Hyatt is proposing to donate his foundational AI patents to the Pioneering AI Foundation, designed, in his telling, to give the U.S. government a new kind of leverage at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to use in negotiations with foreign countries. The concept aligns with the administration's priorities and arrives at a moment when the administration's biggest leverage tool — tariffs — has just been narrowed by the Supreme Court's February ruling.

When Hyatt was last on Clause 8 in 2019, he told the story of his role pioneering the microprocessor and the substantial licensing program he built without ever going to court. But much of that conversation was about what came next.

In the mid-1990s, amid scrutiny of so-called "submarine patents," the USPTO created what was later revealed as the SAWS program, which flagged applications from Hyatt and fellow independent inventor Jerome Lemelson and, in effect, kept any more of their applications from issuing as patents. Hyatt later won a unanimous Supreme Court decision against the USPTO in 2012 in litigation arising from that long-running dispute. But that did not lead to any broader resolution. The government kept fighting. More than a decade later, the battle still continues, with another cert petition now pending before the Supreme Court.

None of that makes Hyatt an obvious candidate to be offering the U.S. government anything, let alone a gift.

And yet that is exactly how he frames it: a gift to America, timed to the country’s 250th birthday. On the episode, Hyatt says the administration has “been considering our project for over a year now,” though he is still waiting to see whether it will move forward. As he tells it, the decision is now theirs.

A Strategic Tool

Hyatt explains that the foundation’s mission is to use intellectual property to “level the playing field” for American workers and American interests. Beyond providing leverage in negotiations, he describes a model in which market access could be conditioned on whether foreign manufacturers meet American standards for labor, human rights, and environmental protections — in other words, whether they are willing to play by rules comparable to those imposed on American companies.

Why Give It Away?

Asked why he would hand this to the same government that spent decades blocking his patents, Hyatt doesn’t hesitate:

“America is the dream of immigrants. My parents were legal immigrants. They came over legally, over 100 years ago. And America gave us the dream life… I want to repay America.”

Can this administration finally get it done?

The offer is on the table. It aligns with the administration’s priorities just as its biggest leverage tool has been constrained.

The question isn't whether this administration will entertain it. By Hyatt's account, they have been — for over a year. The real question is whether a dealmaker reputation is enough to close a deal no other administration has come close to making in thirty years.

Hyatt says he is ready to sign.

Will America accept the gift?

The episode covers:

• 00:23 — the ongoing battle with the USPTO

• 02:44 — the Pioneering AI Foundation

• 05:35 — using the ITC and trade agreements as leverage

• 07:11 — human rights and labor unions: leveling the global playing field

• 10:24 — AI in the classroom: the “super headstart” for children

• 12:35 — relieving drudgery: AI as a catalyst for creative thinking

• 14:27 — addressing skepticism: motives and financials

• 16:16 — repaying the dream: the legacy of immigrant parents

• 17:34 — advice for the next generation of inventors

• 18:22 — final thoughts: destiny and helping America

🎧 Listen to the full episode above or on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

That question anchors a new Clause 8 conversation between host Eli Mazour and Professor Kristen Osenga, a University of Richmond law professor and one of the leading academic voices on standard essential patents.

At the center of the discussion is the rise of so-called “royalty-free” technology standards. Osenga’s point is straightforward: “free” often comes with strings attached — particularly for smaller innovators that may be required to cross-license valuable patent rights or accept terms they may later regret.

Her main example is the Alliance for Open Media, the tech consortium behind a “royalty-free” video compression standard. The pitch sounds simple: use the standard without paying royalties. But, as Osenga explains, the real question is what companies may be giving up in return — and whether they fully understand the long-term cost of joining.

She offers a simple analogy: a store gives away free croissants to get customers in the door. Customers build habits around it. Then one day the sign changes. In Osenga’s view, the same risk exists here. Companies can build products and business models around terms that may not remain as favorable as they first appeared.

From there, the discussion broadens into the wider ecosystem of royalty-free standards, cross-licensing organizations, defensive patent pledges, and emerging AI-related IP initiatives. What is driving these arrangements? Collaboration? Public relations? Strategic control? And what, exactly, should companies think through before signing on?

As Osenga puts it: “Follow the money … where are these groups making their money? Because it’s probably coming from some other part of their business model.”

The episode also covers:

• what the pattern of withdrawals from major cross-licensing organizations reveals about how these arrangements play out over time

• SEP policy whiplash across US administrations, the Standard Essential Royalties Act (SERA), and where things stand now

• the EU’s proposed SEP framework, and why it stalled

• the litigation funding debate, including why Osenga founded The Inventors Defense Alliance

• the Tillis-Schiff letter to ANSI, China’s push to shape global standards bodies, and the implications for US innovation leadership

• why Osenga believes the RESTORE Act is critical to preserving US innovation leadership

It is a conversation worth sharing with anyone focused on licensing, standards, or innovation policy.

Share

🎧 Watch the full episode above or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

Pittman — a serial entrepreneur, inventor, and self-described “foxhole buddy” and “wingman” of Squires — drove up from Georgia to sit down with host Eli Mazour in the Clause 8 studio for this episode, fresh off a meeting with the new director himself. What he shared was a rare inside account of how Squires ended up in the job, what he walked into, and why Pittman believes the USPTO finally has the right person at the helm.

“Andrei went to Trump and said ‘I’ve got your man’”

The short version: it was Pittman who planted the seed.

The moment Trump won, Pittman texted Andrei Iancu — the USPTO director during Trump’s first administration — from a campsite on the trail. Other names were circulating, and he wasn’t a fan of what he was hearing. His answer was John Squires, his own patent attorney. Iancu’s response: Do you think John would do it? Pittman said he’d ask.

When he did, Squires’ first reaction was “Doug, you’ve lost your mind.”

But Pittman kept pushing, and Iancu worked his magic with the new administration. The rest was fate. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Squires walked through the North Tower alongside his friend and neighbor Tommy Cahill, who then headed up the elevators to the 103rd floor Cantor Fitzgerald trading desk. Squires watched Flight 175 hit the South Tower from his Goldman Sachs office and narrowly escaped the debris cloud when the South Tower collapsed. It was the last time he saw Cahill. In the aftermath, as Squires later described in Senate testimony, he filed patents to combat terrorist financing alongside the FBI and Treasury. Lutnick, who lost 658 Cantor Fitzgerald colleagues that day, rebuilt the firm on patents1. The two men's parallel work forged a relationship that would outlast the aftermath of 9/11: when Lutnick became Commerce Secretary, head of the department that includes the USPTO, Squires was the obvious call.

