Skip to content

Why Aren’t Law Firms Leading the Way in AI Integration? 

Brett Trout

The legal industry is facing its most significant transformation in decades. Technological advancements in the area of transactional legal practice (preparing business documents), once relegated to the back office, are now front and center in discussions about efficiency, client service, and competitive edge. With artificial intelligence (AI) and Generative AI (GenAI) technologies maturing rapidly, both law firms and in-house teams are asking: are these advancements delivering on their promise—or just adding complexity?

In-House Attorneys Are Adapting Faster

In-house legal teams face broad challenges—from compliance to cross-department collaboration—forcing in-house teams to adopt efficiency-focused technology at a faster rate than their private practice counterparts. As a result, more and more companies are mandating their in-house legal teams adopt AI legal practice solutions. This order to implement new systems often comes from upper management, who are typically not lawyers themselves. They do not fully appreciate the ethical pitfalls associated with adopting the wrong technology or not adopting the right technology. Compounding the problem is the fact that most of these new tools still cater to private practice workflows. These are just some of the issues that explain why many in-house lawyers feel underwhelmed or even alienated by existing technology solutions to their transactional problems.

Private Practitioners Still Have Concerns 

Private firms know adoption of new technology can be a competitive advantage—a way to generate new clients, decrease costs, speed up service delivery, and differentiate themselves in an increasingly crowded market. Despite these advantages, private practitioners have more control over which technology is implemented, and are therefore naturally slower to integrate new systems than their in-house counterparts. 

Another reason for this slower integration in the private sector is the concern over whether lawyers can trust AI workflow systems to actually do the work correctly. Reports of lawyers being sanctioned for submitting faulty AI work to courts have caused many attorneys to take a wait and see approach to full AI integration into their practice. Other concerns involve the ethical implications of data security and client confidentiality when it comes to different AI platforms. 

In a field where a single error can change the outcome of a case or contract, or even result in professional ethical violations, lawyers are right to be concerned. While perfection should never be the enemy of good, for many private practitioners the current state of “good” is just not good enough.

Clients Want Value, Not Hype

Historically, clients have not pushed their law firms to adopt the latest greatest legal technology. Clients instead have been laser-focused on cost, timeliness, and quality. As long as they get the results they want, clients have been content leaving the technological “how” to their attorneys.  

But that is beginning to change. As in-house counsel and tech-savvy clients integrate more AI into their workflow, they are beginning to demand the faster turnaround times, more transparent billing, and seamless collaboration that only AI integration can provide. 

The Road Ahead: Results Over Hype

If there is a lesson to be learned from the current legal technology environment it is that both lawyers and their clients are more interested in practical solutions than theoretical returns. A generative AI platform with attractive theoretical applications is of little use if the user interface is too complex for all but the most tech-savvy lawyers to leverage. Conversely, a more modest solution that is easier to integrate and use will have a greater practical impact on the law firm’s output and bottom line.  Tech vendors and tech-savvy lawyers are beginning to realize this and migrating toward more practical use cases for tech integration. They know that if the tools do not align with the actual day-to-day legal work a law firm outputs, those tools can actually decrease productivity, frustrating both lawyers and staff. 

Instead of scouring the latest benchmark tests for which AI is most efficient, lawyers will be better served focusing on which systems have the most user-friendly, workflow-native designs. As training and implementation inevitably lead to an initial productivity loss, systems that offer robust training and onboarding will reduce this loss and increase user satisfaction in the process. With any new system, law firms must also be proactive in promulgating and vigorously enforcing data privacy and ethical protocols before any problems arise. Finally, it is important to estimate, then measure, the return on investment with any new system implementation. Clear communication with all personnel, to identify oversights and errors that could be preventing users from realizing the full potential of the technology, is a must. 

Final Word: Technology Will Not Replace Lawyers—But It Will Redefine Legal Work

At the end of the day, AI is a tool. The future of the ongoing integration of technology into the practice of law is not about replacing lawyers. It is about empowering them, and their staff—freeing them from routine tasks, improving accuracy, and enabling deeper client engagement.

As more lawyers integrate AI into their daily practice, expectations from clients and colleagues will rise in lock-step. For law firms and in-house teams that get it right the payoffs will be considerable. For those who hide their head in the sand, the repercussions will be catastrophic.  

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, General, Internet Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 18, 2025

rev="post-3315" No comments

Why Intellectual Property Law Is Here to Stay (Yes, Even If Elon Musk Disagrees)

Brett Trout

In the world of tech, bold declarations are par for the course. But when Jack Dorsey tweeted “delete all IP law” and Elon Musk replied, “I agree,” it wasn’t just another hot take—it was a direct challenge to a foundational pillar of innovation and economic growth: intellectual property (IP) law.

As tempting as it may be to imagine a free-for-all innovation utopia where every idea is up for grabs, the reality is more grounded—and far more complex. Intellectual property protections are not going anywhere, and here is why.

1. IP Law is Specifically Provided for Under Our Constitution

Before we even get into policy or economics, let’s talk about the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 explicitly gives Congress the power:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

This is not a footnote. It is a foundational principle of this country. While Congress may ultimately decide to modify IP protections, it is unlikely lawmaker would fly in the face of this country’s bedrock legal document and eliminate IP protections altogether.

