<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ipwatchdog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/</link>
	<description>Trusted on intellectual property law. News and commentary on patents, innovation policy, trade secrets, copyrights and trademarks.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:56:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>CAFC Affirms District Court Invalidation of Controller Patent</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/15/cafc-affirms-district-court-invalidation-controller-patent/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/15/cafc-affirms-district-court-invalidation-controller-patent/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 12:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200469</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Tuesday in Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, affirming the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of Definitive Holdings' patent.  The district court found that the asserted claims of the patent owned were invalid under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Dyk.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/15/cafc-affirms-district-court-invalidation-controller-patent/">CAFC Affirms District Court Invalidation of Controller Patent</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/15/cafc-affirms-district-court-invalidation-controller-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Performance, Hidden Struggles: Law Firm Culture and the Human Side of IP Law / IPWatchdog Unleashed</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/ipwatchdog-unleashed-high-performance-hidden-struggles-law-firm-culture-human-side-ip-law/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/ipwatchdog-unleashed-high-performance-hidden-struggles-law-firm-culture-human-side-ip-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Unleashed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substance abuse]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200433</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I have a candid conversation with Melissa Silverstein about both IP strategy and the human side of IP, including a discussion of the struggles that some attorneys have with substance abuse. The first half of the conversation centers on a clear market correction in intellectual property strategy: portfolios are being forced to operate like business assets rather than legal inventory.... The conversation then pivots sharply to the human dimension of the profession, where Silverstein’s current work is focused. Drawing on her own experience, she addresses the prevalence of substance abuse, burnout, and mental health challenges among high-performing attorneys.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/ipwatchdog-unleashed-high-performance-hidden-struggles-law-firm-culture-human-side-ip-law/">High Performance, Hidden Struggles: Law Firm Culture and the Human Side of IP Law / &lt;i&gt;IPWatchdog Unleashed&lt;/i&gt;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/ipwatchdog-unleashed-high-performance-hidden-struggles-law-firm-culture-human-side-ip-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>VLSI Scores Reversal of Noninfringement Rulings Against Intel at CAFC</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/vlsi-scores-reversal-noninfringement-rulings-intel-cafc/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/vlsi-scores-reversal-noninfringement-rulings-intel-cafc/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VLSI]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200462</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision authored by Chief Judge Moore delivering a partial win for patent owner VLSI Technology against Intel Corporation. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Intel’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836, titled “Multi-core System on Chip,” and also struck the damages theories of one of VLSI’s expert’s.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/vlsi-scores-reversal-noninfringement-rulings-intel-cafc/">VLSI Scores Reversal of Noninfringement Rulings Against Intel at CAFC</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/vlsi-scores-reversal-noninfringement-rulings-intel-cafc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Optis’ Post-Trial Motions in Apple Case Demand Serious Attention</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/optis-post-trial-motions-apple-case-demand-serious-attention/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/optis-post-trial-motions-apple-case-demand-serious-attention/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optis Wireless]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-trial motions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEPs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standard-Essential]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200381</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In high-stakes patent litigation, post-trial motions are often dismissed as routine clean-up—procedural volleys after the real battle has been fought. That framing does not hold in the battle between Optis Wireless and Apple in the Eastern District of Texas. The filings submitted by the plaintiffs seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or in the alternative for a new trial present a compelling argument that the jury’s verdict is not merely unfavorable, but structurally unsound. When viewed holistically, the record suggests there was meaningful error—or at least confusion—between in the legal standards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. Against that backdrop, plaintiffs’ position that it is entitled to either JMOL or a new trial requires fresh consideration.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/optis-post-trial-motions-apple-case-demand-serious-attention/">Optis’ Post-Trial Motions in Apple Case Demand Serious Attention</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/optis-post-trial-motions-apple-case-demand-serious-attention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Enhancing Transparency in SEPs: The Sisvel–WIPO PATENTSCOPE Initiative</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/transparency-seps-sisvel-wipo-patentscope-initiative/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/transparency-seps-sisvel-wipo-patentscope-initiative/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matteo Sabattini]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partner Content - Service Provider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FRAND]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent pools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PATENTSCOPE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEPs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SISVEL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standard essential patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200352</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>On February 3, 2026, Sisvel took a significant step forward in advancing transparency through its collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This initiative integrates verified SEP data into WIPO’s PATENTSCOPE platform, making it easier for users to access information about patents that have been identified as essential to the relevant standard through the mechanisms of Sisvel’s FRAND-based patent pools.