Advertise on podcast: Clause 8

When Coke Morgan Stewart became acting director of the USPTO, much of the patent world knew little about her. In this episode of Clause 8, Stewart, now President and CEO of the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP), sits down with host Eli Mazour to tell her own story and explain the how and why behind her decisions. Clause 8 is presented by:Junior AI - Your legal team’s documents, drafted in your team’s style.IP Copilot - Discover, manage, and protect your IP. In this episode: - Her path from English literature to the acting director’s chair, including the video call from a cruise ship where she learned she’d be deputy director - Her father, Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr., and the $2.75 billion Centripetal v. Cisco judgment the Federal Circuit later vacated - Her first months at the USPTO: the backlog, the hiring freeze, the “fork in the road” offer, return to office and telework - IPR institution, “settled expectations” and repeat challenges, and why she puts the odds of the proposed PTAB rules becoming final at 60/40 - The reported move by Director John Squires to return institution decisions to PTAB panels, and the pros and cons - What she’d do differently, including a workforce council, plus AI and copyright Chapters:00:00:00 Introduction: who is Coke Morgan Stewart?00:13:10 Her father’s patent cases and the Cisco stock controversy00:27:00 Becoming acting director: how she pursued the job00:37:30 The call from a cruise ship00:40:47 Day one: backlog, hiring freeze and DOGE-era turmoil00:51:35 Settled expectations and repeat challenges01:08:13 The proposed PTAB rules and the push for legislation01:17:28 Squires and institution decisions returning to PTAB panels01:33:32 What she’d do differently: a workforce council This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

To open the season, host Eli Mazour brings together three journalists who cover intellectual property for a living: Olivia Rafferty of IP Fray, Nisha Shetty of IAM, and Inbar Preiss of MLex. They discuss what happens when patent litigation concentrates in a few courts, from Germany's dominance at the Unified Patent Court to the rise and fall of Judge Alan Albright in Texas. They also cover consolidation in the video codec patent pool market, Europe's fight over AI and copyright (including cases involving OpenAI, Suno, and Google's Gemini), why mainstream media struggles to cover IP, and what each journalist is watching next. Clause 8 is presented by: Junior AI - Your legal team's documents, drafted in your team's style. https://junior.law P Copilot - Discover, manage, and protect your IP. https://ipcopilot.ai Chapters: 00:00 Introduction & meet the panel 00:56 How each journalist got into covering IP 07:42 The SEP regulation's rise, withdrawal, and EU court challenge 11:53 US patent policy shifting with each administration 13:40 Why most UPC cases are filed in Germany 17:08 The Judge Albright controversy 20:03 The EU's standardization regulation review 23:50 Patent pools consolidate: the Via and Access Advance merger 26:58 AI collides with copyright law 30:26 Why mainstream media struggles to cover IP 37:40 What's on the radar for next year Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8 Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Kevin Mack, the new president of Via Licensing Alliance, joins Eli for the Clause 8 season finale. Kevin talks about Via's plans to build its next patent pools around "de facto" standards — technology the market adopted on its own, with no standards body behind it — which would push collaborative licensing into territory it has never touched. Mack also takes a hard look at the royalty-free models spreading through tech and AI, from AV1 to the new Shared AI License Foundation (SAIL), argues that "free" rarely stays free, and explains why he's optimistic about where the patent system is heading. Kevin and Eli also discuss: *Via's model and the "tipping point" that turns a pool from a few licensors into thousands of licensees *"De facto" standards: pooling patents for technology no standards body ever blessed *Leadership turnover at Via, the HEVC pool's move to Access Advance, and a new strategy-and-growth group *The push into semiconductors, including a new DRAM memory program *AV1, SAIL, and why Mack thinks royalty-free rarely stays free *Whether AI patents are as "foundational" as advertised — and why "AI is not new" *Efficient infringement, patents as property rights, and why companies ultimately take a license *The mood out of Via's Rome summit and a US patent system tilting back toward owners Notable names, companies & standards People: Kevin Mack (president, Via Licensing Alliance); Heath Hoglund (former Via president); John Amster (Jamster Capital; RPX co-founder) Organizations: Via Licensing Alliance (Via LA), MPEG LA, Dolby, Access Advance, Alliance for Open Media, Shared AI License Foundation (SAIL), WIPO (PatentScope), DOJ, USPTO SAIL founders / board (public): Anthropic, Genentech, IBM, Meta, Microsoft; board observers eBay and TD Bank Group; members include Block and Figma Standards & technologies: AAC, AVC (H.264), HEVC (H.265), AV1, MPEG-2, Qi wireless charging, DRAM memory, SEP / FRAND Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Bruce Lehman, head of USPTO from 1993 to 1998, joins Clause 8 for a wide-ranging conversation about the modern IP system, the internet boom, and why the AI era may require a new copyright response from Congress. Lehman helped shape internet-era copyright policy from the USPTO, including the work that led to the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He also played a major role in the broader 1990s pro-IP moment, when the United States was strengthening IP rights globally through TRIPS, WIPO, and trade policy. Now, Lehman argues that courts have spent the last two decades weakening copyright through an expansive view of fair use — creating a system where AI companies can train on massive amounts of human-created content without giving creators a meaningful stake. Asked whether new legislation is needed to protect creators in the AI age, Lehman does not hesitate: “The short answer is yes.” The episode also covers: *Lehman’s “patent pendulum” theory and why he believes the US is now in a low-protection IP era *How the DMCA emerged from the Clinton administration’s internet copyright work *TRIPS, WIPO, and the globalization of IP rights in the 1990s *Bayh-Dole and the rise of the university-to-startup pipeline *Lehman’s historic confirmation as the first openly gay man confirmed by the Senate *His role in turning the USPTO into a “prominent perch” for national IP policy *Gilbert Hyatt, submarine patents, and SAWS *USPTO telework, examiner retention, and modernization *His message that current leadership should “stop tormenting the Patent Corps” *The limits of AI — and why Lehman thinks it lacks the "metaphysical" spark behind true invention *Judge Pauline Newman and her pro-patent legacy Watch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/ Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8 Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

