Podcast
IPWatchdog Unleashed
Hosted by Gene Quinn · EN
Each week we journey into the world of intellectual property to discuss the law, news, policy and politics of innovation, technology, and creativity. With analysis and commentary from industry thought leaders and newsmakers from around the world, IPWatchdog Unleashed is hosted by world renowned patent attorney and founder of IPWatchdog.com, Gene Quinn.
31episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
AI and the Future of Patent Law Firms: Opportunity or Race to the Bottom?
1w ago01:00:08Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with a panel of experts. This conversation was a part of the recent IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters program, and featured Carlo Cotrone, founder and principal consultant of Quartal IP, Robert Plotkin, author, patent attorney and founding partner with Blueshift IP, and John Rogitz, managing attorney at Rogitz & Associates and a member of the IPWatchdog Advisory Committee. Together, the panel examined the future of patent law firms in an AI-driven marketplace, where in-house legal departments are internalizing more work, expecting greater efficiency, and increasingly questioning traditional outside counsel fee structures.The discussion focused on the operational realities behind the AI hype. While AI can improve research, drafting, analysis, and overall work product quality, the panel emphasized that it is not a magic button and cannot replace expert legal judgment. The most effective use of AI in patent practice is incremental, targeted, and lawyer-directed—more co-pilot than autopilot. Panelists explored the risks created when inventors, clients, or law firms over-rely on AI-generated disclosures, patent application critiques, or claim strategy recommendations, including the potential for increased attorney workload, inventorship complications, technical inaccuracies, and downstream litigation vulnerabilities.The conversation ultimately framed AI as both a market disruptor and a strategic opportunity for patent law firms. Firms that respond defensively or compete solely on price risk being pushed into an unsustainable race to the bottom. Firms that lean into client education, workflow redesign, transparent billing expectations, disciplined AI usage, and higher-value counseling will be better positioned to compete. The panel made clear that AI will not eliminate the need for sophisticated patent counsel; it will expose which firms are genuinely strategic partners and which are merely labor providers.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
Patents, Property Rights, and What Patent Policy Keeps Getting Wrong
2w ago00:48:25Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Kristen Osenga, who is the Julie & John Nowak Faculty Research Scholar & Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Richmond School of Law. Osenga discusses her path from engineering to patent law, including her time at Finnegan and her clerkship with Judge Richard Linn of the Federal Circuit, and explains how those experiences shaped her strong appreciation for patent owners, innovators, and the real-world consequences of patent policy. The conversation turns to Osenga’s scholarship, which she describes as focused on identifying what patent law commentators, policymakers, and courts are missing or getting wrong. She discusses her current research into who is actually suing whom in patent litigation, why the “patent troll” narrative has distorted enforcement policy, and how treating non-practicing patent owners as inherently suspect has harmed universities, startups, individual inventors, and small innovators. Quinn and Osenga also examine how large technology companies have successfully framed the patent debate around implementer concerns, often at the expense of innovators whose business model depends on licensing or enforcement rather than manufacturing.The episode also explores standard essential patents, FRAND licensing, injunctions, eBay, competition policy, and the recurring misconception that patents are monopolies. Osenga explains why many anti-patent arguments gain traction because they sound intuitive to the public, even when they are economically or legally incomplete. Quinn and Osenga emphasize that companies are in business to make money, that “free” licensing is rarely actually free, and that strong patent rights remain essential to sustaining innovation. The broader takeaway is that patent policy improves only when judges, policymakers, staffers, commentators, and academics take the time to understand how innovation actually works—and why weakening patent enforcement ultimately undermines the very innovators the system is supposed to protect.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
Patent Boutiques vs. Big Law: How In-House Teams Allocate Prosecution Work
3w ago00:51:32Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Fran Cruz, who is Senior Vice President of IP Solutions for Juristat, about how data, AI, and changing corporate economics are reshaping patent prosecution business development. The conversation frames a critical market reality: in-house IP teams are under sustained pressure to reduce spend, consolidate outside counsel rosters, and direct more work to firms that can demonstrate measurable value. Cruz and Quinn examine recent prosecution-volume trends among the top 50 U.S. patent-filing assignees, with particular focus on whether IP boutiques are gaining ground against Am Law 200 firms. The data suggests the market is not simply shifting from large firms to boutiques, or vice versa. Instead, the dominant trend is client-specific consolidation: companies are moving more work to the best performers already on their existing rosters. The discussion highlights that efficiency metrics—especially average office actions, RCE