“Andrei went to Trump and said, ‘I’ve got your man.’ Long story short, that’s how John became USPTO nominee.”

In this episode, Doug Pittman discusses:

• Journey from son of a pig farmer to serial entrepreneur, including selling his first tech company during the dot-com boom

• How a billboard spotted on a drive to college with his son inspired the invention that led his first patent, and the years-long journey to get that first patent granted

• Why he cried when the patent arrived — and why tears of joy turned into “tears of unhappiness”

• How Squires led his enforcement strategy and how the twists & turns of that impacted Squires’ view of the patent system

• Litigation funders walking away over Section 101 and PTAB exposure

• The litigation saga, including the experience of having a judge handle a patent case for the first time

• Meeting with former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal and Doug’s unvarnished take on her legacy

• The PTAB problem, the injunctive relief gap, and what needs to happen for independent inventors to feel comfortable with the patent system

• Squires’ upcoming testimony before the House IP committee

• His “1-8-8 Project,” his advice to Squires to “push the limit,” and the personal photo (different from the one above) he sent the director to serve as a daily reminder in his role

🎧 Watch the full episode above or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

That context matters. The previous administration left the USPTO with a record backlog and Section 101 rejection rates that had climbed back to pre-2019 levels — Voice of IP broke that story in June 2024, when 24% of all office actions contained a §101 rejection and the AI art units had hit 77%. The current administration has been working to reverse those trends, issuing new §101 guidance, signaling a more balanced approach to patent eligibility, ramping up the hiring of new examiners, and refocusing the USPTO on its core function of examining patent applications.

For this episode of Clause 8, Eli reached out to Francesca Cruz for her team at Juristat to pull the data together and then invited Clause 8 return guest Clint Mehall to react to the findings in real time.

Who’s actually driving allowances — and why it matters for the backlog

One of the reasons Eli wanted to look at examiner experience data was straightforward: if the administration wants to reduce the backlog, understanding which examiners are positioned to finish examining cases — and under what conditions — is essential.

Some tools that measure examiner behavior use tenure — years at the USPTO — as a proxy for experience. Juristat’s analysis suggests that’s not fully the right metric, and that the number of applications an examiner has actually worked through, at least relative to other examiners in the same art unit or working group, is often a more revealing indicator of their likely approach.

And, as even the USPTO recognizes, primary examiners with full signatory authority operate differently than even “very experienced” examiners who still need supervisor sign-off on allowances.

The findings on how junior, mid-level, and senior examiners actually compare — on office actions, allowance rates, and consistency — are counterintuitive in ways worth digging into. One data point that particularly stood out: it’s often not the newest examiners who tend to produce the longest prosecutions. Clint had a theory for why — invoking the Dunning-Kruger effect — that’s worth hearing in his own words.

The data also highlights something practitioners already sense but rarely see quantified: the variation between individual examiners within the same art unit can be as wide as the variation between entire technology centers. For that reason, examiner-level data is often more useful than art unit averages when thinking about prosecution strategy. Notably, the USPTO's Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) is now actively working on how to make apples-to-apples comparisons across examiners handling similar technology to identify meaningful deviations. That's a significant development worth watching if the USPTO is able to find a way to address address that variation.

The full breakdown, including how the examiners were classified for the data discussed in this episode will be shared in a dedicated post coming soon.

Interviews after final: what the numbers actually show

The USPTO has recently pointed to data showing that the share of applications receiving at least one interview has grown — from around 30% to roughly 35% since mid-2025. That’s accurate, and interviews are worth doing: Juristat’s data shows allowance rates are roughly 10% points higher for applications where an interview occurred.

Juristat's analysis found that following the recent PAP changes, the number of interviews after final office actions has decreased. However, it's too early to tell whether that remains the case, and if so, what the downstream effects will be.

What happened after the AFCP program ended

When the After Final Consideration Pilot program was discontinued in December 2024, the stated reason was that the cost of the program was too high for the USPTO relative to the benefits. The data confirms that the results of the AFCP program were underwhelming — but discontinuing the program has caused a meaningful shift in examiner and practitioner behavior with potentially negative implications for reducing the backlog.

Allowance rates after final without an RCE have dropped meaningfully since the program ended. At the same time, allowance rates after final with an RCE have edged up. The numbers tell a clear story about how practitioners have adjusted, which Fran and Clint dig into in the episode.

Section 101: early signals, not yet a trend

The August 2025 guidance memo — reinforced when a key PTAB decision became precedential in September — was the clearest signal yet that this administration wants §101 rejection rates to come down. Comprehensive examiner training on the updated guidance is now being planned for rollout later this month, which the USPTO expects will drive more meaningful change in the data over the rest of the year.

The data so far reflects the lag before that training takes effect — overall rates haven’t moved significantly in the aggregate. But there are art-unit-level signals worth watching, particularly in the AI working group, where rejection rates spiked dramatically under the previous administration and have begun to show some movement. Business methods and medical device art units tell a different story, and the episode walks through each of them.

A dedicated Voice of IP post on the §101 data — including art-unit breakdowns and examiner-level outliers — is coming soon.

Subscribe now

🎧 Watch the full episode above or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

The conversation traces early debates sparked by the DABUS cases, which framed AI inventorship as a question of whether a machine could be named as an inventor. While those cases clarified that U.S. patent law requires a human inventor, they also highlighted a more practical issue that remains unresolved: how to evaluate human contribution when AI tools play a role in the inventive process, including in areas such as industrial design.

The episode also examines the USPTO’s shifting approach to AI-related inventions, from post-Alice uncertainty to more recent Section 101 guidance and new USPTO Director’s John Squires Ex parte Desjardins PTAB decision. Wen discusses how applicants can position AI inventions as genuine technological improvements, avoid overreliance on “black box” disclosures, and manage Section 112 risks.

The discussion concludes with a forward-looking look at using AI tools for patent practice, the USPTO’s new pilot for AI-powered pre-examination search, and what these developments mean for practitioners and innovators navigating a rapidly changing IP landscape.