2. The Irony: Their Companies Rely on IP

Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey have built empires on innovation—but also on legal protections. Tesla’s patents gave it an early edge. Twitter’s platform and branding are protected by trademarks. Square’s fintech innovations are supported by proprietary software—another form of IP.

As writer Lincoln Michel pointed out on social media, “None of Jack or Elon’s companies would exist without IP law.” Dismissing the system that underpins your success is not disruption—it is revisionism.

3. Quid Pro Quo

One of the primary reasons the United States has been a global technology leader for the past two centuries stems from our forward-thinking approach to protecting inventors. Laws that protect inventors, like our Constitution, stimulate inventors to innovate. Conversely, eliminating these laws would discourage inventors from innovating, by allowing large corporations to steal inventions without having to invest time or money in innovation themselves.

The basic premise of our patent system is that in return for disclosing all of the details about an invention, the government grants the inventor, for a very limited period of time, a monopoly on making, using, and selling that invention. This quid pro quo is what motivates inventors to dedicate their lives to creating all of the things that make our lives better. Without patents, large companies would wait for inventors to invent, and then simply steal the idea and sell it themselves. This would obviously undermine the motivation to innovate, decrease the amount of resources companies devote to research and development, and lead many inventors to stop inventing altogether.

4. Reform ? Abolition

Let’s be fair: there is room for IP reform. Dorsey argues the current system benefits gatekeepers more than creators. Musk has criticized the way patents are used defensively or abusively. Those critiques are valid.

But that’s an argument for smarter, more equitable IP policy—not for scrapping the entire framework. Think of IP like traffic laws. Sure, they could be updated, but eliminating them altogether would not lead to freedom—it would lead to chaos.

5. IP Encourages, Not Hinders, Innovation

Musk often says “patents are for the weak.” But for many entrepreneurs, patents are a lifeline. They attract investors, protect early-stage inventions, and create real market value. Abolishing IP law would not level the playing field—it would tilt it even more toward well-funded giants who can outmaneuver startups without legal consequences.

Open-source models work in some cases (Linux, for example), but most industries—pharma, aerospace, design—depend on IP to recover investments and push boundaries.

Final Thought: IP Law Isn’t a Bug—It’s a Feature

The idea of eliminating IP law might sound bold on social media, but in the real world, it’s unworkable and unnecessary. Reforming the system to better serve creators? Yes. Tossing it entirely? That is not visionary—it is just shortsighted.

As digital tools, AI, and open collaboration models continue to disrupt old systems, we do need to revisit how IP rights are structured. But throwing out the patent baby with the bathwater? That’s not just unrealistic—it is reckless.

IP law exists to incentivize creativity, protect innovation, and support economic growth. And thanks to its constitutional roots, it is not going anywhere—regardless of what Elon Musk tweets next.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Copyright Law, Internet Law, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 14, 2025

rev="post-3311" No comments

Are You Being Targeted By a Foreign Agent?

Brett Trout

Most people are aware of typical online scams, using intentionally misspelled words to weed out the savviest individuals and instead draw in the most defenseless targets. Very few, however, are aware of more recent scams targeting some of the most trusted people on the planet. 

In a coordinated effort led by the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), FBI, and Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), U.S. authorities have issued a stark warning to current and former government personnel and government contractors, especially those with security clearances: You are being targeted online—by foreign intelligence services, most notably the Chinese government.

Who is at Risk?

If you:

  • Currently hold or formerly held a U.S. government security clearance,
  • Work or have worked in sensitive government, military, or national security-related industries,
  • Have access to confidential intellectual property,
  • Are an academic or researcher working on confidential projects,
  • Have access to proprietary, classified, or strategically valuable information,

Or have any employees meeting the foregoing criteria, you are a target. Even if you are now retired or working in the private sector.

China’s Playbook

Using LinkedIn and other professional networking platforms, Chinese intelligence operatives—posing as headhunters, recruiters, or fellow professionals—reach out to U.S. personnel under false pretenses.

Their goals:

  • Elicit sensitive information.
  • Gauge potential for recruitment.
  • Establish long-term influence or access.

These are not amateur scams—they are calculated long game operations run by state-sponsored actors who speak fluent English, understand U.S. corporate culture, and work with patience and precision.

Be Aware of the Tactics 

Foreign intelligence services, especially the People’s Republic of China (PRC), use the following strategies:

  • Fake job offers on sites like LinkedIn to lure targets into disclosing sensitive career information.
  • Social engineering, where targets are slowly cultivated through casual and professional exchanges before being asked to share protected or strategic information.
  • “Soft approaches” through think tanks, academic conferences, or consulting gigs—especially appealing to retired professionals seeking post-career opportunities.
  • Digital impersonation of U.S. government organizations, defense contractors, and legitimate recruiters.

Red Flags

How do you tell if you are being targeted by a foreign intelligence service? At the outset, there is no way to know for sure, but here are some clues:

  • The offer sounds too good to be true: The job offers remote work at a high salary. 
  • Flattery: They praise your skills and refer to you as a “high-end” or “valuable” candidate. 
  • Scarcity: The job seems custom designed for your skillset. 
  • Lack of depth/detail: It is hard to find information about the company and/or the job itself. The job description lacks tangible details.
  • Urgency: They are extremely responsive, state that the opportunity could slip away, and/or pressure you to communicate via another platform of their choosing. 

