was running since high school, so I like to do that. And then, in the winter I like to ski. and then I'm, recently getting my scuba cert, with my daughter. So we're having a good time doing that this summer. So just trying to stay busy and active. I like to learn always, and so I, I, I love learning, I guess. and one of the reason why medtech is interesting to me 'cause I like to apply that, computer science skill to, the medtech field and continuously learn, in that space and also give back, like we talked about before. So, yeah, I guess I would lump in learning as one of my hobbies as well. I like... I, I'll say, and I, I'm not sure if we'll get into this later I think you had a question about, poss- if we, if we could teach one class or- No, we'll get into that ... [00:27:20] Lindsey Dinneen: Something like that. Yeah. [00:27:22] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, okay. I'll, I'll save that for a later time. So. [00:27:23] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay. Yes. Excellent. Stephanie? [00:27:28] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, I think that's, one common thing that we have, Ryan and I. It's, skiing. That's also what I enjoy a lot. so as I said, I'm from Munich, and it's very close to the Alps, so it takes us only, like, about, like, two hours to go to Austria. and so, but I really enjoy going there for the weekend, clearing my mind. Yeah, especially when the week was very busy with work. so it's like, thinking about something else. And, besides that, yeah, spending time outside, going hiking at the weekend, like when it's... there's no snow. Also, I picked up some hobbies that I had when I was younger. So for example, I had, piano classes for, like, when I was five years old, and then once I had, like, the training and everything else going on, paused that because, like, so much else going on. But then last few years I, taught myself, "Oh yeah, it would be such a waste not to do that anymore." And, so I'm, like, started playing piano again. I'm not good in it. It's more really as a hobby. And, but yeah doing something else in the evening and clearing my mind. So that's what I usually like to do as well. [00:28:35] Lindsey Dinneen: I love that. That's wonderful. I, yes, I, I understand that sometimes picking up a hobby that you sort of set aside for a while is really fun as an adult, 'cause you have a different way of interpreting that learning, back to your point, Ryan, of how it, it it changes. And I, I actually really enjoy that, of, of revisiting something where I might have thought g- especially growing up. Like for instance, I remember thinking I just could not paint for the life of me, like it was never gonna happen. And then as an adult, with a, an instructor who was... maybe s- spoke a slightly different, in a different way, and then getting to like go, "Oh, maybe I can" is always a nice thing to learn too. But anyway. [00:29:17] Stephanie Rupp: And also taking, taking the pressure out of it. Yes. So it's like, as I said, like piano class is just a hobby. I don't have to be good in it. It's just should give me some joy in it. And so yeah. [00:29:27] Lindsey Dinneen: Love that. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So now you've both been in positions of leadership, and I'm curious, and, and I know it's hard to boil it down to maybe one thing, but what is one or two, three things that you would say is your top leadership advice, especially for those who maybe are more in, middle management trying to continue to build their leadership skills? And what, what makes a good leader, in your mind, and then maybe what's one or two pieces of advice? [00:30:02] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. What makes a good leader in my mind is something that somebody that can lead by example, I guess. On like a first project or a new client or a new matter, I like to do it, do it myself once so I can go through it and, get the feeling for the new technology, that may be at play or the new matter, maybe the client's preferences whether it's a startup or a large company. And then once I have that kind of lead from the front, then I like to do, I guess, a military word, dis- decentralized command, which is get people that I trust and who I have a great assistant. I have attorneys that I work with European attorneys such as Stephanie, and then give them work with them and give them free reign and control, whether it's a colleague like Stephanie or a associate here at Marshall Gerstein to, work with the client or have agency over, what they do, 'cause I think it can also teach in that capacity, like things that I learned from the lead from the front can flow, down or through or out and then, that person can also learn on the job doing it themselves. I believe that, people doing, instead of just listening is the, a best way to learn for them and then also get better. And so I, I tend to approach, leadership, from that perspective. [00:31:12] Lindsey Dinneen: Love that. Yeah. Stephanie? [00:31:15] Stephanie Rupp: Yes. I see myself like still more at the beginning of my career, so