Watch the full episode or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Chapters

00:01 – Wen Xie’s early interest in AI and patent law
02:10 – AI disruption before ChatGPT: imaging, medicine, and automation
04:56 – How AI reshaped Wen’s legal career
05:55 – DABUS, Thaler, and the AI inventorship debate
08:56 – Human contribution vs. AI output
10:40 – Should companies restrict inventors from using AI?
11:59 – What in-house counsel should ask about AI use
14:20 – Duty of candor, recordkeeping, and litigation risk
18:06 – Section 101 and AI as technological improvement
22:50 – USPTO guidance, PTAB trends, and examiner behavior
32:01 – Section 112 issues and describing machine learning
33:40 – Using generative AI in patent drafting
39:40 – Advice for junior attorneys in an AI-driven practice

Disclaimer

Under new USPTO leadership, the agency has taken meaningful steps to strengthen patent rights over the last year—from significantly reining in the role of the PTAB in invalidating patents to bringing greater clarity to how Section 101 is applied within the USPTO. But as Peter-Anthony explains, while the steps taken by the agency are promising agency action alone is prone to change and limited to what happens at the USPTO.

That’s where Senator Tillis comes in. Peter-Anthony walks through how PREVAIL and PERA will lock in much of the what the USPTO is doing and provide long-term certainty for innovators. The conversation explores the progress made last Congress, where the sticking points remain, and what it will take for the legislation to finally pass during Senator Tillis final term.

Peter-Anthony is candid about the reality of iterative progress – the coalition building, education, and compromise required - as well as the entrenched interests who have resisted all legislative efforts. At the same time, he describes the slow but meaningful momentum he’s seeing, and why this moment presents an opportunity for the USPTO, Congress, and stakeholders to work together. Before being chosen as USPTO’s acting Director, Coke Morgan Stewart sounded a similar note of optimism about a second Trump administration supporting bi-partisan patent bills.

Peter-Anthony brings a rare vantage point to that assessment. Before coming to Capitol Hill, he served as a frontline Patent Examiner, a Supervisory Patent Examiner, PTAB Branch Chief, and Special Advisor to former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. He shares the story of following that path and provides insights into how that experience gives him a unique understanding of how patent policy works in practice and what it takes to make meaningful, long-term changes.

The episode also touches on other IP issues at the top of Senator Tillis’ agenda, including copyright and AI, commercial piracy, and performance rights — including Peter-Anthony’s role in planning a recent IP Subcommittee hearing that drew attention for testimony from Gene Simmons.

Eli and Peter-Anthony also discuss their shared North Jersey roots, and how they first met while Peter-Anthony was at the USPTO.

👉 Listen to the full episode—and explore bonus content on the new Clause 8 YouTube channel.

📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

That question is at the center of this episode of Clause 8, where host Eli Mazour sat down with Subroto Bose, Head of IP at Astera Labs, at the VIA Licensing Alliance’s 2025 Bridge Summit.

Prior to Astera, Subroto held IP leadership roles at global semiconductor companies and standards-driven licensing environments. That breadth of experience informs a central theme of the conversation: effective IP strategy is ultimately about predicting the future. Patents filed today must remain relevant not only at issuance, but across multiple generations of products and shifting market realities.

Astera Labs operates at the intersection of AI and semiconductors, a highly competitive space where multiple companies are advancing the technology in parallel and IP strategy must complement active—and sometimes unpredictable—product development. Subroto brings a rare perspective to that challenge, shaped by earlier experiences growing semiconductor patent portfolios and dealing with non-practicing entities at Altera and Marvell, as well as buying patent portfolios and participating in patent pools at Dolby Laboratories, before taking on the task of building an IP program from scratch at Astera.

During the discussion, Eli and Subroto explore how early-stage companies should prioritize patent filings under budget constraints, why patent quality matters far more than volume, and how IP leaders can embed patent thinking directly into engineering culture rather than treating it as a separate legal function.

Subroto explains why, in a competitive environment, some IP decisions cannot be deferred without consequences—and how that reality shapes what he chooses to protect and when. He also reflects on what years spent reviewing patents as a buyer taught him about identifying real value, and how that buyer’s lens now influences his current role.

He also shares why he decided to sit at a desk inside the engineering area when he joined Astera Labs, and the impact that had on how he learned about new technology and engaged engineers.

The episode also takes a clear-eyed look at the limits of trade secrets, particularly in industries where disclosure to customers and partners is unavoidable and parallel invention is a real risk. Subroto explains why deciding what belongs in a patent versus what can safely remain confidential is rarely straightforward—and why relying on secrecy alone can leave companies exposed.

Finally, Subroto offers advice for those aspiring to become Heads of IP at high-growth Silicon Valley technology companies, reflecting on his own non-linear path into IP leadership, including early litigation work alongside Kathi Vidal before she became USPTO Director.

The conversation offers practical insight for anyone interested in how to design and implement an IP program built for long-term success in fast-moving technology markets.

Watch the full episode or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

In this episode, Ceyda and Marcia join Clause 8 host Eli Mazour for a wide-ranging conversation about mentorship, what it really takes to run IP teams inside large technology companies, and what the rise of AI means for both in-house and outside counsel.

They share the story of how they first met at HP, why Ceyda credits Marcia with the advice and encouragement that helped her grow into the Chief IP Counsel role, and what that guidance looks like in practice for other in-house lawyers navigating their own careers.

The conversation also dives into HP’s experience with high-stakes litigation and how those lessons shape its global patent portfolio strategy. Ceyda also offers a behind-the-scenes look at HP’s IP team restructure—why early attempts fell short and what finally made the new model work. The discussion delivers practical takeaways for anyone building or leading an in-house IP team, balancing portfolio development with business goals, or working to make IP more central to company decisions.

The episode closes with a candid, practical discussion of AI—what it means for the expectations placed on outside counsel, how in-house teams are already using it, and what lawyers need to do to continue delivering real value as the pace of work accelerates.

Together, Ceyda and Marcia offer a rare, grounded look at mentorship, leadership, and the future of IP inside major tech companies.

👉 Listen to the full episode—and explore more conversations shaping the future of IP—on the Clause 8 YouTube channel.

📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

Dorini described patent pools as “great democratizers of technology,” helping both licensors and implementers navigate increasingly complex standards environments. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies across the U.S., Europe, and Asia, he noted that pools are evolving in response, finding new ways to balance transparency with practical, market-driven licensing solutions.

