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.