rates, appeal strategy, 101 rejection outcomes, and cost per patent—are becoming increasingly important alongside allowance rates. Quinn emphasizes that law firms can no longer assume quality alone will carry the day; they need to understand what each client values, whether that is compact prosecution, strategic claim scope, portfolio value, or lower-cost patent-factory type execution.The episode closes with a practical business development playbook for patent firms operating in a cost-sensitive, data-driven market. Cruz urges firms to move beyond generic credentials pitches and instead teach prospective clients something specific about their own portfolios, prosecution patterns, competitors, or cost-saving opportunities. Quinn and Cruz also discuss how AI can sharpen messaging, compress bloated pitch language, improve decks and emails, and help firms articulate a differentiated value proposition in terms that in-house counsel actually care about. The broader takeaway is clear: firms that combine credible data, targeted insight, high-value content, and relationship-driven outreach will be better positioned to win work as in-house teams continue to seek the “best bang for your buck” prosecution partners.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
Why Drug Development Depends on Patent Protection
4w ago00:58:16Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Brent Bellows, a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies (KIPS) in Atlanta, Georgia, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in human genetics. Brent traces his path from graduate research in medical genetics and tumor-associated antigens to patent law, including his time at King & Spalding, a clerkship in the Northern District of Georgia, and his work today at KIPS on patent prosecution, portfolio strategy, litigation support, licensing, and expert witness matters. The conversation highlights how Brent’s scientific training and litigation-facing experience inform the way he drafts and prosecutes life sciences patents, with a clear focus on how those assets may ultimately perform in district court, ANDA litigation, and biosimilar disputes. Gene and Brent discuss what judges actually care about in patent cases, including why the story told in the patent application matters, why consistency from prosecution through litigation can be strategically important, and why some issues that loom large for prosecutors may carry less practical weight in court. Brent explains that district court judges often approach inequitable conduct allegations skeptically unless the conduct is truly egregious, and he offers insight into Markman practice, claim construction, and how life sciences disputes differ from many high-tech cases because the science often dictates the shape and value of the patent claims.The conversation then moves into the policy and business realities of pharmaceutical innovation, which dominate more than half of the conversation. Brent discusses a variety of issues including Hatch-Waxman, Orange Book listings, paragraph IV certifications, skinny labels, generic entry, clinical trial costs, regulatory exclusivity, and the enormous financial risk associated with bringing new drugs to market. Gene and Brent explore the tension between public demand for lower drug prices and the need for durable incentives that make high-risk drug development economically viable, particularly for oncology, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and other difficult-to-treat conditions. The episode closes with a broader innovation-policy message: patents are not a peripheral feature of drug development—they are a core operating asset that enables private-sector investment, supports breakthrough therapies, and ultimately drives the availability of future generic medicines.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
Proactive IP Risk Management: A Patent Litigator’s Perspective
Apr 2700:48:06Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice. Preston outlines her evolution from a general litigator into a leading IP strategist, highlighting how deep technical fluency—grounded in her physics background—became a competitive differentiator in high-stakes disputes. The discussion traces structural shifts in patent litigation over the past two decades, including venue realignment, the rise of specialized judicial expertise, Judge Alan Albright’s tenure in the Western District of Texas, and the likely impact Albright's resignation will have on patent litigation for years to come.The conversation then pivots to what Preston characterizes as “innovation governance”—a holistic operating model that integrates risk assessment, mitigation, licensing strategy, and, when necessary, litigation. Rather than positioning herself as a “sports” or “media” lawyer, Preston explains her practice as technology-centric problem solving across industries, which include the sports and entertainment industries. She details how legal teams must move upstream—anticipating IP risk in streaming platforms, content delivery architectures, and digital ecosystems—while maintaining alignment with core business objectives. Quinn and Preston converge on a critical insight: high-value counsel is defined less by discrete legal outputs and more by the ability to diagnose underlying business problems and deliver actionable, forward-looking solutions.Finally, the discussion addresses emerging pressure points shaping the next phase of IP and technology. Preston identifies artificial intelligence not just as a software issue, but as an infrastructure challenge—driving massive investment in data centers, energy systems, and associated IP frameworks. This shift is already catalyzing new ownership disputes and litigation vectors. Looking ahead, both Quinn and Preston spotlight unresolved policy tensions, particularly around injunctions and their role in balancing innovation incentives against market competition. The takeaway is clear: as technology complexity scales, the IP function is transitioning from reactive enforcement to strategic governance—requiring practitioners who can operate at the intersection of law, engineering, and enterprise strategy.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