How to Protect Yourself

  1. Be Skeptical of Unknown Contact Requests
    Don’t accept connection requests from unfamiliar individuals—especially those claiming to be foreign professionals or recruiters.
  2. Verify Job Offers
    Legitimate recruiters will not ask for personal, financial, or sensitive information in early stages.
  3. Report Suspicious Outreach
    If something feels off, trust your gut. Contact your agency security office or the FBI via https://tips.fbi.gov.
  4. Educate Colleagues and Family
    Share this knowledge with others who may also be targets—including those no longer in service.

Do Be Zhao

While there have been many convictions for espionage, one particular case exemplifies how foreign governments may soft sell you into giving away your secrets. On January 8, 2024, U.S. Navy petty officer Thomas Zhao was sentenced to 27 months in prison and ordered to pay a $5,500 fine for transmitting sensitive U.S. military information to an intelligence officer from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in exchange for $14,866.

Zhao was initially approached by an individual in a social media site through a stock trading chat group. The individual fostered a relationship with Zhao, eventually paying him more and more money for more and more information relating to sensitive U.S. military data. 

While everyone believes it could never happen to them, as unbelievable as it may seem, many former clearance-holders have unknowingly walked into this type of the trap laid by foreign intelligence agents. The success of these types of operations, against savvy professionals, indicates just how subtle—and dangerous—these operations can be.

If Contacted, What Should You Do? 

  • Revise your online accounts to avoid broadcasting your security clearance.
  • Only form connections online with people you have verified as legitimate.
  • Notify your security officer of any suspicious communications you have received. 
  • If you are a former U.S. government clearance holder, contact your nearest FBI office to report malicious targeting on professional networking social media sites or submit a tip online at tips.fbi.gov.

Related posts

Posted in Internet Law, social media. Tagged with , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 11, 2025

rev="post-3308" No comments

What is the Difference Between a Good Patent and a Bad Patent?

Brett Trout

When people hear the word “patent,” they often assume it’s a uniform stamp of protection—something rigid, standardized, and identical no matter who files it. But here’s the truth that savvy inventors and business owners come to learn: not all patents are created equal.

In fact, no two patent attorneys would draft the same patent for the same invention. Why? Because patent law isn’t just about filling out forms and submitting diagrams. It’s about strategic protection—positioning an invention in a way that’s both defensible and flexible enough to support future innovation. The differences in how a patent is drafted can radically impact its strength, scope, and long-term value.

Good Patents vs. Bad Patents

Just because a patent is granted does not mean it is good. One of my guilty pleasures is watching Shark Tank and looking up the patents to determine if the patents are good or bad (I am super fun at parties). While it is easy for a skilled practitioner to recognize flaws in an issued patent, it can be extremely difficult for an ordinary person to do the same. 

What most people do not realize is that there are plenty of bad patents out there—and they usually do not reveal their flaws until it is too late. They may look impressive in a frame or on a pitch deck, but when it comes time to enforce them or use them strategically, they fall apart.

So what separates a good patent from a bad one?

Good PatentBad Patent
Thoughtfully drafted with long-term strategy in mindRushed or templated with no future vision
Broad enough to cover design-arounds and variationsSo narrow that competitors can easily work around it
Rooted in a strong understanding of the market and competitorsWritten in a vacuum with no business context
Supported by solid technical disclosure and flexible languageVague or overly technical, limiting legal enforceability
Part of a larger patent family or continuation strategyFiled once and forgotten, limiting growth
Enforceable in court — written with litigation insightDifficult to defend or easily invalidated under scrutiny

In essence, a good patent protects more than your invention — it protects your business model. It gives you leverage in partnerships, confidence in investment conversations, and real options if competitors cross the line.

A bad patent? At best, it may give you a false sense of security until the day you actually try to sell or enforce it.Getting a bad patent is easy—getting a good one takes the foresight, skill, and experience of the right legal partner.

The Art (and Science) of Patent Drafting

Think of a patent like a fortress. One attorney might build a tall, narrow tower with thick walls—a highly specific claim that’s hard to attack but easy to walk around. Another might design a sprawling defense with multiple entry points covered, anticipating how competitors might try to move in and sidestep the protection.

The scope of a patent’s protection is defined by its claims. Claims are one sentence list of the invention’s critical elements. If any competitor makes a product that includes every element in a claim, that product infringes that claim. Even if a competitor adds new elements to the product, as long as they include all of the elements in the list they infringe. That is why it is critical to make the list of elements in the claim unique enough to not cover anything that is already in the public domain, but not so detailed that it would be easy for a competitor to eliminate one of the elements and thereby avoid infringement. Optimizing this broad, but not too broad, strategy is what separates broad and narrow patents, and what separates good patent attorneys from bad patent attorneys. 

While a narrowly written patent might be cheap to prepare and quickly approved, you may not realize how easy it is to avoid such patents until you try to enforce them against a competitor. A broader, more strategic patent might take longer to prepare and face more challenges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), but it will likely provide vastly more business leverage down the line.

Why Keeping a Patent Application Alive is a Power Move

Another aspect that separates a good patent strategy from a great one is what happens after the first patent is granted.

Savvy patent attorneys typically advise clients to keep the original patent application alive by filing continuations or continuation-in-part applications. Why does this matter? Because the initial disclosure becomes a wellspring from which multiple patents can grow, each tailored to different aspects of the invention, new commercial uses, or evolving market threats.