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/transparency-seps-sisvel-wipo-patentscope-initiative/">Enhancing Transparency in SEPs: The Sisvel–WIPO PATENTSCOPE Initiative</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/transparency-seps-sisvel-wipo-patentscope-initiative/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Studebaker Brackett PLLC is Seeking a Patent Attorney (Electrical Engineering / Physics Background)</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/studebaker-brackett-pllc-is-seeking-a-patent-attorney-electrical-engineering-physics-background/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Help Wanted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Job Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Studebaker Brackett PLLC]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200358</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Studebaker Brackett PLLC (SB) is looking for a motivated, experienced, and highly skilled patent attorney or agent to join its team on a full-time or part-time exclusive basis. SB offers a positive, collaborative team environment; a client-centered, relationship-focused approach; remote working options; a competitive salary; and a benefits package.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/14/studebaker-brackett-pllc-is-seeking-a-patent-attorney-electrical-engineering-physics-background/">Studebaker Brackett PLLC is Seeking a Patent Attorney (Electrical Engineering / Physics Background)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>EUIPO Report on IP-Backed Finance Makes Policy Recommendations to Unlock Up To €580 Billion in Innovation Financing</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/euipo-report-on-ip-backed-finance-makes-policy-recommendations-to-unlock-up-to-e580-billion-in-innovation-financing/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/euipo-report-on-ip-backed-finance-makes-policy-recommendations-to-unlock-up-to-e580-billion-in-innovation-financing/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 22:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EUIPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip financing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SMEs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200384</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Today, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published a study exploring challenges faced by EU small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in obtaining financing by offering intellectual property (IP) as collateral. Set against the backdrop of the EU’s recently launched Savings and Investment Union (SIU) program, the EUIPO’s study identifies several structural barriers preventing SMEs from obtaining IP-backed financing and concludes with a series of policy recommendations designed to address the SME credit gap and unlock tremendous economic value for the wider EU market.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/euipo-report-on-ip-backed-finance-makes-policy-recommendations-to-unlock-up-to-e580-billion-in-innovation-financing/">EUIPO Report on IP-Backed Finance Makes Policy Recommendations to Unlock Up To €580 Billion in Innovation Financing</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/euipo-report-on-ip-backed-finance-makes-policy-recommendations-to-unlock-up-to-e580-billion-in-innovation-financing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stop Telling Yourself China’s Patent Boom Doesn’t Matter</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/stop-telling-yourself-chinas-patent-boom-doesnt-matter/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/stop-telling-yourself-chinas-patent-boom-doesnt-matter/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Dilworth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China five-year plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[op-ed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent quality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200258</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been to China several times over the past decade. Each time, I came back with the same reaction: too many people in the United States are still badly underestimating what is happening there. I do not say that as a political statement. I say it as a practical one. There is still a surprisingly common view in American business circles that China’s patent activity is mostly noise. Too many filings. Too much subsidy. Too little real innovation. The implication is that, yes, China may be filing a mountain of patents, but most of it can safely be discounted. I think that view is becoming harder and harder to defend.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/stop-telling-yourself-chinas-patent-boom-doesnt-matter/">Stop Telling Yourself China’s Patent Boom Doesn’t Matter</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/stop-telling-yourself-chinas-patent-boom-doesnt-matter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>IPWatchdog Announces Leadership Promotions to Support Continued Growth and Strategic Expansion</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ipwatchdog-announces-leadership-promotions-to-support-continued-growth-and-strategic-expansion/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ipwatchdog-announces-leadership-promotions-to-support-continued-growth-and-strategic-expansion/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[IPWatchdog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200326</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>IPWatchdog is happy to announce several leadership promotions to support its continued growth and strategic expansion. Renée C. Quinn has been named President, Katarzyna Kryca has been promoted to Senior Vice President, and Morgan Connell has been promoted to Director of Programs and Strategic Partnerships. Founder Gene Quinn will continue to serve as Chief Executive Officer.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ipwatchdog-announces-leadership-promotions-to-support-continued-growth-and-strategic-expansion/">IPWatchdog Announces Leadership Promotions to Support Continued Growth and Strategic Expansion</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ipwatchdog-announces-leadership-promotions-to-support-continued-growth-and-strategic-expansion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>AI is Raising the Stakes on Intellectual Capital and IP Rights</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ai-raising-stakes-intellectual-capital-ip-rights/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ai-raising-stakes-intellectual-capital-ip-rights/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David J. Teece]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intangible Investor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200190</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>For decades, management scholars and practitioners have grappled with what I call the "knowledge problem" in organizations—the stubborn difficulty of codifying and transferring expertise that resides in individual employees' heads and habits. The most valuable organizational knowledge has always been tacit: the judgment calls, the contextual adaptations, the intuitive "feel" for how things get done. This knowledge walked out the door every evening and, more problematically, departed permanently when employees moved to competitors.