Brown expanded on this theme from Dolby’s internal perspective. He outlined how Dolby ensures the strength and essentiality of its patent portfolio — through direct participation in standards development, rigorous internal analysis, and independent evaluations. These processes, he explained, are critical not only for maintaining high-quality SEP assets but for building trust across the licensing market.

Both speakers also pointed forward. As Dolby’s technologies extend into areas such as wireless power, EV charging, and other emerging platforms, the role of patent pools is likely to expand. While the fundamental structure of pools may remain consistent, their scope and global influence continue to grow, driven by new implementers, new licensors, and new technological frontiers.

🎧 Watch the full episode or listen on your favorite podcast app.

▶️ Subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

👉Subscribe to the Voice of IP Substack so that you don’t miss more stories from innovators and policy leaders.

Subscribe now

Disclaimer

In the latest episode of Clause 8, the focus turns to how the USPTO’s evolving approach to post-grant proceedings at the PTAB is shaping the broader patent policy debate—and influencing what Congress may (or may not) do next.

The episode features David Jones, Executive Director of the High Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) and a longtime Clause 8 favorite, alongside Jeffrey Hantson, a former patent litigator and senior Senate Judiciary Committee staffer who most recently served as Deputy General Counsel to Sen. Dick Durbin after advising Sen. Mazie Hirono on IP issues. Dave and Jeff first crossed paths during the pre-pandemic Section 101 roundtables, and the episode captures their fun, wonky back-and-forth dynamic.

A central theme is whether the USPTO’s recent moves on IPR institution—including its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—create an opening for Congress to strike a bargain, or instead make legislative compromise harder. Dave and Jeff explore how the introduction of settled expectations, Director John Squires reclaiming institution authority, and broader institution trends are reshaping the conversation around proposals such as the PREVAIL Act.

Jeff frames the core tension in familiar terms for staffers and stakeholders: at some point, should the USPTO be done reassessing a patent’s validity? Dave, for his part, is skeptical that legislation is the answer when the agency is (in his view) drifting from what was envisioned when Congress created the PTAB under the America Invents Act (AIA).

The conversation also explores why PREVAIL advanced further than PERA in the last Congress, why PTAB reform is often easier to grasp on Capitol Hill than Section 101 eligibility, and why Sen. Thom Tillis’ likability—and impending retirement—may matter more than most people realize.

Set against a backdrop of shifting IP leadership on Capitol Hill and mixed administrative signals on patents, the episode offers a candid look at where patent policy may be headed—and what it would take to change course.

🎧 Watch the full episode or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.

From the archives:

• Iancu and Jones Debate Section 101: https://www.voiceofip.com/p/iancu-and-jones-debate-section-101

• HTIA’s David Jones on Winning in DC: https://www.voiceofip.com/p/htias-david-jones-on-winning-in-dc-335

• 
  📌 Sponsored by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Disclaimer

As Global Head of IP at Novartis, Salsberg has a unique vantage point on how legal uncertainty affects the future of healthcare innovations. His work testifying before Congress has placed him at the center of the debate over the Supreme Court’s Mayo, Myriad, and Alice decisions — rulings that he thinks have been followed by years of instability around Section 101, threatening investment in critical biotech and diagnostic breakthroughs.

The conversation explores the political landscape surrounding the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), the persistence of myths like “patent thickets,” and the consequences of letting misinformation shape innovation policy. It also highlights what Congress can do to prevent the U.S. from falling behind in the race for gene and AI-driven therapeutics.

Ultimately, Salsberg’s perspective underscores how constructive, good-faith dialogue across industries remains essential to safeguarding innovation.

🎧 Listen to the full episode now on the Clause 8 Podcast.

📌 Sponsored by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

✉️ Subscribe to Voice of IP for more stories behind the world’s most consequential innovations:voiceofip.com

Disclaimer

Their conversation traces the evolution of patent pools — from the early days of MPEG LA and antitrust uncertainty to today’s complex, global licensing ecosystem.

Garrard Beeney recalls how early skepticism toward joint licensing eventually gave way to an appreciation of how collaboration between innovators can expand access, reduce friction, and drive technological growth. He warns, however, that increasing regulatory interference — particularly in Europe — risks undermining a system that largely works.

John Sideris brings the perspective of a major technology innovator. He discusses how Philips built a licensing culture that values both innovation and fairness, explaining why patent pools remain one of the most efficient and balanced ways to manage IP rights. He also shares a rare insider view into how companies factor intellectual property costs into product development — and why responsible licensing keeps the innovation cycle healthy.

Together, their insights offer a window into how markets, not mandates, can sustain innovation — and why listening across the licensor-licensee divide remains essential for the future of IP.

🔔 Listen now via the Clause 8 Podcast
📌 Sponsored by TradeSpace – where ideas take flight
🖋️ Subscribe to Voice of IP for more in-depth conversations on patents, licensing, and innovation.

The announcement sparked questions and concerns about what the changes — including new interview time limits, a new streamlined review process, and increased production expectations - will mean in practice.

In this Clause 8 episode, Eli Mazour speaks with Jerry Lorengo, a Deputy Commissioner for Patents who helped lead the process for figuring out and implementing the changes over the last six months. Jerry joined the USPTO as an examiner in 1996, became an SPE nine years later, and has since held multiple senior leadership roles.

In this episode, Jerry:

• Walks through the process that led to the changes

• Discusses the impact of new production expectations on examiners

• Breaks news that the new streamlined review process — originally announced to focus on “all independent claims and any dependent claims indicated as allowable” — has now been changed to focus on all independent claims (rejected and allowed)

• Contrasts the new streamlined review framework - designed to front-load quality review to expedite and improve examination across the art unit - with the reviled “second pair of eyes” review program that undid allowances after extensive examination

• Explains why it’s not appropriate for SPEs to tell examiners to “keep looking” for prior art

• Clarifies that despite new interview policy, examiners and SPEs are expected to continue to facilitate applicant-initiated interviews to advance prosecution

• Shares practical advice for succeeding at the USPTO — from both the examiner’s and applicant’s perspectives

• Discusses how the USPTO plans to monitor and adjust the policies based on data and feedback from applicants, practitioners, examiners, and SPEs

🎧 Watch or listen to the full episode and find additional bonus content on the new Clause 8 YouTube channel.