This layered approach allows businesses to:

  • Broaden their intellectual property footprint over time
  • Respond to competitors’ designs that attempt to avoid initial claims
  • Create a family of patents that are harder to invalidate or design around

Strategy Comes Before Drafting

It’s tempting to dive into drafting the patent application as soon as the invention is ready. But rushing this step is like designing a house without an architect. The most valuable patents begin with a well-thought-out protection strategy.

An experienced patent attorney doesn’t just write claims—they ask the right questions upfront:

  • What’s the commercial goal of this patent?
  • Who are the likely competitors, and how might they try to work around it?
  • What future versions or variations of the product might need protection?
  • Should we consider international filings or related trademarks?

A great patent strategy considers not just the invention itself, but the business plan behind it, the competitive landscape, and the long-term vision of the company.

Why Litigation Experience Matters in a Patent Attorney

One of the most overlooked but highly valuable assets in a patent attorney is litigation experience—specifically, experience arguing patent cases in federal court. While many patent attorneys focus solely on prosecution (getting patents granted), those who have stood in court to enforce or defend patents gain insights that dramatically shape how they draft them.

Here’s why that matters to you:

When an attorney has litigated patents, they have seen firsthand how claims are dissected under a microscope. They know how judges interpret vague language, how opposing counsel attacks claim construction, and how the slightest ambiguity can make or break a case. This knowledge gives them a unique edge when drafting your application: they’re writing with a courtroom in mind, not just the USPTO.

An attorney with litigation experience can:

  • Anticipate how claims might be challenged in a future infringement lawsuit
  • Draft language that’s clearer, more defensible, and better positioned to survive scrutiny
  • Include strategic definitions and disclosures that give you more control over how your invention is interpreted later on
  • Understand how to create a record that supports enforcement—something most inventors don’t think about until it’s too late

In short, litigators write patents with teeth. They don’t just aim to get you a patent—they aim to get you a patent that courts will uphold and competitors will either respect, or pay the price. 

If you want a patent that holds up not just in the USPTO but also in the real world—when competitors push boundaries or copy your innovation—you may want to search out a patent attorney who has been through the fire of federal court. It could be the difference between owning IP that looks good on paper… and IP that actually protects your market.

Final Thoughts

If you’re serious about protecting your innovation, don’t settle for a cookie-cutter patent. Choose a patent attorney who thinks like a strategist, not just a scribe. The difference between a good patent and a great one can determine whether your IP is a minor speed bump for competitors—or a fortress they will never breach.

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Litigation, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 10, 2025

rev="post-3305" No comments

Samsung’s Latest Patent Application: How Many Times Do You Need to Fold Your Phone? 

Brett Trout

In the ever-evolving world of smartphones, new is not always better. Sometimes a company has to push past a boundary to determine how much is too much. But if you are the kind of person who is upset their razor only has five-blades, you may want to take a gander at Samsung’s latest patent application.  The application describes a proposed phone that folds not once, not twice, not thrice but, well they do not even have a separate word for it yet, four times. 

As shown in the above drawings, two of the folds are very close to each other, so thrice+ would also be a fair description. Featuring a bendable display and new hinge technology, the new concept divides the display into four sections (technically five, but the fifth is too small to count). With a snap of the wrist, this new phone converts from a spacious tablet to a compact storage unit that fits nicely in your pocket.  

What Is the Quad-Fold Phone?

If the patent application is to be believed, Samsung’s next-generation foldable device includes:

  • Five panel sections connected via four novel hinge mechanisms.
  • A flexible display layered with a uniquely engineered glass cover that bends and flexes along the hinge sections.
  • Advanced hinge geometry that allows parts of the device to overlap, reducing dead space and enabling a truly compact fold.

Inside the Patent Application: Key Innovations

1. Modular Flex Hinge System

Samsung’s new device uses a flexible glass cover over a base divided into five flat panels by four hinges. The center two hinges surround a thin flat panel that allows the end panels to fold cleanly in upon themselves. This hinged glass system ostensibly balances flexibility and stiffness to allow the flat panels to fold for storage, while presenting a uniform glass surface when in use. 

2. More Real Estate

The obvious benefit of the new design is a smaller folded footprint with a larger unfolded display. Some less obvious benefits may be multi-tasking across various panels displaying different applications, head-to-head gaming options, multi-screen workflow solutions, curved privacy screens, and augmented reality applications. 

What’s Next?

While this is patent application is not even a patent yet, let alone a retail product, Samsung’s track record with foldables—from the Galaxy Fold to the Z Fold and Z Flip—indicates that this latest innovation may move from paper to palm sooner than you might expect. So, what’s next for the as yet unnamed quad-fold phone? Be on the lookout for: 

  • A potential concept debut at the Consumer Electronics Show or Mobile World Congress.
  • Integrations with Samsung DeX (desktop experience) or Vision AI. 
  • New partnerships with app developers to support multi-screen interfaces and AI-enhanced multitasking.

Final Thoughts

While the quad-fold phone described in this new patent application sounds interesting, it could still be a year or more from retail, if it ever sees retail at all. More interesting to consider, is all of the new applications that will be created to exploit the benefits of this next generation of hyperflexible mobile screens. 