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ai-raising-stakes-intellectual-capital-ip-rights/">AI is Raising the Stakes on Intellectual Capital and IP Rights</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/13/ai-raising-stakes-intellectual-capital-ip-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Reexamination End-Run: When Second Bites at the Apple Become Strategy</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/12/reexamination-end-run-when-second-bites-apple-become-strategy/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/12/reexamination-end-run-when-second-bites-apple-become-strategy/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 16:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reexamination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200251</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A March 27, 2026, petition filed by Security First Innovations (SFI) does more than challenge a single reexamination proceeding—it shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice. At its core, the filing argues that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is allowing what amounts to a procedural end-run around the statute, which is supposed to streamline post-grant challenges and lead to estoppel if the patent owner prevails.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/12/reexamination-end-run-when-second-bites-apple-become-strategy/">The Reexamination End-Run: When Second Bites at the Apple Become Strategy</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/12/reexamination-end-run-when-second-bites-apple-become-strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, April 10: USPTO Touts Reduced Backlog; Fifth Circuit Awards Google Transfer on Mandamus; and Third Circuit Says Online Publication of Copyrighted Building Codes is Transformative</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/10/bites-barks-fifth-circuit-awards-google-transfer-on-mandamus-and-third-circuit-says-online-publication-of-copy/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/10/bites-barks-fifth-circuit-awards-google-transfer-on-mandamus-and-third-circuit-says-online-publication-of-copy/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Barks and Bites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other Barks and Bites]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200266</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week in Other Barks and Bites: the EU’s GPAI Signatory Taskforce convenes a second meeting to focus on copyright issues like mitigating infringing AI outputs; Meta and CoreWeave extend their AI cloud partnership through 2032 with a new deal worth $21 billion; and more. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/10/bites-barks-fifth-circuit-awards-google-transfer-on-mandamus-and-third-circuit-says-online-publication-of-copy/">Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, April 10: USPTO Touts Reduced Backlog; Fifth Circuit Awards Google Transfer on Mandamus; and Third Circuit Says Online Publication of Copyrighted Building Codes is Transformative</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/10/bites-barks-fifth-circuit-awards-google-transfer-on-mandamus-and-third-circuit-says-online-publication-of-copy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO is Seeking a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) External Consultant</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/10/wipo-is-seeking-a-patent-cooperation-treaty-pct-external-consultant/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Help Wanted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Job Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200168</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>WIPO is seeking a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) External Consultant. WIPO aims to significantly expand the use of the PCT system compared to the Paris Convention in the United States of America. To achieve this, WIPO will engage an external contractor for a time-bound consultancy assignment to actively promote and drive the adoption of the PCT system within the user community.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/10/wipo-is-seeking-a-patent-cooperation-treaty-pct-external-consultant/">WIPO is Seeking a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) External Consultant</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Professors Push Back in Review of PTAB Rehearing Decision on ODP</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/professors-push-back-review-ptab-rehearing-decision-odp/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/professors-push-back-review-ptab-rehearing-decision-odp/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 19:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amicus briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals Review Panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ex parte appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ex parte baurin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200204</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Amicus briefs have now been posted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) site in Ex Parte Baurin, a 2025 rehearing decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with respect to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) that is being reviewed by an Appeals Review Panel (ARP). While most of the amici are arguing in favor of the Board’s analysis, one brief submitted by Professors Mark Lemley and Lisa Larrimore Oullette contends that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) precedent supports the examiner’s rejections and that Allergan’s holding is inapplicable here.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/professors-push-back-review-ptab-rehearing-decision-odp/">Professors Push Back in Review of PTAB Rehearing Decision on ODP</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/professors-push-back-review-ptab-rehearing-decision-odp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Your AI Is Saving You Time: So What?</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/your-ai-is-saving-you-time-so-what/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/your-ai-is-saving-you-time-so-what/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephanie Curcio]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 16:19:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partner Content - Service Provider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workflows]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=200181</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I have spent most of my professional career talking to patent practitioners about AI. For years, the conversation was about whether AI could be trusted, whether it was ready, and whether it would actually change how patent work gets done. I have watched the profession move from skepticism to curiosity to cautious adoption to – in 2026, for the first time – something that feels like acceptance. Questions that once provoked heated debate at conferences now feel almost trite. Nobody is really questioning whether AI has a place in patent practice anymore. The question that has replaced it is harder and more consequential:</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/your-ai-is-saving-you-time-so-what/">Your AI Is Saving You Time: So What?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/09/your-ai-is-saving-you-time-so-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