I can, talk a little bit more of how I, see or like, yeah, see leadership or like, how I experience it. Yeah. it's more also I... like everything what Ryan said, I completely agree. And also like seeing the person behind that. It's like everyone is like very busy, especially when you're in leadership positions and, very busy schedules and, But also seeing the person as a whole- Mm ... and how could you like support them to be better, to grow and, how to also, yeah- lead them or like, yeah, lead them in the way they w- where they want to be at some point. And, I think that's, yeah, what you should not forget e- especially when you have a really busy schedule. That's it. [00:32:11] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. The, the person behind... Yeah. That, that's an interesting theme that continues to come up, time and time again, is, you know, if one of the tricks to being a good leader is to care. It seems so straightforward, but it's if you care about the person and you, you want the best for them, you are going to naturally be a better leader because you're investing in them and, and in their success and goals, and, it's, it's just cool to see. Okay, and then, all right, I'm just going to pivot the conversation a little bit for fun, and this is where exactly what you were referring to earlier, Ryan. So if you were to be offered a million dollars to teach a master class on anything you want, could be in your industry, but doesn't have to be, what would you choose to teach? [00:32:58] Ryan Phelan: I would teach a class called Patenting Software Inventions and, I'm actually currently teaching that class. Oh. they're not-- I'm not getting paid a million dollars to do it, unfortunately. [00:33:07] Lindsey Dinneen: Dang. [00:33:07] Ryan Phelan: But, but it is a, a, a passion and a love. I teach it at, Northwestern Law, where I went to law school. I-- it's, it's my pleasure and joy every year to go back. I teach a power course there every year, I think for the past eight years on, teaching students how to patent software inventions in the US, and I think, elsewhere there's a, you know, there has become, by at least some people, the belief that you can't patent software, you know, which of course is, not true. And so, you know, I teach methodologies in my class about how to, patent software inventions in the US using you know, guidance from the courts, from the Supreme Court, from the Federal Circuit, from the district courts here, in the US. A lot of it covers, things such as Section 101 you know, that changed, in 2014, from the Supreme Court's decision in Alice v. CLS, and how to address, issues, about what the, the court said there. And then also what later courts, the Federal Circuit, said that they wanted to see in order to overcome, Section 101 issues, in the US. A lot of times, too, it's interesting, we have, like, a small slide like that, that deals with EPO-- which Stephanie's much more adept than, than I am-- but what we tell our students is, and maybe Stephanie can address this, is that, you know, there seems to be a convergence, between Section 101 law and, something called a technical effect, an EPO, where it seems like both jurisdictions are wanting to see more of a technical disclosure incorporated into the application rather than just kind of claiming functionally or a high level language. So you need to be very careful in crafting these applications so there's-- they're successful when you're in front of the the patent office in the US. And if you, you do it right, you can, create, you know, not only a US-centric application, but one that might, withstand, the strictures of the EPO. In my opinion, I think that the EPO can sometimes-- and maybe this is just me being a US practitioner-- but the EPO can be somewhat more difficult, to get a patent, application. Maybe Stephanie would disagree and say it's the other way around, but but it's always good, and clients usually, even if they're not thinking about it, to have an application that could survive both places 'cause they tend to be, I think, the, the two more, more difficult, if not most difficult jurisdictions in the world to get a patent application. And if you go into it knowing and how to craft a patent application and you're ready, and you put into that application the right, material, then you can be successful. [00:35:40] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Stephanie, what would you teach? [00:35:44] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, maybe we, Ryan and I, could do a master class together then because he said, like, then we could explain the similarities or the differences between, US patent law and European patent law, and can also maybe, also add something about the UPC that we have now, the U- Unified Patent Court, and have a, maybe a lively discussion about all of that and, how to get the strongest and broadest, patent in the different jurisdictions. And as Ryan said, there are, like, some similarities, and I also have the feeling when I discuss with Ryan that, when we have a patent application where we struggle to get a patent