clause 8 podcast Archives

9 Dec

Joe Lentivech – An Ex-PTAB Judge on Ex-Parte Appeals: Clause 8, Episode 23

Articles, Clause 8, Team Clause 8, clause 8 podcast, Eli Mazour, ex parte, intellectual property, IP, ipwatchdog, joseph lentivech, PTAB

How does the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) actually operate? What does it take to win an ex parte appeal? When should you request an oral hearing? What are the chances of the PTAB reversing a Section 101 rejection? How do you become an Administrative Patent Judge?

In this latest episode of Clause 8, I speak with former Administrative Patent Judge Joe Lentivech to get answers to these questions. He’s not only an expert in how the PTAB operates, but also a master storyteller.

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com or your favorite podcasting app!

25 Sep

Brad Watts – Section 101 Reform Efforts in the 116th Congress: Clause 8, Episode 22

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Clause 8, Team 101 reform, Clause 8, clause 8 podcast, Eli Mazour, intellectual property, IP, section 101, senate, thom tillis

Brad Watts is the Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Under the leadership of Senator Thom Tillis, Brad Watts has led the effort to fix the Section 101 patent eligibility mess.

A series of Supreme Court decisions over the last decade have caused enormous confusion and uncertainty with regard to patent eligibility. After the 2018 midterm elections, to the relief of many in the innovation community, Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons requested to reinstate the Senate Subcommittee on IP to fix this issue. The process for reforming 101 included a framework released in April 2019, a bipartisan, bicameral draft bill released in May 2019, and an unprecedented three days of hearings with 45 witnesses representing almost every imaginable view on the subject.

At the end of those hearings, Sen. Tillis said “I want to do this quickly . . . I think we can review the record and make changes, garner consensus, and introduce a final bill sometime after the July 4 recess.” That never happened.

In an IP Watchdog interview earlier this year, Sen Tillis explained that the Section 101 reform “process stalled because stakeholders refused to compromise.”

What happened? Is the effort to reform Section 101 really over? Why did the effort fail in this Congress? What should the innovation community do help revive the effort? Is there a possibility of a narrow medical diagnostics fix that is likely to lead many others pushing for reform disappointed?

In this episode, I speak with Brad about what really happened during this last attempt at reform, why it wasn’t successful, where to go from here, and much more.

Some of the topics discussed:

How Capitol Hill staffers learn about IP issues
Influence of Professor David Taylor’s research about the current patent eligibility jurisprudence and its negative impact on investment
What prompted Sen. Tillis to focus on patent eligibility reform and restart the Senate Subcommittee on IP
Process laid out by Sen. Tillis for patent eligibility reform legislation
Why everyone who wanted to engage in good faith was invited to be part of the process
Whether goal was to pass bill this Congress or to start a multi-Congress effort
Bad faith efforts to stop patent eligibility reform and why even some opponents of patent eligibility reform might have legitimate points
How the bipartisan, bicameral draft bill released in May 2019 was drafted – involvement of staffers Jamie Simpson, Phil (Phillip) Warrick, and Tom (Thomas) Stoll and the principals
Possibility of narrow diagnostics-only fix for Section 101 and why Sen. Tillis is open to it
Why Sen. Tillis never introduced a bill after the 3 day of hearings
How stakeholders can reach consensus with regards to patent eligibility to make reform possible
Continued work on patent eligibility reform
How stakeholders can and should communicate their position and concerns to Sen. Tillis and their own Senators about IP issues in general

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com or your favorite podcasting app!

1 Sep

Professor Adam Mossoff – Academics in IP: Clause 8, Episode 21

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Clause 8, Team academics, Clause 8, clause 8 podcast, Eli Mazour, intellectual property, IP

When Eli first started practicing in the late aughts, he found that a lot of what he was seeing about patents in various academic papers and studies, on Capitol Hill, and even in Supreme Court decisions, didn’t really reflect the reality of what he was seeing in practice, talking to innovators. In contrast, Professor Adam Mossoff’s compelling work, including articles in various general interest newspapers, stood out. Not surprisingly, he is largely responsible for providing the intellectual foundation that has helped shift the anti-patent narrative. So, it was a huge honor to talk to someone who not only helped shape Eli’s own thinking about patent and IP policy issues but has really shaped the current debates in Washington, DC about these issues.

Professor Mossoff is currently Professor of Law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and a Visiting Intellectual Property Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

On this episode, Professor Mossoff and Eli discuss academics’ impact on IP policy and many other subjects, including:

how Richard Epstein influenced Professor Mossoff’s scholarship,
how the ideals of classical liberalism relate to intellectual property rights,
the debate among conservatives and libertarians regarding IP issues,
what’s wrong about framing IP rights as being all about providing incentives,
the Supreme Court’s approach to patent cases,
why Congress and the executive branch – not the Supreme Court – are the better path for improving America’s patent system,
“Why Do Law Professors Do What They Do?”
how law school professors influence the patent policy debate,
how trade organizations try to shape the patent policy debate by using law professors and other prominent attorneys,
importance of law school professors making it clear when they’re acting as advocates v. as academics,
navigating junk science studies/statistical claims about the patent system,
importance of engaging in a positive research agenda about the patent system instead of just reacting to bad scholarship,
empirical research overwhelmingly contradicting the patent holdup theory over the last 10 years,
educating Congressman Darrell Issa and the importance of having evidence and data on your side,
contradiction of China strengthening its own patent system while continuing to steal IP from other countries and having no rule of law otherwise,
the unprecedented response by the pharmaceutical industry to the COVID?19 pandemic thanks to the foundation previously created by America’s patent system,
how current changes to the patent system can undermine a similar response to the future,
and much more!