When Alice came down in 2014, much of the patent prosecution bar reacted with denial. Most practitioners hoped the USPTO, the Federal Circuit, or Congress would clean things up — and that adding some magic language to claims and specifications would eventually be enough. Eli Mazour and Ngai Zhang, separately, came to a different conclusion: there had to be a new, better way to obtain strong patents in the post-Alice world. They started comparing notes more than a decade ago, eventually converged on a shared approach, and now implement these strategies together at Foley & Lardner. On this episode of Clause 8, Eli and Ngai walk through what they actually do — their unique strategies for avoiding and overcoming Section 101 issues, why it's difficult for other attorneys to implement these strategies, and how they think their practice will be impacted in the age of AI. In this episode: * Why relying only on art unit prediction tools & wordsmithing is a losing strategy for § 101 * Why claim 1 shouldn’t be your broadest claim * How taking features out of independent claims helps advance prosecution - and how the strategy also leaves clients routinely surprised by how broad their issued claims end up * Examiner interviews as hostage negotiations: Ngai’s framework based on Chris Voss’s Never Split the Difference * Differing approaches that Ngai and Eli have on whether to push for an explicit on-the-record agreement before ending an interview * AI as a collaborator for patent drafting and prosecution * The importance of human interactions and communication for patent prosecution even in the age of AI Watch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/ Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8 📌 Presented by Tradespace — where ideas take flight. Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pride themselves on being dealmakers and on making the kind of unconventional deals for America no one else could have gotten done. Gil Hyatt is offering them one that sounds like a no-brainer. However, the question remains whether that dealmaking reputation is enough to overcome thirty years of inertia from prior administrations focused on opposing Hyatt, including most notably on keeping any more of his patents from ever issuing. Inventor Gil Hyatt returns to Clause 8 to discuss his proposal to donate foundational AI patents to the Pioneering AI Foundation, a nonprofit he says could help give the U.S. government new leverage to advance American interests. Hyatt also reflects on his decades-long battle with the USPTO, the motivation behind the foundation, and why he sees the project as a gift to America ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday. 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 🎧 Watch the full episode above or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content. 📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight. Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Is anything in the patent world ever really free? 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. 🎧 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 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