👉 Sponsored by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Lisa’s path into inventing began after her family moved to Brooklyn, New York, where her creativity and curiosity found room to grow. She started inventing at a young age, driven by the simple desire to solve everyday problems. That curiosity evolved into a lifelong passion for turning ideas into reality. Her first major success—the Bosom Buddy breastfeeding cape—opened doors to retail shelves, QVC appearances, and a deep understanding of what it truly takes to bring a product to market.

In our conversation, Lisa and I talk about what inventors often learn the hard way: that success requires persistence, self-belief, and an understanding of both patents and business. She shares how she built Inventing from A to Z, a company that helps independent inventors navigate everything from concept to commercialization, and why she tells every creator:

“A patent doesn’t sell your product—you do.”

Lisa also offers insights for patent attorneys—encouraging them to ask inventors where they see their product being sold before diving into legal protection. Her perspective bridges the gap between invention and entrepreneurship, showing how passion and practicality go hand in hand.

For anyone ready to turn ideas into impact, Lisa’s story is both inspiring and instructive. Her new book, “The Inventress’s Guide to Inventing The Right Way: All Or Nothing, Now Or Never”, is an essential companion for creators determined to make their vision real.

🎧 Listen to the Full Episode now on YouTube here
📌 Sponsored by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

Fifteen years ago, then–USPTO Director David Kappos overcame a record backlog by adjusting the PAP to incentivize collaboration between examiners and applicants.

Now, facing an even larger backlog than the one Kappos inherited, the USPTO appears poised to take a very different path. Less than two weeks after Director John Squires was sworn in, the agency internally announced proposed PAP revisions that appear likely to further reduce collaboration with applicants and deepen examiner frustration - the same dynamics that contributed to the current backlog. The emphasis on increased production also risks reinforcing perceptions that is being prioritized over “patent quality.”

Early Positive Steps

Back to Basics: at the start of this administration, the USPTO laudably refocused on core operations to address the growing backlog of patent applications.

Patent Eligibility

In Voice of IP’s August update, we noted that the August 4 memo on §101 was a promising start — and predicted that additional eligibility changes would follow once John Squires was confirmed as director.

That’s exactly what happened. Since taking office, Squires has taken several early — mostly symbolic — steps signaling a more balanced approach to eligibility that allows examiners to focus most of their efforts on prior art rejections, including:

• Issuing first two patents in technology areas that often face §101 scrutiny — one in distributed ledger/crypto and another in medical diagnostics.

• Vacating a PTAB panel’s new grounds of rejection under §101 for claims involving improvements in training machine-learning models.

But…

Before the USPTO could ensure that examiners were consistently applying this shift in approach to patent eligibility, the agency announced proposed PAP revisions that risk undermining the benefits of those earlier steps in reducing the backlog.

Historical Perspective: Last Record Backlog

By the numbers

Between 2002-2007, the backlog of unexamined patent applications grew by 73%. at the USPTO. By October 2007, the Washington Post reported that

If the [USPTO] could shut down its doors to catch up on its work, its 5000 patent examiners would take at least two years to clear the backlog of pending applications, there would more than 1 million new applications piled up on the doorstop.

Mindset

At the time, the USPTO leadership blamed the backlog on “worse and worse quality applications.” The Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Association and others pushed back, questioning the USPTO’s underlying assertions and suggesting that the real problem was overly restrictive examination practices that drove allowance rates down.

Dudas Rules

That pushback did not deter then-USPTO Director John Dudas from issuing a sweeping set of rules to limit the number of claims, Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), and continuation applications to address “the crippling backlog unexamined applications.” Those rules were ultimately enjoined but the backlog remained and, to many, appeared insurmountable when David Kappos was confirmed as director in August 2009.

Even after rescinding the Dudas rules, many in the patent community believed that drastic limits on applicant options was the only viable path to reducing the backlog — a belief Kappos would quickly disprove.

David Kappos’ Proven Gameplan

When Kappos became director, the backlog was at 1.2 million applications, and average pendency was 35 months. Within four years, both metrics improved sharply — even as application filings increased by 24%.

Approach

As Kappos later explained on Clause 8, the turnaround was due to a focus on improving the USPTO’s culture. Although encouraging examiner interviews became the most visible change, he emphasized taking many small steps to empower examiners to do what they thought was right, including allowing applications when appropriate. One of his first moves was to actually increase the initial time examiners had to review applications.

PAP Revisions

A USPTO press release from the time noted that management was “working with representatives of the patent examiners union, the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), to better align the performance standards for patent examiners with the USPTO’s goals for increasing quality in patent examination and reducing the backlog of pending patent applications,” and that the discussed “changes would be the first major revision to the patent examiners’ performance appraisal plan (PAP) since 1986.”

Proposed changes included:

• Establishing a “Stakeholder Interaction” element that emphasizes routine use of interviews to facilitate compact prosecution and timely responsiveness to requests for personal interviews;

  …

• Revamping the workflow element to provide examiners more opportunities to use their professional discretion to manage their own workflow.

Results

During his Clause 8 interview, Kappos noted that the USPTO rose from among the lowest ranked agencies for morale and engagement to being ranked number one out of over 200. The turnaround was later profiled in Tailspin as a rare example of successful government reform.

Current Backlog of Total Pending Applications Ticks Up

Unexamined Applications Backlog Declines

At a late-September USPTO Hour webinar, Acting Commissioner for Patents Valencia Martin Wallace said that at the beginning of the year the office had over 837,000 applications awaiting examination but now has fewer than 794,000.

Official Line

According to Law 360’s Ryan Davis, Martin-Wallace suggested that the USPTO was already on track in dealing with the backlog problem, emphasizing that the USPTO’s focus was on “making sure that our employees are receiving what they need, not only to do the job but to be comfortable and enjoy their time here at the USPTO.”

If the USPTO was already heading in the right direction, it raises questions about why such significant PAP changes are being pursued now.

But Total Pending Applications Backlog is Rising…

In August, Voice of IP highlighted a growing concern that efforts to reduce the unexamined backlog might be masking a rise in the backlog of total pending applications.

Contributing factors:

the end of the AFCP program (under the last administration) + higher production demands (currently) has led to examiners allowing fewer cases after final . . . [and] reinforced the approach of pushing for RCEs, even in cases that are clearly on track to be allowed.

We noted that

without empowering and encouraging examiners to work more collaboratively with applicants, the headline backlog reductions risk being statistical optics.

