Podcasts about uspto

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

Brian Fried, Founder of the National Inventor Club, sits down exclusively with John A. Squires, the 60th Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, for one of the most powerful conversations in the inventor community this year.Director Squires shares his extraordinary journey from IBM and Goldman Sachs, where he served as their first Chief IP Counsel, to surviving the attacks of September 11th and using patents to combat terrorism financing. Now leading America's Innovation Agency with nearly 15,000 employees and a nearly $5 billion budget, Director Squires has a clear message for every inventor:"You're not doing it alone. We've got your back."In this conversation you will discover:✅ What the USPTO actually does and why it matters to YOU✅ Why inventor rights are the only right written directly into the Constitution✅ Free tools and resources available right now at USPTO.gov✅ The rise of independent inventors and what is changing in 2026✅ New AI tools helping inventors search and protect their ideas✅ How patents attract capital, investment and talent✅ Words of wisdom and inspiration straight from the topWhether you are just starting out with an idea or deep in the patent process, this conversation will give you clarity, confidence and inspiration.Stay the course. Protect what you dream. Keep dreaming.Watch the episode here: https://youtu.be/DMwPgBqv890-----------------------Become a member today @ https://nationalinventorclub.com.Unlock Your Invention's Potential with Inventor Smart! Inventor Smart Community - The Ultimate APP for Inventors to connect, collaborate, network, and drive invention ideas forward! Join social networking, participate in group chats, events, visit the library, and find the support you need! Download the Inventor Smart Community app on Google Play or Apple App Store or here http://inventorsmart.app Join us today!Have a great invention idea?Do you want to know if your idea will make you money?If you're just getting started, need help with product development, engineering, prototyping, finding a product licensing agent, or with bringing your invention idea to reality manufacturing, schedule a call with Brian Fried, The Inventor Coach @ https://brianfried.com

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

Recorded October 31, 2025 In this episode of BioTalk Unzipped, Gregory Austin and Dr. Chad Briscoe sit down with Dr. Kate Neville, immunologist turned seasoned biotech patent attorney at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, to unpack one of the most misunderstood and mission-critical areas of life sciences: intellectual property.If you are a biotech founder, scientist, executive, or investor, this conversation is essential listening.We explore what patent prosecution really means, when startups should begin thinking about IP protection, how “freedom to operate” can determine commercial viability, and how emerging AI tools are reshaping the patent landscape.Dr. Neville brings 25+ years of experience guiding university spin-outs, biotech startups, and global pharmaceutical companies through complex patent strategy. She has helped secure patents for FDA-approved drugs and offers a rare dual perspective as both scientist and attorney.In This Episode We Discuss:• The difference between patent prosecution and patent litigation• Why it is never too early for biotech startups to think about IP• The U.S. one-year grace period vs. Europe's stricter disclosure rules• What “Freedom to Operate” really means for commercialization• Antibody patents, CDR regions, and the doctrine of equivalents• How premature disclosure can impact global patent strategy• The real-world back-and-forth of patent office “office actions”• AI-assisted prior art search at the USPTO — opportunity or risk?• How funding cycles influence patent filing decisions• Women in biotech leadership and venture funding disparities• The most rewarding part of protecting life-changing therapiesWe also break down the USPTO's new AI pilot programs designed to modernize patent examination and discuss how artificial intelligence may impact biotech patenting over the next several years.Why This MattersIntellectual property is often the single most valuable asset in a biotech company.Strong IP strategy can unlock funding, partnerships, and market exclusivity.Weak or mistimed IP decisions can permanently limit global opportunity.For founders and scientists: timing, geography, and disclosure discipline matter more than most people realize.About Our GuestDr. Kate NevillePartner, Marshall, Gerstein & BorunPhD in Immunology, JDLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kate-neville-phd/Firm Bio: https://www.marshallip.com/katherine-l-neville-ph-d/Charity Highlight: Girls on the Run ChicagoAn organization building confidence and resilience in young girls through mentorship and athletic achievement.https://www.girlsontherun.org/HostsDr. Chad BriscoeBioanalytical Scientific Leaderhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/chadbriscoe/Gregory AustinDirector, Business Development | Bioanalysishttps://www.linkedin.com/in/gregoryaustin1/If you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to BioTalk Unzipped on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred platform and share with a colleague in biotech, pharma, or life sciences innovation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Dan Roark, CEO and Founder of Gestalt Diagnostics, in a deep-dive conversation with Gary Fowler on why digitizing pathology is one of the most important shifts in modern healthcare. Learn how AI-powered digital pathology is reshaping disease diagnosis, accelerating clinical workflows, and improving outcomes for patients worldwide—especially in cancer care.