The story of how John Squires became USPTO Director doesn’t start inside the Beltway. It starts on the Appalachian Trail, with Doug Pittman camping under shooting stars the night after Trump won the election. Pittman — a serial entrepreneur, inventor, and self-described “foxhole buddy” and “wingman” of Squires — drove up from Georgia to sit down with Eli 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 former USPTO director — 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’ reaction was immediate: “Doug, you’ve lost your mind.” But Pittman kept pushing, and Iancu worked his magic with the new admistration. Then Howart Lutnick got confirmed as Commerce Secretary. Squires and Lutnick already had a bond forged after 9/11. When Lutnick landed at Commerce — the patent office’s parent agency — the pieces fell into place. “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 discusses: * Journey from son of a pig farmer to serial entrepreneur — including selling his first company in 1998 without ever opening his own envelope * 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 John Squires led his enforcement strategy and and 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 — and why Pittman thinks it’s a pivotal moment * His “1-8-8 Project,” his advice to Squires to “push the limit,” and the personal picture he sent the director to serve as a daily reminder in his role 📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight. Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Eli Mazour is joined by Juristat’s Francesca Cruz and patent attorney Clint Mehall to look at what the examination data actually says about recent USPTO changes. The conversation moves past anecdotes to analyze how new examiner performance appraisal plan (PAP), new Section 101 guidance, and the end of the AFCP program are affecting day-to-day patent prosecution. The guests discuss a new framework for examiner seniority based on "At-Bats"—the total number of applications an examiner has handled—rather than just years at the Office. The data reveals surprising trends in office action consistency and why mid-level examiners might be more difficult than juniors. The discussion also covers the measurable decline in after-final allowances, why practitioners are defaulting to RCEs, and whether new guidance is actually moving the needle on Section 101 rejections in difficult art units. Chapters:  00:00 - Introduction 03:00 - What Practitioners are Hearing: An "Incredible Year of Change" 04:39 - Examiner Morale and the New Performance Appraisal Plan 06:24 - Redefining Seniority: Measuring "At-Bats" vs. Tenure 12:07 - Data Reveal: Junior vs. Senior Behavioral Trends 15:47 - The "Confidence Gap" and Obviousness Theories 18:19 - Art Unit Volatility: Why Individual Stats Matter More Than Averages 22:52 - Interviews and AFCP: Addressing the USPTO "Myth-Busters" 28:44 - The Shift to RCEs and the Decline of After-Final Allowances 34:52 - Section 101 Trends: Has AI Guidance Changed Rejection Rates? 44:47 - Final Thoughts: Preparing for Prosecution in 2026 Subscribe to the Voice of IP Substack: https://voiceofip.com/ 📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight. Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Artificial intelligence has been raising foundational questions for patent law long before generative tools entered the mainstream. In this episode of Clause 8, host Eli Mazour speaks with Wen Xie, U.S. Patent Attorney and Founder of Lux Lumen Intellectual Property, about how legal thinking around AI, inventorship, and patent eligibility has evolved—and where it appears to be heading. 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 law02:10 – AI disruption before ChatGPT: imaging, medicine, and automation04:56 – How AI reshaped Wen’s legal career05:55 – DABUS, Thaler, and the AI inventorship debate08:56 – Human contribution vs. AI output10:40 – Should companies restrict inventors from using AI?11:59 – What in-house counsel should ask about AI use14:20 – Duty of candor, recordkeeping, and litigation risk18:06 – Section 101 and AI as technological improvement22:50 – USPTO guidance, PTAB trends, and examiner behavior32:01 – Section 112 issues and describing machine learning33:40 – Using generative AI in patent drafting39:40 – Advice for junior attorneys in an AI-driven practice Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

In the latest episode of Clause 8, recorded in December 2025, Eli Mazour sits down with Peter-Anthony Pappas, Director of Intellectual Property Policy for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary under Senator Thom Tillis, at a moment when the USPTO’s direction is in significant alignment with what Senator Tillis and Senator Chris Coons have been working toward since reviving the Senate IP Subcommittee in 2019. 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 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

How do you protect the IP of a rapidly growing technology company in the dynamic AI sector without slowing engineers or missing what really matters? 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 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

While many people talk about mentorship, HP’s Chief IP Counsel Ceyda Maisami and Tradespace’s VP of IP Operations & Client Success Marcia Chang actually live it. 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 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

At the 2025 Via Licensing Alliance Bridge Summit in San Francisco, Brian Dorini, Senior Director at Dolby, and Tyrome Brown, Dolby’s Chief Patent Counsel, offered a clear-eyed look at the state of patent pools and the shifting realities of the global SEP ecosystem. Far from being outdated structures, both emphasized that pools remain essential tools for enabling collaboration, reducing friction, and supporting meaningful innovation — even amid regulatory uncertainty. 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. 📌 Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight🔔 Subscribe to the Clause 8 Podcast for more deep-dive conversations📬 Subscribe to the Voice of IP Substack so that you don’t miss another episode: https://voiceofip.com/ ▶️ Subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Recent changes at USPTO are increasingly shaping the context in which Congress considers potential patent legislation. 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 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com