on, then we usually also struggle with that in the US- Mm-hmm ... or the other way around. And, but of course, there are, like, differences in how the EPO and how the USPTO, like examine these AI inventions and, in the US you have these 101 objections that you usually get. In, Europe it's, they apply the so-called two hurdle approach where they, especially the second hurdle is usually harder to overcome. Mm. And that's also what, Ryan mentioned, is that you have to show the EPO that your AI invention or your AI steps contribute to the technical character of the invention. And that's, often, and I totally understand that, hard to grasp for an inventor because they think we have all these technical means here. We have a server, we have a processor, we have a memory, we have sensors getting data. Do you tell me now that that's not technical? [00:37:18] Lindsey Dinneen: Mm. [00:37:19] Stephanie Rupp: And, but that's not how the EPO thinks. It's, for them, they say, "What is your motivation for that invention?" Or, or in other, more their words, "What kind of technical problem you try to solve?" [00:37:32] Lindsey Dinneen: Mm. [00:37:34] Stephanie Rupp: And that is, what we also usually ask the inventors in our f- like, first meetings with them, "What is the technical problem you're trying to solve with that, and how does the, your AI steps, your method steps contribute to that?" Because that's, if you cannot show that to the EPO, then it's very hard to get a patent on. so maybe my combined master class- yeah ... where we show that and- It, [00:37:59] Ryan Phelan: It would- ... [00:38:00] Stephanie Rupp: Explain that, yeah. So ... [00:38:01] Ryan Phelan: Definitely it would, it would help out my meager EPO slide, any additional information on this, especially the, the UPC, which I'm glad you mentioned. But, maybe, we could take a minute to talk about the UPC and in, in the European area since that's like a new, newer, from what I understand, a newer avenue, the era approach in Europe. [00:38:20] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. Yeah. It's, so as I said, we have, like, for now three years now, the, Unified Patent Court. And, before that we also had European patents, but once it was granted, was divided into national patents. So if you wanted to, file an infringement action or a nullity action, you had to do that in each specific country. And that made it very complicated because I, I'm a German patent attorney. I don't know anything about Italian law, so you would then need an Italian patent attorney or French and so on. So it was, like, very complicated. And, so what we now have, and that is, like, very exciting to live at that time now, is, the Unified Patent Court, where it's, like, now centralized and you can attack patents at the, like, Unified Patent Court, like, for the whole patent, and you don't have to go to these before the national courts anymore. And, so that's, like, very exciting for us as well because case law is evolving now and, there's, yeah, you can see how, like, how it changes and how the judges are handling these cases and it's, like, also very, like, for us, a lot of new things to learn. [00:39:32] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:39:32] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. [00:39:33] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I was gonna say, I, I also heard, and, Stephanie can certainly chime on this, that certain cities in Europe, like Paris, or Munich, may have different judges that specialize in different arts or disciplines. I think, was it, w- what Munich was, I can't remember, is that the mechanical or- Yeah. [00:39:49] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. So that's, like, for the central division, but we also have then local divisions- Mm-hmm ... as well. So we have, four local divisions in Germany, but also in other countries. And that also, changes, of course, a little bit of how they handle the cases because the judges, they often came from the, like, the national courts. So they, like, when you're in Germany, of course, they still have little bit, little bit more of the German thinking in them. When you're going to a Dutch, local division, then they have a little bit of, like, another, like, view on that. And I think over time it will, like, unify a little bit. but these are, like, also differences that, makes it very interesting, to see. [00:40:27] Lindsey Dinneen: All right. Okay, so next question is, how do you wish to be remembered after you leave this world? [00:40:35] Ryan Phelan: I hope that people remember me as, somebody that was fun, like to, you know, either work or hang out with that regardless of whether we're working hard or, you know, playing hard, that, that it was just fun. So that, that's my only wish. So or, or main wish. [00:40:50] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. Steph? [00:40:52] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, I think for me that I was maybe, like, a fair and trustworthy person. I think it sounds a little bit boring, but, more when people work with me and they, like, say, "Oh, when