SEPs, Patent Pools and the Case for Market-Based IP Solutions
Apr 2000:50:18Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Matteo Sabattini about the structural forces shaping today’s global patent ecosystem. Sabattini discusses his return to Sisvel and his progression from engineering into intellectual property strategy, licensing, and policy advocacy. The conversation frames a core imbalance in the innovation economy: companies that invest in foundational technologies are consistently outnumbered—and often out-voiced—by implementers in policy debates, creating systemic pressure on the long-term sustainability of innovation incentives. The discussion then drills into licensing dynamics and enforcement realities, with a focus on how delayed licensing and “holdout” behavior distort market outcomes. Sabattini quantifies the downstream effect—reduced effective royalty rates and uneven competitive conditions that penalize compliant licensees while advantaging non-paying market participants. Both speakers underscore a critical point: without credible enforcement mechanisms, particularly the availability of injunctions, the patent system loses negotiating leverage and invites strategic delay. The episode also reframes litigation funding and patent assertion as necessary tools that enable smaller innovators to compete in capital-intensive disputes, rather than as systemic inefficiencies. The episode concludes with a forward-looking assessment of patent pools as a scalable, pro-competitive solution to licensing friction. Sabattini explains how aggregation models reduce transaction costs, enhance transparency, and streamline access to standard essential patents. He also highlights Sisvel’s collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization to expand SEP visibility through PatentScope integration, alongside targeted initiatives designed to lower barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. The bottom line: aligning policy, enforcement, and market-based solutions is essential to preserving a functional innovation ecosystem and sustaining investment in next-generation technologies. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
High Performance, Hidden Struggles: The Human Side of IP Law
Apr 1300:54:25Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed our host Gene Quinn has a candid conversation with Melissa Silverstein about both IP strategy and human side of IP, pivoting to discuss the struggles that some attorneys have with substance abuse.The first half of the conversation centers on a clear market correction in intellectual property strategy: portfolios are being forced to operate like business assets rather than legal inventory. Companies are increasingly questioning legacy filing habits, global coverage assumptions, and automatic maintenance practices. Budget pressure is driving more disciplined decision-making, including regular portfolio reviews, tighter alignment with product roadmaps, and a willingness to let non-performing assets lapse. The underlying shift is from accumulation to optimization—where every patent must tie directly to product protection, enforcement leverage, or forward-looking commercial value.The conversation then pivots sharply to the human dimension of the profession, where Melissa Silverstein’s current work is focused. Drawing on her own experience, she addresses the prevalence of substance abuse, burnout, and mental health challenges among high-performing attorneys. A central theme is that the legal profession has historically failed to create space for these issues, reinforcing a culture of perfectionism, silence, and alcohol-centric social norms. Silverstein’s work—through coaching individuals and advising organizations—aims to normalize these conversations, reduce stigma, and provide practical frameworks for both those struggling and those in long-term recovery who may feel excluded from traditional law firm culture.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
The Patent Monetization Problem: How Innovation Without Return Distorts the Market
Apr 600:47:02Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, the conversation between host Gene Quinn and patent broker Louis Carbonneau centers on a fundamental breakdown in the economic engine that has historically driven innovation. While innovation itself has not disappeared, the incentive structure that once enabled a repeatable cycle—innovate, patent, monetize, reinvest—has eroded. Large market participants increasingly operate under a “use now, pay later (if ever)” model, which disproportionately disadvantages individual inventors and smaller entities. As a result, many innovators are unable to sustain continued development beyond an initial breakthrough, leading to a systemic drag on long-term innovation output. This shift is reinforced by a broader cultural normalization of “free” access to intellectual property, which has migrated from the copyright into the patent and innovation industry.From a market standpoint, Carbonneau offers a cautiously optimistic outlook. The patent monetization environment is showing signs of recovery, driven primarily by changes in PTAB dynamics that have reduced the reliability of inter partes review as a low-cost, reliable invalidation tool. This has begun to rebalance negotiation leverage, making licensing discussions more viable. However, structural challenges remain—most notably the unresolved uncertainty surrounding patent eligibility under §101 