SEPs, Patent Pools and the Case for Market-Based IP Solutions

When Antitrust Gets Patents Wrong: Weak Patent Rights Reward Copycats

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2373657/fan_mail/new] This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/gene-quinn-3/], speaks with Alden Abbott [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/alden-abbott/], who is Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission. Abbott brings a rare combination of antitrust, intellectual property, administrative agency, and law-and-economics experience to a wide-ranging conversation about innovation policy, competition, and the practical consequences of government intervention in markets. The discussion traces Abbott’s career across government, academia, and public policy, including his work on issues at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. Together Quinn and Abbott examine how patents, licensing, and competition law should work together to promote innovation rather than undermine it. They also discuss how policy frameworks such as Bayh-Dole and standard essential patent protections helped shape the modern innovation economy, and why the wrong economic assumptions can distort how policymakers view patents, licensing, and market power. The conversation then turns to today’s policy environment, including the risks created when antitrust rhetoric treats intellectual property rights as suspect rather than as pro-competitive assets. Quinn and Abbott also explain why weakening patent rights and pushing innovators out of business negotiations and into litigation can damage the innovation ecosystem. The conversation closes by focusing on the core issue for patent owners and policymakers alike, namely that a functioning innovation economy requires predictable property rights, disciplined antitrust enforcement, and a clear recognition that patents are not obstacles to competition—they are often the foundation that makes competition possible. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com [https://ipwatchdog.com]. You can also visit our channels at YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@ipwatchdog], LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/company/ipwatchdog-inc/], X [https://twitter.com/ipwatchdog], Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/ipwatchdog/] and Facebook [https://facebook.com/IPWatchdog].

AI and the Future of Patent Law Firms: Opportunity or Race to the Bottom?

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2373657/fan_mail/new] This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/gene-quinn-3/], speaks with a panel of experts. This conversation was a part of the recent IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters program, and featured Carlo Cotrone [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/carlo-cotrone/], founder and principal consultant of Quartal IP, Robert Plotkin [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/robert-plotkin/], author, patent attorney and founding partner with Blueshift IP, and John Rogitz [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/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 [https://ipwatchdog.com]. You can also visit our channels at YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@ipwatchdog], LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/company/ipwatchdog-inc/], X [https://twitter.com/ipwatchdog], Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/ipwatchdog/] and Facebook [https://facebook.com/IPWatchdog].

Patents, Property Rights, and What Patent Policy Keeps Getting Wrong

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2373657/fan_mail/new] This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/gene-quinn-3/], speaks with Kristen Osenga [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/kristen-jakobsen-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 [https://ipwatchdog.com]. You can also visit our channels at YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@ipwatchdog], LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/company/ipwatchdog-inc/], X [https://twitter.com/ipwatchdog], Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/ipwatchdog/] and Facebook [https://facebook.com/IPWatchdog].

Patent Boutiques vs. Big Law: How In-House Teams Allocate Prosecution Work

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2373657/fan_mail/new] This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/gene-quinn-3/], speaks with Fran Cruz [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/francesca-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 [https://ipwatchdog.com]. You can also visit our channels at YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@ipwatchdog], LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/company/ipwatchdog-inc/], X [https://twitter.com/ipwatchdog], Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/ipwatchdog/] and Facebook [https://facebook.com/IPWatchdog].

Why Drug Development Depends on Patent Protection

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2373657/fan_mail/new] This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/gene-quinn-3/], speaks with Brent Bellows [https://ipwatchdog.com/people/brent-r-bellows/], a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies [https://www.kipsllc.com/] (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 [https://ipwatchdog.com]. You can also visit our channels at YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@ipwatchdog], LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/company/ipwatchdog-inc/], X [https://twitter.com/ipwatchdog], Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/ipwatchdog/] and Facebook [https://facebook.com/IPWatchdog].