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

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

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

Join us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. This session will present arguments from both sides while covering how the proposed rules aim to curb serial and duplicative challenges, shift institution discretion, and bolster patent­holder certainty, while also covering concerns about limiting access to review and adverse impacts on operating companies. With the official public comment deadline extended to December 2, 2025, this webinar aims to provide informative insight before the comment window closes. Don’t miss this chance to hear competing views on one of the most consequential patent-policy debates of the year. Featuring: Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLPDavid Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCBrian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

- In a support document spotted by 9to5Google, Google notes free users can currently generate two images daily, down from three per day previously. The company wrote: "Image generation and editing is in high demand. Limits may change frequently and will reset daily." -The agency's director, John Squires, said in a notice obtained by Reuters that the USPTO deems genAI to be "analogous" to other tools that inventors might use in their process, including lab equipment, software and research databases. Squires wrote: "AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors. They may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention." -Alibaba's Quark AI glasses are now available for purchase in China. The company has released three variants of the flagship S1 model and three of the more affordable G1 model. They both connect to Alibaba's newly launched App, powered by the company's own AI tech, for AI assistance through voice commands and touch controls. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Director of the USPTO has instituted a re-examination of the Nintendo Pokemon patents. But what does that mean?

The best biotech and pharmaceutical innovations mean nothing if they can't be protected—and protected fast. Our next guest, Josh Goldberg, is solving this challenge as co-managing partner at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, the #1 ranked patent law firm for biotech and pharmaceutical technologies. With nearly three decades of IP law experience and a unique background as a lab researcher, Josh brings an insider's understanding of how innovation actually happens. He's helped industry leaders like Amgen, Takeda, and GlaxoSmithKline turn breakthrough treatments into patent-protected portfolios—often in under a year instead of the typical four-year timeline. Driven by a passion for focus and strategic IP timing, Josh shares his pioneering approach to biotech and pharmaceutical patent prosecution. Join us to discover how smart IP strategy drives licensing power, regulatory success, and company valuation. Let's go!Episode Highlights:Focus drives success – Companies fail by trying to do everything at once; staying deliberate and focused is key to making real impactOne-year patent timelines vs. four years – Josh uses USPTO's Track 1 program to secure patents in record time, improving fundraising and M&A positioningClient-centered approach wins – Listening to unique client needs instead of one-size-fits-all strategies earned the firm its #1 rankingDiagnostic patents are back – New USPTO Director signals the patent office is "open for business" again after a decade of restrictionsScientist turned patent attorney – Josh's lab background gives him insider understanding of how innovation actually happensAbout our Guest: Joshua is the patent attorney innovation-driven pharmaceutical companies call when they need to turn complicated technologies into protected assets in record time.As co-managing partner at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer—the #1 ranked patent law firm for biotech and pharmaceutical technologies in both 2024 and 2025—Joshua leads IP efforts across industries like biotech, pharma, agriculture, renewable energy, and advanced materials. Whether it's a blockbuster acne treatment like DUAC, a vitamin D analog lotion like Sorilux, OTC solutions like Salonpas and Germagic, or a leading drug used to reduce stomach acid and treat conditions like GERD, ulcers, and heartburn—like Protonix—Joshua helps turn high-stakes R&D into patent-protected portfolios, often in under a year instead of the typical four-year timeline.Though his climate and agricultre IP expertise has made him famous as the “green patent guy,” Joshua moves between disciplines skillfully and has helped industry leaders like Amgen, Takeda, Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Mayne, and Stiefel Laboratories (which was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline) build pharma portfolios that hold up under investor, acquirer, and FDA scrutiny.His journey didn't begin in IP law, but in the lab, researching experimental pharmaceutical delivery systems. It gave him an edge most attorneys don't have: understanding how innovation actually happens, and how to protect it without slowing a business down. Links Supporting This Episode: Nath, Goldberg & Meyer Website: CLICK HEREJoshua Goldberg LinkedIn page: CLICK HERENath, Goldberg & Meyer LinkedIn: CLICK HEREMike Biselli LinkedIn page: CLICK HEREMike Biselli Twitter page:...