The latest numbers unfortunately indicate that concern was warranted: the overall backlog of total pending applications has actually modestly increased from 1,242,664 in June 2025 to 1,247,357 in September 2025.

Continued increase explains push

This increase likely helps explain the push for the new PAP changes. However, the proposed revisions appear to double down on the same production-driven approach that has so far failed to reduce the total backlog.

Proposed PAP Changes

Status

The USPTO has informed examiners that the new PAP has not yet been finalized and is not expected to take effect until next month.

Flood of Interview Denials

However, examiners are already routinely relying on the proposed changes to deny interviews after final office actions. During one of the internal sessions explaining the changes, a Deputy Commissioner for Patents stated that examiners should still grant interview requests that exceed the new compensated limit. Not doing so, he said, could count against their stakeholder interaction scores under the revised PAP — a point that has only added to examiner dismay.

Rollout Concerns

The internal announcement of the proposed PAP came without any written guidance. Examiners, practitioners, and applicants have all expressed uncertainty about what the new expectations will mean in practice.

The USPTO plans to use a USPTO Hour webinar this week - now titled “USPTO Hour: Understanding a patent examiner’s role in the IP community” - to roll out the changes to the public.

Proposed PAP Changes

The following proposed changes have garnered particular concerns from examiners:

1. Interview restrictions

• Caps compensation at one hour of interview time per round of prosecution unless additional time is approved by a supervisor.

• Likely to discourage applicant-initiated interviews since additional discussions could go uncompensated or require extra supervisory approval.

• May also disincentivize examiner-initiated interviews that could otherwise resolve issues before allowance.

2. Additional supervisory review

• USPTO (seemingly as part of changes to the supervisory examiner’s PAP) is reportedly considering requiring both first Office Actions and allowances from all examiners — including primaries — to undergo supervisor review.

• Supervisors already play a significant role in determining allowance rates for junior examiners. Extending that review to primaries could further reduce examiner autonomy and incentivize avoiding allowances to limit review risk.

3. Higher production requirements

• Production goals would reportedly increase by more than 100 hours per year.

• One 15-year examiner wrote on Reddit: “I am so disappointed that this is the first time in my career where I feel like I HAVE to reduce my quality in order to meet expectations.”

• Examiners say the change will reduce their flexibility to collaborate with applicants or assist colleagues.

4. Reduced time for PPH cases

• The proposed plan cuts the time allotted for Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cases by 25%.

• While PPH cases historically have slightly higher allowance rates, that’s likely because US claims need to be amended to match those allowed abroad.

• Some worry the change implicitly encourages deference to foreign examination outcomes rather than independent review.

Overall

The proposed PAP changes add pressure on examiners while discouraging them from devoting additional time to working with applicants to reach what they believe is the right outcome in the most efficient way possible. The result risks prioritizing production metrics over examination quality and examiner discretion.

Unexpected Internal PAP Rollout Raises Examiner Concerns

Historically, changes to the PAP have followed extensive consultation with POPA, the union representing USPTO patent examiners. The process was often time-consuming for leadership, but it helped ensure buy-in from examiners who felt their perspective was heard.

Examiners Assured after “Disbanding” POPA

When the USPTO announced executive orders disbanding POPA in early September, management assured employees the move would “not affect any employee’s ... work hours, award programs, or the like.” In his swearing-in remarks on September 22, new Director John Squires emphasized support for examiners’ “vital work” and encouraged them to “Tell. Me. What. You. Think.”

October Surprise

Ten days later, a Deputy Commissioner for Patents announced seemingly sweeping, unexpected PAP changes. Examiners — fresh from navigating the barrage of guidelines during the last administration and RIF and RTO concerns during this administration — were caught off guard.

Examiner reaction

The r/patentexaminer subreddit and private chats quickly filled with concerns about the proposals’ impact. While the subreddit doesn’t always reflect the full examiner community, the tone of the reactions closely mirrors the broader mood inside the agency from what Voice of IP has heard.

• One examiner told Voice of IP, “No one is happy at the USPTO.”

• Another veteran examiner recalled, “I remember examiners sticking around until they were 80 because they loved the job. Now everyone can’t wait to retire.”

Impact

The rollout marked a sharp shift from prior practice — replacing a collaborative process with a top-down announcement at a moment of already relatively low morale. The examiners’ reactions suggests that the proposed PAP could worsen the backlog by increasing attrition and further weakening morale among remaining examiners.

Path Forward for Squires

Where it stands
The new PAP has not yet been finalized. That leaves time for revisions — and for leadership to reconsider whether the proposed framework aligns with the agency’s long-term goals.

The precedent
When David Kappos faced a similar backlog in 2009, he worked with the examiners’ union to revise the PAP around examiner engagement, professional judgment, and communication with applicants. The result was measurable improvement in both backlog reduction and employee morale — achieved without new restrictions for applicants.

What’s next for Squires
Director Squires could take a similar approach. Rather than tightening production requirements and oversight, he could adapt Kappos’ proven framework — focusing on empowering examiners and encouraging collaboration with applicants.

Bottom line
There’s still time to change direction. A single call to Kappos might be all it takes for Squires to avoid repeating past mistakes and steer the USPTO toward a strategy that has already been shown to work.

Path Forward for Practitioners and Applicants

What to expect

Until the new PAP is finalized, practitioners should expect uncertainty in examiner behavior — particularly around interviews. As noted above, some examiners are already applying parts of the proposed framework in anticipation of it taking effect.

Approach

Regardless of the final outcome, practitioners should remain mindful of the pressures examiners are facing while finding ways to align with the USPTO’s stated goal of reducing the backlog. Demonstrating that collaboration and flexibility lead to efficient, high-quality outcomes will continue to be the most effective strategy for both sides.

• Jane Bu, Chief Licensing Officer at Via LA, the world’s largest patent pool. (You can listen to Eli’s previous conversation with Via’s President, Heath Hoglund, here).
  

• Rob Tobias, CEO & President of HDMI LA, the organization formed by Hitachi, Matsushita, Maxell, Philips, Silicon Image, Sony, Thomson and Toshiba to manage and promote the now ubiquitous HDMI interface.
  

In this episode, the discussion turns to the difficulties of licensing in Asia — not as an abstract policy topic, but as a practical reality shaped by culture, relationships, and business expectations.

