Send us Fan Mail

Effective patent litigation requires more than command of the law and technology. It demands an advocacy strategy tailored to the audience, the forum, and the business stakes. Recorded at IPWatchdog’s recent Women’s Forum, this conversation is moderated by Katie O’Sullivan, Senior Counsel and U.S. Litigation Lead at Renesas Electronics. The discussion explores how experienced litigators adapt their approach for judges, juries, and arbitrators—and why understanding a decision maker’s expectations can be as consequential as mastering the merits.

The panel examines how to translate complex technologies into clear, persuasive presentations without sacrificing accuracy. From working with engineers and selecting experts who can teach to testing demonstratives and stress-testing analogies, the speakers offer practical approaches to making technical arguments accessible and memorable. They also discuss how litigation teams can test their presentations when budgets do not accommodate mock trials or jury consultants, and why a newcomer’s questions can expose weaknesses that subject matter experts overlook.

The conversation brings these lessons together around case themes: developing them early, refining them as discovery unfolds, and integrating them into claim construction, dispositive motions, and trial. O’Sullivan adds an important in-house perspective: a credible trial strategy can strengthen settlement leverage long before a jury is seated. For outside counsel and corporate IP leaders alike, the discussion offers practical insight into aligning technical proof, legal arguments, and persuasive storytelling throughout a patent dispute.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, generative AI’s accelerating adoption raises a critical question: can organizations move quickly without compromising their intellectual property? Recorded at IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, this panel opens with introductions from Gene Quinn before Stephanie Curcio leads a discussion with Marlene Valderramma, Kendra Ervin and Rinat Shangeeta about how AI is changing enterprise risk—and what IP leaders should do now.

The panel examines AI-generated invention disclosures, the importance of identifying human contributions, and the confidentiality risks created by unauthorized “shadow AI” and increasingly autonomous tools. Practical takeaways include mapping AI use across existing workflows, limiting access to sensitive information, maintaining meaningful human review, and scrutinizing vendor terms governing training rights, output ownership and infringement indemnification.

As pressure to adopt AI intensifies, the conversation highlights the consequences of deploying tools before legal and IP teams can assess the risks. For counsel and business leaders, the challenge is to build governance that keeps pace with adoption, preserves human expertise, and brings IP into decisions before valuable rights or confidential information are put at risk.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Send us Fan Mail

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with John Rogitz and Clint Mehall. The conversation examines subject matter eligibility declarations, or SMEDs, and whether this prosecution tool offers a meaningful path past Section 101 rejections—or creates a record that could undermine the patent owner during litigation. The discussion weighs the potential benefits of explaining an invention’s technical improvement against the risks of damaging admissions and questions about support in the original disclosure.

Drawing on prosecution experience and patent analytics, Rogitz and Mehall explore when a declaration may be justified, what makes supporting evidence persuasive, and why examiner interviews and appeals deserve consideration before adding sworn statements to the record. They distinguish detailed technical reasoning and comparative evidence from conclusory assertions, while questioning how consistently examiners evaluate that evidence. The discussion also addresses the tension between USPTO eligibility guidance and its implementation across examiners and art units.

For in-house counsel and patent practitioners, the central issue is securing commercially meaningful protection without creating avoidable vulnerabilities. The conversation connects stronger application drafting, thoughtful prosecution strategy, and realistic budgets to that objective. It also examines how pressure to minimize prosecution costs can lead to repeated claim narrowing, leaving patent owners paying for rights that no longer cover the products and services they intended to protect.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.