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com or your favorite podcasting app!

4 Aug

Bruce MacEwen – Adam Smith, Esq.: Clause 8, Episode 20

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Clause 8, Team Adam Smith, Bruce MacEwen, Clause 8, clause 8 podcast, economics, Eli Mazour, Esq.

On the latest episode of the Clause 8 podcast, Eli interviews Bruce MacEwen – the founder and president of Adam Smith, Esq. Bruce is recognized as the world’s leading expert on the economics of law firms, has written thousands of articles on the subject, and provides advice to select firms about how to succeed in the changing legal landscape.

The Great Recession spurred lots of talk about innovation, technology, alternative fee arrangements, new compensation structures, and countless of other ways that law firms need to change. However, the economic boom that followed has allowed “Big Law” firms to continue to thrive without making any substantial changes. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused painful flashbacks for many law firm leaders who previously led their firms through the Great Recession. At the same time, the continued uncertainty and uneven impact on the economy, has made it much more difficult for law firms to decide what steps need to be taken. For example, in the IP field, there was an initial slowdown of litigation work while patent prosecution work remained relatively stable.

Eli reached out to Bruce to get his thoughts about how law firms have been responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, what law firm leaders should be thinking about while navigating this moment in time, and the business of law in general.

On this episode, Eli and Bruce discuss:

Why Bruce thought there was something off about law firms by Thanksgiving of his first year as an associate
How companies select & manage outside counsel
Tension of building in-house law departments v. relying on outside counsel
Why law firms refuse to do recession scenario planning
Surprising nimbleness of law firms
Law firms being much more thoughtful and humane in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic than they were during the “Great Financial Reset of 2008”
Why successful law firm partners can be dynamite for law firms
Rethinking real estate needs of law firms
Different law firm models – “Best-in-breed” law firms v. full-service law firms
Boutiques and benefits of a lawyer’s practice being at the core of what a firm does
Using Net Promoter Score (NPS) to evaluate law firms
Law firms deciding whether to invest in a practice area
Vision and hunger being the key to starting a successful boutique law
Difference between lawyers who succeed v. fail
much more!

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com or your favorite podcasting app!

4 Jun

Sarah Tsou – Patent Litigation Funding: Clause 8, Episode 19

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Clause 8, Team Clause 8, clause 8 podcast, Eli Mazour, litigation funding, omni bridgeway, patent litigation, sarah tsou

This episode features an interview with Sarah Tsou, who is an investment manager for patent litigation at the world’s leading litigation funder, Bentham IMF (now part of Omni Bridgeway Limited).

The playbook is simple for deep-pocketed defendants facing lawsuits from patent owners with limited resources. Even if a patent owner has a very strong case, the defendant can just drag the case out long enough until the patent owner and his lawyers run out of resources to continue. At best, the patent owners are forced to settle lawsuits for a fraction of what they think they are owed. Patent litigation funders have changed this calculus by providing select patent owners with enough resources.

During this episode, Sarah talks about:

becoming a patent litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis and working with John Desmarais before he started his firm focusing on patent monetization;
how patent litigation funding can help in-house attorneys who are facing shrinking patent litigation budgets due to the Covid-19 pandemic;
what 1% of cases have the rare mix of merits and economics to receive funding from top litigation funders, including a discussion of specific amounts of potential damages and legal fees;
how she finds the cases that she funds;
why having the right patent litigation attorneys who are willing to share the risk is crucial;
what a Chief IP Counsel should think about when building a patent portfolio if he’s interested in possibly taking advantage of patent litigation funding in the future;
the importance of curiosity for junior attorneys who want to enter the litigation funding field;
and much more!

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com or your favorite podcasting app!

21 May

Brian Pomper – The Innovation Alliance: Clause 8, Episode 18

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Clause 8, Team brian pomper, Clause 8, clause 8 podcast, IA, innovation alliance

This episode of Clause 8 features an interview with Brian Pomper of the Innovation Alliance.

Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, and Charles Goodyear are some of America’s best-known innovators. Instead of just making and selling the final products, they obtained patents and licensed their innovations to manufacturers. American companies like IBM, Qualcomm, and Dolby have followed this great American tradition of focusing on innovation.

However, the patent troll narrative has undermined the idea that innovators should be incentivized and rewarded for their efforts. A string of Supreme Court decisions and the passage of the American Invents Act were part of an effort to deal with the so-called “patent troll” problem.

Around the time that the AIA was being debated in Congress, a diverse group of technology companies that focus on research and development formed the Innovation Alliance to educate DC policymakers.

And, Brian – a registered patent attorney who worked for several years on Capitol Hill – became the executive director of Innovation Alliance shortly after it was started.

During this episode, Brian discusses:
• working in Congress and how he became the head of The Innovation Alliance;
• the #1 way to improve the patent system;
• what unites the Innovation Alliance;
• how the Innovation Alliance tried to improve the AIA;
• the Obama administration’s continued efforts to restrict patent rights;
• how DC became more patent friendly;
• the Senate IP subcommittee and why there’s still hope for legislative action to fix patent eligibility;
• importance of having grassroots support for legislative efforts;
• the impact that the Covid-19 pandemic is having on the patent policy debate and the Open Covid Pledge; and
• much more!

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com or your favorite podcasting app!