she gave me advice, I knew that she had, like, my best interest in mind as well, and not only, like, filling her own pockets or, like, trying to, like, improve it for herself, but having like..." Yeah, when they remember me of a person that you could trust with the advice, I think that would be, like nice to know for me. Yeah. [00:41:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, for sure. All right. Excellent. And then final question. What is one thing that makes you smile every time you see or think about it? [00:41:37] Ryan Phelan: I guess just sticking with our current theme, if in a work capacity, when a client gets a victory of some type certainly makes me smile. A lot of clients are happy when they get their patents allowed, or if you win that litigation case or you, you do things, a lot of times in the US we'll, we'll have these decisions or these patents, and it it, it, it makes me smile to think that, you know, I helped their business in that way to protect their, their IP and just going forward. I, I imagine it's a pretty standard answer, but, you know, certainly in the context of this podcast, that's absolutely one thing that makes me happy. [00:42:10] Stephanie Rupp: Mm. Yeah. I'm a person, I get excited very quickly or, like, really small things make me smile already. So I arrived on Saturday in Chicago, and I, for example, didn't expect to have a gym in the hotel, and then suddenly I discovered that and was really happy about that. So these are these small things that other people say, "Oh, yeah, whatever." but I think what makes me smile the most is, like, knowing that I have a weekend ahead of me with, like, my family and my partner, and we go ski. And I say that now we have, like, summer outs and, like, very warm temperature here in Chicago. I think it's about 80 degrees, and I'm already thinking about skiing and snow, but it's, more of... [00:42:52] Ryan Phelan: It's never too early. [00:42:53] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. But more of, like, not the skiing per se, but just having time with family and- yeah ... clearing my mind and stuff like that. So, yeah. [00:43:02] Lindsey Dinneen: Excellent. Excellent. Well, thank you both so much for being here. I've so enjoyed the conversation, and you gave so much amazing advice and guidance, so thank you so very, very much for all of that. If folks who should be looking out for services such as yourselves, how do they get in touch with you? [00:43:25] Stephanie Rupp: I think like through the website, that, I think will be- mm-hmm published, with the, podcast. And, also my email address as well. You can find me on the website, or we can also add it to the, to the podcast info. yeah. [00:43:38] Ryan Phelan: What is your... [00:43:38] Stephanie Rupp: It's the easiest ... [00:43:38] Ryan Phelan: What is your email address, Stephanie? [00:43:41] Stephanie Rupp: It... Hopefully I say it correct now. It's, S for Stephanie, S Rupp, my, last name, @hoffmanneitle.com, so very easy. Yeah. [00:43:53] Ryan Phelan: Perfect. Excellent. Yeah, same thing for me. I believe the contact information will be at the with the podcast, but I can be reached at RPhelan R-P-H-E-L-A-N @marshallip.com, and welcome any questions or comments. [00:44:08] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Well, thank you both so much again for your time today. We really appreciate it. We are so honored to be making a donation on your behalf as a thank you for your time today to Save the Children, which works to end the cycle of poverty by ensuring communities have the resources to provide children with a healthy, educational, and safe environment. So thank you so much for choosing that charity to support, and also thank you for continuing to work to change lives for a better world. Love learning about you, about your areas of expertise, and just really appreciate you, being willing to share with us. So thanks again, and, I suppose until next time. [00:44:51] Ryan Phelan: Thank you. Love to come back. [00:44:53] Stephanie Rupp: Thank you. Awesome. Yeah. Thank you so much. [00:44:55] Dan Purvis: The Leading Difference is brought to you by Velentium Medical. Velentium Medical is a full service CDMO, serving medtech clients worldwide to securely design, manufacture, and test class two and class three medical devices. Velentium Medical's four units include research and development-- pairing electronic and mechanical design, embedded firmware, mobile app development, and cloud systems with the human factor studies and systems engineering necessary to streamline medical device regulatory approval; contract manufacturing-- building medical products at the prototype, clinical, and commercial levels in the US, as well as in low cost regions in 1345 certified and FDA registered Class VII clean rooms; cybersecurity-- generating the 12 cybersecurity design artifacts required for FDA submission; and automated test systems, assuring that every device produced is exactly the same as the device that was approved. Visit VelentiumMedical.com to explore how we can work together to change lives for a better world.