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Patent Law, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 8, 2025

rev="post-3302" No comments

How to Patent Your Invention: Step-by-Step Guide to Filing Your Patent Application

Brett Trout

If you’ve created a new product, process, or technology, obtaining a utility patent is a critical step to protect your invention and secure exclusive rights in the marketplace. When people talk about filing a “patent,” they are typically referring to a “non-provisional” “utility” patent application. This is opposed to other types of patent applications, such as a design patent application or a provisional patent application. A non-provisional utility patent application is the formal path to patenting your invention through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

In this guide, we break down the U.S. patent process step-by-step so you can understand what to expect and the pitfalls to avoid. 

What Is a Utility Patent?

A utility patent protects the functional features of an invention—how it works, how it’s made, and how it’s used. This is the most common type of patent granted by the USPTO. If investigating how to get a patent, a non-provisional utility application is what you are looking for, it is the full, formal process required to obtain enforceable patent rights allowing you stop competitors from making, using, or selling your invention.

Step 1: Conduct a Patentability Search

Before investing in a patent application, it is important to determine whether or not your invention is:

  • Novel – Not already disclosed or patented
  • Non-obvious – More than an expected improvement
  • Useful – Functionally operable

A search of the prior art (all publicly available information) helps identify existing patents or publications that may affect your chances of approval. Online databases like Google Patents and the USPTO’s website contain a wealth of useful information regarding the potential obviousness of your invention. While a patent attorney can perform a broader, more detailed, prior art search for you, even patent attorneys cannot search recently filed patent applications as the Patent Office keeps them confidential. So while patent searches are good, there is no way to guarantee that your invention is patentable until you actually file your application. 

Step 2: Choose What Kind of Patent to File

You can file a provisional patent application first to establish an early filing date, but this is only temporary and not examined by the USPTO. To actually get a patent, you’ll need to file a non-provisional utility patent application within 12 months of filing your provisional application. While your provisional patent may preserve some of your dates to keep your invention out of the public domain, do not rely on a provisional patent application without expert advice as to what is preserved and what is not. A provisional patent application only covers what you have included in the application. If, you need to add additional material to support your new patent claims in your new non-provisional utility patent application, that new material and those new claims will receive a new filing date, which may place them in the public domain and invalidate your entire patent application.

Step 3: Prepare Your Patent Application

This step is the heart of the patent process. A strong patent application includes:

  • Specification – Detailed technical description
  • Claims – Legal language defining your invention’s scope
  • Drawings – Diagrams or illustrations, if needed
  • Abstract – A concise summary

The scope of all patents is determined by the claims. A claim is a one sentence description of your invention. You want your claim to include a combination of elements that is new and non-obvious, but not include so many elements that it is easy for a competitor to eliminate one of those elements and avoid infringing the patent. Drafting strong claims is therefore extremely important. While it is possible for an inventor to draft a patent claims themselves, it is almost impossible for an inventor without patent drafting experience to draft a good, let alone a great, patent claim. Unfortunately, the Patent Office does not care if your claim is good or bad, and will be more than happy to grant you a bad patent with bad claims. Compounding the problem is the fact that you will not know if your patent is good or bad until you go to enforce it, possibly years later, at which point it will be too late to fix. 

Enlisting a registered U.S. patent attorney will ensure your invention, as described in your patent application, is clearly defined and strategically protected from potential competitors. Be discriminating in your choice of patent attorneys. If you hired fifty patent attorneys to draft a patent application covering your invention, no two of the applications would be the same. They would all vary in scope and defensibility. So be sure to choose a patent attorney with experience drafting patents covering your technology. It is also helpful, but not essential, to choose a patent attorney who has experience licensing patents and litigating patents in federal court. 

Step 4: File with the USPTO

Once completed, your patent application is filed electronically through the USPTO’s patent filing system, along with applicable government filing fees. If you are an individual inventor or a small business, you may be eligible for reduced filing fees. Once you file your patent application, you’ll receive an official filing receipt and application number. From this point, your application is pending and assigned to an examiner. Although you are now “Patent Pending,” under most circumstances you cannot sue anyone for infringement until the Patent Office actually grants your patent. From this point forward the Patent Office has strict deadlines that must be followed. Failure to adhere to these deadlines could lead to your patent application being irreparably abandoned. Your patent attorney will have specialized software to docket these deadlines and will remind you of these deadlines well in advance. 

Step 5: Respond to Office Actions

After some time (currently about two years), the USPTO will issue an Office Action—either approving your claims or raising objections based on prior art or technical issues. The Office Action will likely state the patent examiner is rejecting your patent applications based on several federal statutes. Amending your application and/or traversing the examiner’s rejections, while retaining obtain maximum patent coverage, requires a detailed knowledge of patent law and patent claim drafting, as well as the technicalities and practicalities of USPTO administrative practice. While it is possible for an inventor to respond to an Office Action, it is once again almost impossible for an inventor without experience practicing before the USPTO to draft a response that not only addresses the examiner’s rejections, but also preserves maximum patent coverage for the invention. In almost all cases it is best to have a patent attorney address and respond to the Office Action.

This phase of the process, known as patent prosecution, can take 2-6 years or more depending on the complexity and workload at the USPTO.

Step 6: Receive Notice of Allowance

After some back-and-forth, if the examiner finds no other similar inventions, the USPTO will send you a Notice of Allowance. After paying the issue fee, your utility patent will be officially granted. At this point you may enforce your patent against infringing competitors. 

Step 7: Maintain Your Patent Rights

Your utility patent will remain in force for up to 20 years from the filing date, as long as you pay the required maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years. Your patent attorney will also docket these dates for you and remind of the amounts due well in advance of the deadlines. 