Jane Bu reflects on how negotiations in Asian markets often rely less on formal processes and more on mutual trust built through repeated, in-person engagement. She also discusses China’s transformation from a latecomer in IP to one of the most active and sophisticated licensing environments in the world — and why patience and long-term relationship-building remain essential for licensors and licensees alike.

From a different perspective, Rob Tobias explains how HDMI’s licensing framework relies on more than patents alone. He outlines how trademarks and brand protection have played a central role in ensuring compliance, maintaining quality, and driving global adoption of the HDMI standard — including in complex markets such as China and India.

Together, their insights highlight how successful licensing in Asia depends as much on understanding people and context as it does on legal or technical structures.

🔔 Listen now via the Clause 8 Podcast
📌 Sponsored by TradeSpace – where ideas take flight
🖋️Subscribe to Voice of IP for more in-depth conversations on patents, licensing, and innovation.

In this episode of the Clause 8 Podcast, Eli spoke with Laura Peter, former Deputy Director of the USPTO in the first Trump administration and current Executive Director of Research Commercialization and Partnerships at UNC Charlotte. With experience in Silicon Valley, government, and academia, Laura brings a unique perspective to the challenges and opportunities facing tech transfer today.

They cover:

• How Laura first met Andrei Iancu — and how that led to her appointment as Deputy Director when he was chosen as the Director of the USPTO.

• Lessons learned working in the first Trump administration about what to expect on the IP policy front this time around.

• The distinct role patents play for startups versus large companies.

• The lasting impact of the Bayh-Dole Act and how it reshaped tech transfer.

• How funding cuts, private investment pressures, and PTAB swings are affecting university research.

• Laura’s observation that proposals from the last administration to seize IP rights to lower drug prices haven’t been rescinded — and what that could mean for future policy.

Why it matters

The Bayh-Dole framework has been a cornerstone of U.S. innovation for more than forty years. Changes to how federally funded research is commercialized — whether through funding cuts, new government claims on patents, or expanded march-in rights — could redefine the balance between universities, startups, and industry. Laura’s perspective highlights not only the risks and opportunities, but also how unresolved policy proposals on government seizure of IP could reshape future debates.

🎧 Listen to the full episode on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

📌 Sponsored by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.

🔔 Subscribe to the Clause 8 Podcast for more conversations on IP and innovation.

👉 Should the government play a bigger role in how university research is commercialized? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Highlights from our conversation:

• From Genesis to Jefferson: How creation implies ownership, and why even some Founders wrestled with protecting that principle in law.
  

• Cycles of Patent Strength and Weakness: Why America’s “golden age” of inventors gave way to Progressive Era restraints—and how history may be repeating itself.
  

• Policy at the Crossroads: Jim breaks down three bipartisan bills—PARA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE—and what it will take to get them passed.
  

• Leadership at the USPTO: Why Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart has already made an impact, and Jim perspective on the incoming Director John Squires and the path that he should follow.
  

• Bipartisanship Matters: From his work with Eagle Forum, Jim explains why protecting patents requires coalition-building across party lines.

  ---

Why it matters

Creativity without ownership can lead to secrecy, stagnation, and scarcity. When the two are combined, society benefits from innovation and progress. Jim’s perspective offers both philosophical and practical insight into the patent debates shaping America’s innovation future.

🎧 Listen to the full episode on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

📘 Learn more about James’s book “To Invent Is Divine, Creativity and Ownership” here.

👉 Do you think America needs stronger patent rights to fuel the next wave of innovation? Share your thoughts in the comments.

📢 Giveaway: Everyone who subscribes to the Clause 8 YouTube channel and comments on this episode’s video with the hashtag #Clause8Podcast will be entered into a drawing to win a copy of James Edwards’s book To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership

The only way to make sense of it all was to bring in three of our favorite journalists who cover these issues every day:

• Eileen McDermott, Editor-in-Chief of IPWatchdog

• Dani Kass, Senior Reporter at Law360

• Michael Shapiro, Senior Reporter at Bloomberg

Together, we unpacked the biggest developments, why they matter, and how they’re being covered — with behind-the-scenes stories and candid insights about what it’s like to report on patents and IP.

What We Covered

USPTO’s New Direction

• Coke Morgan Stewart’s rapid moves as acting director — especially at the PTAB

• How she’s balancing speed, decisiveness, and practical limits

Patent Tax Story

• The Wall Street Journal report on a possible tax on patent value

• Lutnick’s role and Stewart’s public comments walking a fine line

Choosing a USPTO Director & John Squires

• Breaking news about John Squires’ nomination and confirmation process

• Early signals of what he’ll prioritize as director

Federal Circuit & Judge Newman

• How practitioner tips shape coverage of the court

• Judge Pauline Newman’s saga — and what it’s like getting to know her personally

On the Hill

• Tillis, Coons, and the shifting dynamics in Congress

• Prospects for PERA (101), PREVAIL (PTAB), and RESTORE (injunctions)

Copyright & AI

• The firing of Shira Perlmutter as head of the Copyright Office

• Pushback against the office’s AI guidance

Behind the Notebook

• How these reporters choose stories and what they wish got more attention

• Why they love covering the IP community, despite all the complexities

• Impact of judges, public officials, and Bloomberg terminal users following their coverage

The discussion reveals how much these journalists shape — and are shaped by — the IP world itself. They’re not just reporting on it; they’re in constant dialogue with practitioners, policymakers, and innovators who live with these changes every day. Judges read their work, practitioners feed them stories, and policymakers react to their reporting.

Chapters

00:00 – Welcome & Guest Intros
01:23 – What’s your vantage point in the IP world?
17:53 – How do you decide what’s worth covering in IP news?
22:49 – What’s the mood in the patent community right now?
32:33 – The proposed ‘patent tax’: threat or opportunity?
38:02 – The politics behind selecting a USPTO Director
54:21 – Final thoughts and advice for the IP community

Subscribe & Support on YouTube

Clause 8’s new season is recorded from our brand-new studio — and, for the first time, every episode will be available in video. If you’d like to support the show and catch all the new video content, please subscribe for free on YouTube so we can reach even more people interested in the IP story.

That line kept running through my head as I thought about everything that’s happened since the last season of Clause 8 wrapped up on April 8, 2025.

Before releasing the first episode of the new Clause 8 season, I wanted to take a step back and catch up on the major shifts that have taken place — at the USPTO, in IP policy, and across the patent community.