In this episode of Clause 8, Deputy Commissioner for Patents Jerry Lorengo joins host Eli Mazour to share valuable, practical insights for patent professionals navigating the USPTO's new Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP).Jerry discusses what's changed in the latest update — including the revised streamlined review process, new production expectations, and updated interview time policy — and offers guidance on how examiners, applicants, and SPEs can adapt effectively.He reveals that the streamlined review will now focus only on independent claims, not dependent claims indicated as allowable, and explains how this early-stage supervisory review is designed to expedite prosecution, strengthen examination quality, and help SPEs learn from experienced primary examiners.Jerry also stresses the importance of collaboration: even with new interview limitations, examiners are encouraged to conduct interviews that help clarify issues and move applications forward.

Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart, co-hosts of Passage to Profit Show interview Caroline Winnett from Berkeley SkyDeck, Braydan Young from SlashExperts and Clint Lotz from TrackStar AI.   Want to know why some founders soar while others stall? Caroline Winnett, the powerhouse behind Berkeley SkyDeck - UC Berkeley's world-renowned startup accelerator, breaks down the traits of winning entrepreneurs, how to stand out to investors, and where innovation and funding are heading next. A must-listen for anyone building big. Read more at: https://skydeck.berkeley.edu/   B2B buyers don't want another sales pitch — they want the truth from people who've been there. Braydan Young is the Co-Founder of SlashExperts, the game-changing platform that lets prospects talk directly to your happiest customers to fast-track trust, boost confidence, and close deals faster. Read more at: https://www.slashexperts.com/   Meet Clint Lotz, the founder shaking up the lending world with TrackStar AI — the platform turning hidden lender data into revenue, smarter approvals, and game-changing credit insights. If you want to see how AI is transforming finance from the inside out, this episode is a must-listen! Read more at: https://trackstar.ai/   Whether you're a seasoned entrepreneur, a startup, an inventor, an innovator, a small business or just starting your entrepreneurial journey, tune into Passage to Profit Show for compelling discussions, real-life examples, and expert advice on entrepreneurship, intellectual property, trademarks and more. Visit https://passagetoprofitshow.com/ for the latest updates and episodes. Chapters (00:00:00) - Starting a Business on TV(00:00:28) - Passage to Profit(00:01:51) - What Was the One Rule of Business That You Had to Break to(00:06:27) - Braden Young: The Rule Break(00:08:17) - What You Didn't Know About Credit(00:09:49) - A Law Firm's Rise to the Digital World(00:11:37) - What Makes a Good Entrepreneur?(00:13:53) - Are You Need a Publicist for Your Startups?(00:15:16) - In the Elevator With Steve Jobs(00:15:58) - Quantum Institute's funding focus on AI(00:17:09) - Quantum Innovation at UC Berkeley(00:21:05) - Commercial(00:22:07) - The Cruise Call(00:23:05) - Seeking Innovation: From Planet to Profit(00:23:36) - Where Do You See Investment Going in 2026?(00:24:41) - In the Elevator: Venture Capital's Focus on Robots(00:26:11) - Are VC Funds Open to AI Startups?(00:27:45) - Have You Got the Money to Start a Business?(00:28:40) - Looking for a Fund? Just Type in Your Name(00:29:12) - In the Elevator With Braden Cook(00:30:10) - Berkeley's Skydeck Program(00:31:11) - AI in Business: The Use Cases(00:33:01) - How Is AI Affecting Your Business?(00:33:59) - AI CEO on Revenue Per Employee(00:34:32) - How Trackstar AI is Affecting the Company(00:35:47) - How to Use AI to Predict the Future(00:38:42) - Passive Profits: Car Insurance Hotline(00:41:20) - USPTO to Use AI in the Patent Examination Process(00:44:06) - AI for Business: The End of the Sales Cycle(00:46:11) - Are Your Clients Getting Paid for Their Time?(00:47:18) - How We Launched Our Product 5 Months in(00:50:39) - Startups Tackle the Enterprise Software Problem(00:53:14) - What industries are using Salesforce.com?(00:54:04) - Pipeline: How Experts Are Affecting Sales(00:56:40) - How Credit Monitoring Companies are Advancing the Underdog(01:02:11) - How AI Can Help Fintech Lenders(01:05:51) - Trackstar Financial Intelligence: Banks, Fintechs, Consumer(01:11:22) - Secrets of the Entrepreneurial Mind(01:13:17) - What's the Secret to Starting a Business?(01:16:31) - Richard Gearhart's Secret to Strategic Networking(01:18:06) - Passive to Profit