DIY vs. A Patent Attorney?

Drafting and filing a patent application may seem straightforward, but the language, technical detail, and legal strategy behind a successful non-provisional patent application are complex. The process is so complex, that not even regular attorneys are allowed to prepare and file patent applications for inventors. To prepare patent applications an attorney must: 1) have an undergraduate degree that includes specific STEM classes; and 2) pass an additional bar examine covering patent specific practice.  These requirements are to ensure that your patent lawyer is qualified, your rights are protected, your claims are strong, and your invention is positioned to succeed.

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 7, 2025

rev="post-3298" No comments

Like a Bad Penny, Congressional Attempts to Legalize Site-Blocking Have Returned

Brett Trout

More than a decade ago, Americans stood together to stop Congress from enacting both the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—two bills that threatened to shatter the foundation of a free and open internet. Back then, I wrote about the many dangers of SOPA, PIPA and site-blocking in general. 2012 moment marked a powerful public rejection of government-mandated internet censorship. Today, Congress is back with a new version of the same dangerous idea: the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA). And once again, it’s time to say no.

FADPA: The Return of a Bad Idea

FADPA is being pitched as a narrowly tailored solution to target large-scale, foreign-run piracy websites. Supporters claim it will protect American jobs, creativity, and online safety—all while respecting due process and free speech.

But a closer look reveals a different reality: this bill revives the same dangerous concept that made SOPA toxic. It creates a legal mechanism to block access to entire websites—on the mere allegation of copyright infringement—without giving those websites a meaningful chance to defend themselves.

Who Watches the Watchmen?  

While FADPA comes equipped with promises of judicial oversight, if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act taught us anything, it is that the federal judiciary is often nothing more than a rubber stamp when it comes to approving unconstitutional government overreach. Even if the government was capable of overseeing itself, FADPA is still a censorship tool that enables powerful media companies to control your access to information. That should sound alarm bells for anyone who cares about digital freedom, innovation, or democracy.

Why Site-Blocking Doesn’t Work

Supporters of FADPA tout examples from the UK, Australia, and Portugal where site-blocking has reduced piracy traffic. But the truth is more complicated.

Modern websites often rely on shared hosting and cloud infrastructure. Blocking one infringing site could unintentionally shut down hundreds of unrelated sites—small businesses, nonprofits, personal blogs—collateral damage in a war they had no part in. Government-connected large companies and pirates are already prepared for this. Independent companies and individuals are not.

Even if one of the websites shut down as a result of FADPA was a pirate website, these determined infringers can simply set up shop on a new domain within hours. VPNs and DNS tweaks are simple tools that render site-blocking efforts easy to bypass for those who make it their business. These tools are vital lifelines in authoritarian countries, where they help people access independent news and uncensored content. Forcing Americans and small independent American companies to rely on those same tools is an unacceptable outcome of domestic legislation.

A Blunt Instrument That Silences Legitimate Speech

Congress has a long and storied history of passing legislation that does exactly the opposite of what it purports to do and FADPA is no different. FADPA does not just threaten pirate websites—it threatens everyone. A site that is incorrectly blocked won’t display a helpful notice or explanation. It will just vanish. To users, it will look like a glitch. Lawful businesses and content creators could be shut out without warning or recourse.

Worse, the process is often “ex parte,” meaning the accused website operator isn’t even present to defend themselves. That is not justice—that is corporate-driven censorship masquerading as copyright enforcement.

History Shows We’ve Been Here Before

In 2012, the internet community rose up against SOPA and PIPA. Tech companies, advocacy groups, and millions of internet users protested the dangerous overreach of site-blocking laws. FADPA may wear a new face, but it raises the same old threats: chilling effects on speech, unjust takedowns, and a fundamental shift in how the internet operates.

Even Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who introduced FADPA, was once a key opponent of SOPA. Today, she insists FADPA is more measured, fairer. But even well-intentioned tools can be turned into weapons. Giving courts and corporations the power to block websites—even foreign ones—sets a precedent that can, and will, be expanded, abused, and exported.

What We Need Instead

There’s no question that digital piracy is a problem. But the answer isn’t to undermine the architecture of the open web. Instead, we should:

  • Support innovation in legal content distribution.
  • Fund smarter enforcement strategies focused on the actual bad actors, not the infrastructure that powers the web.
  • Promote transparency and accountability in any copyright enforcement mechanism.

The Bottom Line

FADPA is not just about piracy. It is about power—who has it, who gets to control what we see online, and how easily that control can be misused.

Once again, we find ourselves at a crossroads. We can either defend the internet as a free and open platform for expression and innovation—or allow it to be slowly fenced off by private interests and government overreach.

So what can you do? Contact your congressional representatives directly and tell them that site-blocking is not the answer. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We should instead look to build a better digital future—one where creativity is protected, and freedom is preserved.

Related posts

Posted in Internet Law, social media. Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 3, 2025

rev="post-3294" No comments

The Most Lucrative Patents in History — And What Your Company Can Learn from Them

Brett Trout

Patents don’t just protect ideas—they shape industries, generate billions in revenue, and, in the right hands, create empires. Across tech, telecom, pharma, and agriculture, a handful of landmark patents have rewritten the business playbook through legal exclusivity and strategic enforcement. The following case studies are lasting examples of how a strong patent portfolio can drive massive revenue.