I’m especially excited to share that this season is being recorded in our brand-new Clause 8 studio and released in audio and video. We’ll also be sharing special content on YouTube that won’t appear anywhere else. If you subscribe, it not only helps us expand our reach but also ensures you don’t miss any of it. I’d really appreciate your support.

What’s happened since April

When Coke Morgan Stewart was chosen as USPTO’s acting director, I expected her to bring the PTAB back in line. But the speed and decisiveness of her actions has still been striking. Almost overnight, Stewart reined in PTAB’s role in invalidating patents and pushed forward a range of other priorities.

By contrast, progress on improving patent examination and decreasing the backlog has been more modest.

And outside the USPTO, the administration’s approach to IP rights has been more complicated, with developments that sometimes undercut the USPTO’s pro-patent trajectory. The choice of John Squires as permanent director adds another layer of opportunity and uncertainty.

PTAB Shift

Post-grant proceedings reined in

• Since a March 26 memo, USPTO leadership has reviewed all discretionary denial motions before IPRs are sent to PTAB panels

  • As of August 8: “Stewart has thrown out more than 60% of the nearly 300 petitions she’s reviewed, citing discretionary factors”

    • Unified Patent’s Jonathan Stroud noted that the 177 discretionary denials already exceeds the total in any full year under Director Andrei Iancu.

  • Result: Stroud calculates claim cancellation could fall to around 15%

    • That coincidentally mirrors the ~15% of IPRs where all claims were upheld during the previous administration.

Takeaway: PTAB’s “death squad” reputation eased under Iancu, resurfaced during the last administration, and is now being reversed more decisively under Stewart.

Ex parte appeal decisions surge

• USPTO redirected PTAB judges toward deciding more ex parte appeals.

  • Decisions jumped to over 600 in July, up from ~300/month before new ex parte goals were set in April.

    • With ~300 appeals filed per month (and half resolve before the PTAB), the current backlog of 3,918 could be cleared within a year.

Examination Backlog: Modest Progress

Stewart has successfully shifted examiners back to their core mission of examination and restarted hiring new examiners. But that hasn’t yet translated into substantially better results.

Lingering impact of the previous administration continues to shape examiners’ general approach.

Case in point: the end of the AFCP program (under the last administration) + higher production demands (currently) has led to examiners allowing fewer cases after final.

• While the AFCP program itself only modestly boosted allowances (by ~10%), its elimination reinforced the approach of pushing for RCEs, even in cases that are clearly on track to be allowed.

By the numbers: The USPTO reports a drop in unexamined applications (805,773 as of June 2025). But the overall backlog of total pending applications remains high (1,242,664 as of June 2025).

Why it matters: Modest steps towards reversing the Section 101 rejection trends (discussed below), along with increasing ex parte appeal decisions (discussed above), are unlikely to meaningfully decrease the backlog on their own. Without empowering and encouraging examiners to work more collaboratively with applicants, the headline backlog reductions risk being statistical optics.

Section 101: Small Step, Potentially Big Signal

On August 4, the USPTO issued a §101 memo to AI, business method, and communication art units. Though framed as a “reminder,” it’s the first clear sign of a shift back toward applying Iancu’s more balanced approach to subject matter eligibility.

To underscore its importance, the USPTO has scheduled examiner training sessions starting next week — and examiners will even receive “other time” credit for attending. That’s a rarity these days, given the agency’s emphasis on devoting as much time as possible to examination in order to reduce the backlog, and suggests the weight the USPTO is placing on improving examination based on the memo.

Memo Highlights:

• Example 39 reaffirmed: claim for “training a neural network” is patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong One.

• Mental process grouping is limited . . . “Claim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping.”

• Examiners encouraged to avoid §101 rejections in borderline cases

• Step 2A, Prong Two reemphasized as significant pathway for patent eligibility: technical improvements can be apparent even if not explicitly set forth in the specification

⚠️ What hasn’t changed: Examples 47–49, which were introduced during the last administration and fueled soaring §101 rejection rates for AI-related inventions, remain in place . . . for now.

• Instead, the memo draws a distinction between claims that merely involve a judicial exception (eligible claim in example 39) versus those that recite one (like claim 2 in example 47).

Still, the memo creates a permission structure for examiners to apply §101 reasonably and focus most of their efforts on prior art rejections. The memo also hints at bigger §101 changes to come — but from what we’ve heard, the USPTO is waiting for John Squires’ confirmation as director before moving in that direction.

Bigger Picture

Coke Morgan Stewart has accomplished all of these pro-patent changes as acting USPTO director — impressive and unprecedented. They were likely possible only with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s support, rooted in his long-standing appreciation for the role of patents.

But two recent developments have worried some in the pro-patent community about that same familiarity making patents the chosen solution for other policy problems. One Voice of IP reader even jokingly quoted Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof: “I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can’t You choose someone else?”

1. Patent tax: the Wall Street Journal reported Lutnick considering “charging patent holders 1–5% of their overall patent value.” Shortly after, Voice of IP heard he personally floated the idea and that a related memo was circulating at the USPTO.

2. Harvard march-in rights letter: while significantly more targeted than the march-in proposals from the previous administration, the threat to invoke march-in rights for the first time still made many uneasy.

STILL: Stewart’s leadership has defined the past six months at the USPTO, steering the agency and the administration as a whole toward a more pro-patent trajectory. During the August 4, 2025, FTC-DOJ Listening Session on Lowering Drug Prices, Stewart publicly discussed how patents are essential for innovation and explained why the shouldn’t be considered the barrier for lower drug prices.

What’s Next

With so much happening since April, I realized the only way to kick off the new season of Clause 8 was to bring in the people covering these changes day in and day out: three top IP journalists.

🎥 On Tuesday, the new season of Clause 8 launches video episode of the new season — recorded from the new Clause 8 studio — featuring Eileen McDermott (IPWatchdog), Dani Kass (Law360), and Michael Shapiro (Bloomberg).

Subscribe for free on YouTube to support the show and help us reach more people interested in the IP story

Thank You, Clause 8 Community

Thank you for being part of the Clause 8 community. If you’d like to support the show and catch all the new video content, please subscribe for free on YouTube so we can reach even more people interested in IP and patents.

I’m excited to share this new season and hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed recording it.

Change in the patent world often seems unlikely, then happens suddenly. Clause 8 is here to help you prepare for what may come and make sense of it when it does.