In this episode of "The Free Lawyer" podcast, host Gary interviews guest Ana Juneja, an IP lawyer and entrepreneur. They discuss Ana's journey from law firm associate to media company owner. Ana shares how she sold her media business to focus on law and explains how AI has revolutionized her firm's transactional work, enabling a small team to serve clients efficiently. She offers insights on trademark protection, debunks common IP myths, and highlights the importance of early trademark registration. The episode highlights the importance of innovation, transparency, and leveraging AI and social media to empower lawyers and improve client service.As an award-winning intellectual property attorney and the founder of Ana Law®, Ana Juneja is redefining how attorneys leverage AI to create impactful social media content.She empowers celebrities, athletes, influencers, start-ups, entrepreneurs, and corporations to not only protect their brands and ideas but also amplify them across digital platforms using cutting-edge AI-driven strategies.Ana Law® is the first and only law firm offering flat-fee, 100% guaranteed patent, trademark, and copyright services, with Ana maintaining a 100% success rate.Beyond traditional legal work, she speaks widely on the intersection of AI, law, and social media, helping professionals understand how emerging technologies can safeguard and scale their influence.AI's Impact on Legal Practice (00:03:04)Scope of IP and Transactional Work (00:04:20)Scaling with AI (00:05:47)Lawyers' Resistance to AI (00:06:42)AI in Transactional vs. Litigation Work (00:07:37)Best Uses of AI in Litigation (00:09:23)Lawyer Hesitancy and AI Psychosis (00:10:26)Big Law Firms and AI Adoption (00:11:41)Prompt Engineering and Lawyer Skillsets (00:14:10)Ana's Background at USPTO (00:16:02)IP Protection for Businesses (00:17:09)]Basic IP Protections for Businesses (00:19:06)Automating Client Communication with AI (00:21:39)Common IP Misconceptions (00:23:25)Client Types and Fee Structure (00:24:11)Service Guarantees in Legal Practice (00:26:02)Advice for Lawyers New to AI (00:26:54)Personal Freedom and Business Systems (00:27:49)Would you like to learn what it looks like to become a truly Free Lawyer? You can schedule a courtesy call here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-callWould you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free

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

Tech transfer has long been a critical but often overlooked part of the intellectual property system. For decades, the Bayh-Dole Act has guided how federally funded research moves from university labs into the marketplace. The system has generated hundreds of thousands of inventions and startups — and, as Laura Peter notes, led to nearly $2 trillion in economic growth through tech transfer. While widely regarded as a success, new march-in rights and “patent revenue sharing” proposals from policymakers seek to change that.In this episode of the Clause 8 Podcast, Eli spoke with Laura Peter, former Deputy Director of the USPTO in the first Trump administration and current Executive Director of Research Commercialization and Partnerships at UNC Charlotte. With experience in Silicon Valley, government, and academia, Laura brings a unique perspective to the challenges and opportunities facing tech transfer today.They cover:* How Laura first met Andrei Iancu — and how that led to her appointment as Deputy Director when he was chosen as the Director of the USPTO.* Lessons learned working in the first Trump administration about what to expect on the IP policy front this time around.* The distinct role patents play for startups versus large companies.* The lasting impact of the Bayh-Dole Act and how it reshaped tech transfer.* How funding cuts, private investment pressures, and PTAB swings are affecting university research.* Laura's observation that proposals from the last administration to seize IP rights to lower drug prices haven't been rescinded — and what that could mean for future policy.Why it mattersThe Bayh-Dole framework has been a cornerstone of U.S. innovation for more than forty years. Changes to how federally funded research is commercialized — whether through funding cuts, new government claims on patents, or expanded march-in rights — could redefine the balance between universities, startups, and industry. Laura's perspective highlights not only the risks and opportunities, but also how unresolved policy proposals on government seizure of IP could reshape future debates.