What Do the Top-Earning Patents Have in Common?

From Bell’s telephone to Pfizer’s Lipitor, these IP giants share a few critical traits:

  1. They solved a widespread, unmet need — whether it was communicating across distance or lowering cholesterol.
  2. They created either a monopoly or an industry toll gate — locking out competitors or forcing licensing.
  3. They used litigation or licensing strategically — asserting their rights early, often, and aggressively.

Let’s explore some top examples and extract a few lessons.

Xerox’s Copy Machine Monopoly – $150M

Chester Carlson’s xerography patent birthed the plain-paper copier—and turned Xerox into a corporate juggernaut. Through the 1960s and 70s, Xerox’s patents blocked competitors like IBM from entering the market, allowing Xerox to charge premium prices. By the late 1960s, Carlson’s inventions had earned him over $150 million in royalties and share value.

Takeaway: A well-structured licensing strategy (paired with tight IP control) can produce a massive income stream.

Cohen-Boyer’s Recombinant DNA Patent – Licensing at Scale – $225M

Stanford and UCSF’s recombinant DNA patent generated $255 million—not by exclusion, but via low-cost, widespread licensing to 468 biotech companies. This approach seeded a trillion-dollar industry and showcased the power of platform IP.

Takeaway: Non-exclusive licensing can drive adoption and value—especially when the goal is market seeding as opposed to monopoly.

Bell’s Telephone Patent – The First Billion-Dollar Idea – $5B

Sometimes referred to as “the most lucrative patent ever issued in U.S. history,”?Alexander Graham Bell’s patent for the telephone (U.S. Pat. No. 174,465) did more than protect a product—it enabled Bell Telephone Company (later AT&T) to dominate an entirely new industry. During the patent’s life (1877–1894), Bell’s company enforced its rights in over 600 lawsuits—never losing once. The result? A de facto nationwide monopoly and profits equivalent to billions of dollars in today’s money.

Takeaway: Early enforcement with top-tier litigators, paired with clearly drafted patent claims, can cement your dominance in a fast-moving field.

Qualcomm’s Wireless Patents – Toll Collector for the Mobile Age – $100B

Rather than build all the tech itself, Qualcomm licensed its CDMA and later 4G/5G patents to phone makers worldwide. These standard-essential patents brought in over $8 billion in royalties in just one year. Qualcomm’s success came from getting the right patents at the right time, embedding patented tech in global mobile standards.

Takeaway: Standard-essential patents demand nuanced legal strategies—think reasonable royalty rates, global enforcement, and multi-party licensing.

Lipitor & Humira – The Gold Standard of Pharma Patents – $130B

Pfizer’s Lipitor ($130B in lifetime sales) and AbbVie’s Humira ($200B+) show how one blockbuster drug, paired with patent protection, can dominate global healthcare markets. Especially in Humira’s case, patent thickets extended exclusivity far beyond a single claim.

Takeaway: For life sciences clients, build an impenetrable wall with multiple layers of patents covering: product composition, use, formulation, manufacturing—everything. Layered patents = longer exclusivity = bigger returns.

Final Thoughts 

Whether you think you are in the IP business or not, you are in the IP business. The takeaway is clear: Patents are business weapons. Whether you are on the giving end of those weapons or eventually on the receiving side is up to you. When paired with sound legal strategy, patents don’t just protect innovation—they monetize it, often for decades.

So ask yourself:

  • Is your IP foundational enough to demand licensing?
  • Are you prepared to litigate (or threaten to)?
  • Is your IP portfolio protection strategy layered for longevity?
  • Are you monetizing globally?

Understanding the playbook of top-earning patents will help you position your company not just for protection—but for maximum commercial leverage.

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Litigation, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
April 1, 2025

rev="post-3291" No comments

Can Artificial Intelligence Save the Patent Office?

Brett Trout

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is at a crossroads. With a growing backlog of nearly 830,000 some odd unexamined patent applications, increasing wait times, and workforce challenges due to return-to-office mandates and hiring freezes, the agency finds itself under significant pressure. Some experts are looking to Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a potential solution to modernize the system and improve efficiency. But will AI be enough to save the USPTO from its mounting challenges?

The Current Crisis at the USPTO

For years, the USPTO has struggled to keep up with patent filings. Companies looking to secure patent protection now face a record average wait time of 30 months, with that number expected to grow due to staffing shortages. Recent policy changes, including the return-to-office mandate for federal employees and a hiring freeze, have only worsened the situation. Many experienced patent examiners have opted for early retirement or a resignation bonus rather than returning to in-person work, further reducing the agency’s capacity.

In an effort to modernize and streamline operations, the USPTO has turned to Artificial Intelligence. Could AI be the key to solving these deep-rooted issues?

How AI Can Help

AI has the potential to significantly improve the patent examination process in several ways:

1. Automated Prior Art Search

  • AI can quickly scan global databases to find relevant prior art, helping examiners assess patentability more efficiently.
  • This could reduce the time spent on manual searches and improve the accuracy of patent reviews.

2. Enhanced Application Review

  • AI-driven tools can analyze patent application claim language to flag potential inconsistencies or ambiguities.
  • This may help examiners issue office actions more quickly, speeding up the overall process.

3. Predictive Analytics

  • Although somewhat controversial, AI can identify patterns in patent filings and predict which applications are likely to face particular issues, allowing for proactive examination strategies.
  • This would improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary back-and-forth between examiners and applicants.