Paul Lee, co-founder and CEO of Patlytics, joins Greg Lambert to explain how an AI platform built specifically for intellectual property work is changing the patent lifecycle. Patlytics supports workflows spanning patent drafting, prior art analysis, office action responses, portfolio management, litigation readiness, and claim-chart preparation. Lee reports that the company now works with roughly 55 percent of the Am Law 100 and hundreds of corporations across technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and other patent-intensive industries.Lee traces Patlytics' origins to his experience as a venture capitalist and more than 100 conversations with patent attorneys. Those interviews exposed a practice filled with expensive, labor-intensive processes, from drafting detailed patent specifications to constructing claim charts for litigation. His interest also grew from the Apple and Samsung patent battles, the IP expenses faced by venture-backed companies, and conversations with Patlytics co-founder Arthur Jen and former Latham & Watkins patent litigator Bob Steinberg.The conversation turns to Patlytics' work involving USPTO patent examiners and the broader effect of placing AI on both sides of the examination process. While confidentiality limits the details Lee discusses, he identifies quality and the examination backlog as two areas where specialized technology offers meaningful assistance. He also contrasts Patlytics with broad legal AI platforms such as Harvey and Legora, arguing that patent professionals need tools designed for the precision, technical detail, and specialized workflows of IP practice.Human judgment stays central to Lee's vision. Patent attorneys still own the work product, approve key decisions, and remain responsible when an AI-generated analysis falls short. At the same time, client expectations continue to rise. Clients want faster work, higher quality, and lower costs, while law firms need sustainable margins. Lee sees flat-fee arrangements and more predictable workflows as one route toward sharing the “AI dividend” between clients and their outside counsel. In-house teams also gain more capacity for infringement analysis, patent-portfolio reviews during M&A, cross-licensing strategy, and litigation preparation.Looking ahead, Lee describes a striking change in attitude among patent professionals, from widespread skepticism a year ago to broad optimism today. His crystal-ball concern is less about whether lawyers will adopt AI and more about whether its economics will hold together. As free experimentation gives way to consumption-based pricing, firms will need to measure the value of each workflow and avoid spending $50,000 in AI costs on a $5,000 matter. Token maxing had its moment. ROI gets the next meeting invitation.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: Jerry David DeCicca Transcript

You've picked the colors.You've built the website.You've created the offer.Maybe you've even started making money.But have you actually protected the business you're working so hard to build?In this episode of Casa De Confidence, Julie sits down with business and trademark attorney Samantha Bradshaw for a practical conversation about the legal and financial foundations entrepreneurs often push to the bottom of the list.Because let's face it, choosing your brand colors is a lot more fun than thinking about contracts, business entities, bank accounts, liability, copyright and trademarks.Until something goes wrong.Samantha works with first-generation entrepreneurs to help them proactively grow and protect their businesses. She shares how watching a friend struggle to access affordable legal support helped shape the kind of attorney and business owner she wanted to become.Julie and Samantha also dig into something that goes beyond legal protection: Are you building a business, or have you simply created something that pays you?They talk about separating personal and business finances, understanding profitability instead of being distracted by impressive revenue numbers online, using contracts before there's a disagreement, assessing insurance needs, and thinking about where you ultimately want your company to go.Then Samantha gives a refreshingly understandable explanation of one of the most confusing areas for entrepreneurs: copyright versus trademark.What protects your podcast?What about your course?Your business name?Your signature program?Your logo?Your event?And what happens if someone is already using a name similar to yours?Samantha explains why trademarks aren't simply about protecting a business. Trademark law exists in large part to prevent consumer confusion, and the strength of a brand can eventually become an asset with real financial value.In this episode, you'll learn:Why entrepreneurs postpone important legal foundationsThe difference between running a hobby and operating a businessWhy personal and business finances should be separatedHow an LLC or other business structure can help protect personal assetsWhen business insurance may deserve considerationWhy contracts can protect both the business and the client relationshipHow to introduce contracts if you've already started working with clientsWhy revenue and profit are two very different thingsHow the Profit First philosophy can change the way entrepreneurs manage moneyThe difference between copyright and trademarkWhat kinds of content may receive copyright protectionWhat a trademark actually protectsWhy two businesses can sometimes legally use the same or similar namesWhen trademarking a program, brand or event may make senseHow intellectual property can increase the value of a businessWhy your exit strategy matters even if you're nowhere near exitingThe simple trademark search Samantha recommends entrepreneurs do nowSamantha's ChallengeBefore you spend another year building equity in a name, Samantha recommends checking whether someone may already have trademark rights that could create a problem.She walks listeners through searching the USPTO trademark database and suggests testing variations of the core name people use when referring others to your business.Important: This conversation is educational and isn't individualized legal advice. Your specific legal needs will depend on your business and circumstances.

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.

In this episode of Knobbe IP+, Knobbe Martens partners Jarom Kesler and Bryan McWhorter discuss the latest developments in AI and patent eligibility. Sharing insights for both fellow IP practitioners and inventors seeking to patent their latest innovations, Jarom and Bryan answer some of the most frequently asked questions surrounding the role of AI in the patent process: Can AI be listed as an inventor on a patent? Are certain AI-related inventions more patentable than others? What are the common pitfalls to avoid in the AI patenting process? Beyond exploring these questions, Jarom and Bryan discuss how the USPTO and U.S. courts differ on their approach to AI patentability, and share practical strategies for inventors aimed towards building strong AI-related patents that can survive future litigation. A full transcript of the episode can be found at knobbe.com.

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!

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

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

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.