and the absence of meaningful legislative reform. At the same time, large technology companies continue to benefit from a system that weakens enforceability for smaller players while preserving their own advantages through scale and cross-licensing, creating a persistent asymmetry in the market.Artificial intelligence emerges as the key disruptive force with the potential to reshape both patent quality and monetization strategy. AI is already enabling faster, more cost-effective analysis of large portfolios and improving drafting precision, which could elevate overall patent quality and shift valuation toward more data-driven approaches. However, this introduces new economic tensions, as clients increasingly demand fee reductions based on perceived efficiency gains. The likely outcome is a bifurcated market where high-value work continues to require expert human input, while lower-tier tasks become increasingly automated. In this environment, competitive advantage will accrue to those who can effectively integrate AI into their workflows while maintaining strategic and legal rigor.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
WIPO in Focus: Beyond Treaties, Toward a Market-Driven IP System
Mar 3000:59:19Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThe World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been undergoing a quiet but meaningful transformation over the last 5-plus years. From a more traditional UN-style body into a service-driven, operationally focused global IP platform, WIPO is helping the entire global IP community. As Lisa Jorgenson, who is a Deputy Director of WIPO, explained in her recent conversation with Gene Quinn, the organization’s fee-based funding model fundamentally reshapes its priorities—forcing it to operate with a customer-centric mindset more akin to a business than a government agency. This shift is driving changes across the organization, including modernization of internal systems, a stronger emphasis on user engagement, and a move toward tailored, country-specific support rather than one-size-fits-all policy prescriptions. At the core of this evolution is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which WIPO is repositioning not just as a filing mechanism, but as a strategic tool for managing uncertainty in a rapidly changing global economy. Both Quinn and Jorgenson emphasized that companies continue to underutilize the flexibility the PCT provides—particularly the 30-month window to evaluate markets, adjust supply chains, and make more informed investment decisions. In response, WIPO is investing in outreach, addressing user misconceptions about cost and complexity, and redesigning its service model to better support high-volume users through more direct and proactive engagement. Looking forward, WIPO is aligning itself with the major forces reshaping the innovation ecosystem, including artificial intelligence, data governance, and the increasing complexity of global IP transactions. The organization is embedding AI into its own operations, expanding its role in areas such as standard essential patents (SEPs) and dispute resolution, and developing new infrastructure initiatives like a global patent assignment system. Taken together, these efforts reflect a broader strategic objective: positioning WIPO not just as a facilitator of international IP frameworks, but as a forward-looking platform capable of helping stakeholders navigate—and capitalize on—structural change in the global innovation economy.Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →
AI, Budget Cuts, and the Future of In-House Patent Teams
Mar 1601:00:48Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailCorporate IP departments are under growing pressure to do more with less. Budgets are tightening, leadership increasingly expects patents to deliver measurable business value, and artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how patent work can be performed. What does this mean for the future of in-house patent teams—and for the law firms that support them?In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn is joined by Sivon Kalminov, Director of Intellectual Property for Canon USA, and Fran Cruz, Senior Vice President of IP Solutions at JuriStat, for a wide-ranging discussion on how modern corporate IP departments are adapting to a rapidly changing environment.The conversation explores several major trends shaping patent strategy today, including the shift toward quality over quantity in patent portfolios, the growing emphasis on maintenance fee pruning and portfolio discipline, and the evolving relationship between in-house counsel and outside patent law firms. The panel also examines how companies are using competitive intelligence, patent analytics, and emerging AI tools to guide filing strategy, manage costs, and identify licensing and enforcement opportunities.Finally, the discussion tackles one of the biggest questions facing the IP profession: What can AI realistically do for patent practitioners today—and what can’t it do yet? While AI is proving valuable for tasks like patent searching, competitive landscape analysis, and data-driven strategy, it is far from a “magic button” that replaces human expertise.For anyone working in patent law, intellectual property strategy, or corporate innovation management, this conversation offers an inside look at how leading companies are navigating the new economics of patent practice.Topics discussed include:How budget pressure is reshaping corporate patent strategyWhy companies are focusing on patent quality instead of quantityMaintenance fee pruning and portfolio management strategiesHow in-house teams are restructuring relationships with outside counselWhere AI is actually useful in patent practice todayVisit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.
Transcribe →