4. Machine Learning for Examiner Support

  • AI can assist junior examiners by providing real-time suggestions based on previous patent decisions and case law.
  • This might help newer examiners work more effectively and maintain consistency in patent approvals.

Challenges of Implementing AI at the USPTO

While AI holds great promise, there are significant challenges to integrating it into the patent examination process:

  • Lack of Infrastructure – The USPTO’s existing technology infrastructure may not be advanced enough to fully support AI-driven examination tools.
  • Human Oversight Still Required – AI can assist, but it cannot replace human examiners, especially in complex cases that require legal interpretation and judgment.
  • Training and Adoption – Examiners need proper training to use AI tools effectively, and resistance to change could slow adoption.
  • Ethical and Legal Concerns – AI algorithms must be transparent and unbiased to ensure that all patent applications are treated fairly and equitably.

Will AI Be Enough?

While AI has the ability to enhance efficiency and reduce some bottlenecks, it is not a magic solution. The USPTO must also focus on retaining and hiring skilled examiners, improving training programs, and developing a balanced approach that combines AI with human expertise.

Moreover, AI implementation takes time. Developing, testing, and integrating AI tools into the patent system could take several years, meaning it is not an immediate fix for the current backlog crisis.

Final Thoughts

AI has the potential to revolutionize the USPTO, making patent examination faster and more accurate. However, AI alone cannot solve all of the agency’s problems. A comprehensive strategy that includes policy changes, workforce retention efforts, and technology upgrades will be necessary to modernize the patent office.

So the real question is not just “Can AI save the USPTO?” but rather “How can AI and human expertise work together to build a more efficient, fair, and effective patent system?”

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
March 19, 2025

Comments Off on Can Artificial Intelligence Save the Patent Office?

Proposed Legislation in Iowa Could Tip the Scales Against Small Tech Firms

Brett Trout

The Chair of Iowa’s Committee on Economic Growth and Technology has just introduced a new Iowa House Study Bill 294 that, if passed, would require the disclosure of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the preparation of election-related materials and would ostensibly prohibit the use of AI to discriminate against individuals.  

Overview

Iowa House Study Bill 294 addresses the use and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in election-related materials and protections against “algorithmic discrimination” in AI systems. The bill also outlines enforcement mechanisms and penalties.

Key Provisions

1. AI-Generated Election Materials (Division I)

  • Any published AI-generated content advocating for/against candidates or ballot measures must contain a disclosure stating:
    “This material was generated using artificial intelligence.”
  • The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board is responsible for rule implementation.
  • Willful violations of this requirement is classified as a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and fines ranging from $430 to $2,560.

2. Regulation of High-Risk AI (Division II)

Definitions

  • Algorithmic Discrimination: Unfavorable treatment based on an individual or group of individuals’ actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or disability.
  • Consequential decision: any decision that has a material legal or similarly significant effect on the provision or denial of a pardon, parole, probation, or release; an education enrollment or educational opportunity; employment; a financial or lending service; an essential government service; a health care service; insurance; or a legal service.
  • High-Risk AI Systems: AI systems that significantly impact legal, financial, employment, education, healthcare, insurance, or government services.
  • Developers: Entities creating or significantly modifying high-risk AI systems.
  • Deployers: Entities using high-risk AI systems in Iowa.

For developers, the proposed bill:

  • Requires reasonable care to protect individuals from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of AI discrimination.
  • Creates a rebuttable presumption that a developer used reasonable care if the developer complies with the detailed requirements detailed in the bill and by the Attorney General.
  • Requires providing AI discrimination risk documentation to a deployer or other developer using the AI and to publish a statement on their website detailing how the developer manages risks of AI discrimination 
  • Requires disclosure of risks of AI discrimination to the Attorney General 

For deployers, the proposed bill:

  • Requires the use of reasonable care to protect individuals from risks of AI discrimination. 
  • Requires completion of an AI impact assessment.
  • Requires an annual review of the AI for discrimination. 
  • Requires disclosure that individuals are interacting with AI.

3. Enforcement & Penalties

  • Iowa Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority.
  • Before taking legal action, the Attorney General must issue a notice of violation and allow 90 days for correction.
  • Violations are considered unlawful practices under Iowa law and can result in civil penalties up to $40,000 per violation, injunction, disgorgement of money, etc.
  • No private right of action is granted—only government enforcement is permitted.

4. Exemptions & Exclusions

  • Complying with the law or legal system inquiry
  • Acting under the authority of a federal agency
  • Research and testing AI before deployment.
  • AI used only for Cybersecurity, antivirus, or fraud detection technologies 
  • Developers do not have to disclose trade secrets.

Conclusion

While better election materials and preventing AI discrimination are laudable goals, the question remains whether this vague, yet complex regulatory framework is the proper vehicle to accomplish those goals. If this proposal simply burdens smaller cutting-edge tech companies with crippling regulations it may do more harm than good. Without evidence they will achieve their intended goals, these regulations will act as nothing more than another artificial barrier to entry, favoring establishment players over smaller, more nimble tech companies who simply do not have the excess capital to absorb a mountain of additional, potentially ineffective, bureaucratic red tape. 

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Iowa Law, StartUp. Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
March 14, 2025

Comments Off on Proposed Legislation in Iowa Could Tip the Scales Against Small Tech Firms