Chief Counsel John Lee on Bicameral, Bipartisan Efforts to Advance Section 101 & PTAB Legislation
Clause 8
J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa. In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America’s IP system. John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101...
info_outline
Europe's New Unified Patent Court: Exclusive Interview with Judge Michael Fleuchaus
Clause 8
In this special two-part episode, we delve into the creation, implementation, and strategic importance of Europe's Unified Patent Court (UPC) with UPC Judge Michael Fleuchaus and Dr. Benjamin Grau. The first part of the show highlights Judge Fleuchaus' experience as a newly appointed technical qualified judge at the UPC. Judge Fleuchaus discusses the motivations behind the UPC's establishment and overarching goal to streamline patent litigation across the European Union. He also discusses his role as a technical judge working alongside experienced legally qualified judges and shares the...
info_outline
Resetting the Narrative on IP Rights in America
Clause 8
This year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce brought together a diverse group of stakeholders and thought leaders in support of a framework of IP Principles. These IP Principles are part of an initiative to help America overcome a sustained effort to demonize intellectual property rights over the last 15-20 years. Patrick Kilbride and Brad Watts, from the U.S. Chamber’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), join Eli to talk about leading this initiative, the current narrative on IP rights and the forces that shaped it, the themes of the IP Principles document, and what they...
info_outline
Matteo Sabattini on Licensing Igniting Virtuous Cycle of Innovation
Clause 8
Matteo Sabattini is well known in DC patent policy circles from his previous role as Director of IP Policy at Ericsson. He now joins Eli from Italy to discuss his new role as President and Chief Licensing Officer of Convida, what he learned from his time in DC, keys to building a successful licensing program, why recent attempts to regulate licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) are misguided, and much more! Selected Timestamps | 0:11:03 | How shifting value from devices to services & platforms impacts who should license patents | | 0:17:46 | Licensing...
info_outline
Ed Murgitroyd on Disrupting IP Legal Services & Lessons from his Dad
Clause 8
Ed Murgitroyd joins Eli Mazour to tell the stories of building Murgitroyd into one of Europe’s biggest IP law firms and his disruptive new venture Hexos IP. Murgitroyd was founded by Ed’s father Ian Murgitroyd in Scotland in 1975. Ed eventually joined his father and became the CEO of Murgitroyd before it was acquired by a private equity firm, Sovereign, in 2019. On this episode, Ed talks about: Story of his father, Ian Murgitroyd, starting Murgitroyd in Glasgow in 1975 thanks to a loan from a mysterious benefactor Growing into one of the world’s...
info_outline
Ofinno: The Little SEP Engine That Could
Clause 8
Ofinno’s founder Esmael Dinan and CEO Kavon Nasabzadeh join the Clause 8 podcast to tell Ofinno’s unique story of succeeding in the patent monetization space and talk about its plans for the future. After spending years as an inventor at a large operating company, Esmael came to the conclusion that most such companies aren’t good at obtaining valuable standard essential patents (SEPs) on their own. This spurred him to found Ofinno in 2011, an R&D lab that would obtain such patents. He almost quit after spending his savings and initially failing to find any...
info_outline
Kfir Luzzatto: Bring Amit Soussana Home
Clause 8
Amit Soussana is an IP attorney at one of Israel’s leading IP firms, Luzzato and Luzzatto. She is also one of more than 240 people – including babies, children, women, the elderly, and the disabled - who were brutally taken hostage by terrorists from Gaza on October 7th. More than 40 days later, almost all of them are still being held hostage. Kfir Luzzatto, the senior partner of Amit’s law firm, joins Clause 8 to talk about the story of that horrific day, Amit, the ongoing horror that the hostages’ families are experiencing, and the urgent efforts to increase...
info_outline
Time to Embrace Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) & AI Future
Clause 8
Clause 8 is back for a new season! To start the season, Eli – for the first time on Clause 8 - shares his own thoughts at length about the hottest debates in the patent world. On this episode, Eli discusses: The horrific October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel and more than 240 Israelis still being held captured by the terrorists His “first IP interview” with then Israel Patent Office Director Asa Kling ChatGPT spurring changing attitudes towards potential of AI compared to when he interviewed DABUS’ legal mastermind Ryan Abbott Patent practitioners failing to embrace new...
info_outline
Exclusive Interview with Judge Pauline Newman’s Attorney Greg Dolin
Clause 8
When Judge Pauline Newman helped create the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 to have exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, no one could’ve guessed the drama that would follow almost 40 years after she joined the court herself. In April, on IPWatchdog about a complaint filed by the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit against Newman for being unable to effectively discharge the duties of her office. Days later, Newman showed up and ork in a way that completely undermined the foundation of that complaint. Recently retired Federal Circuit Judge...
info_outline
SPECIAL EP: If Twitter Sues…with Gaston Kroub
Clause 8
Will Twitter's meager patent portfolio doom Elon Musk’s hopes of “strictly enforcing” Twitter’s IP rights? Eli is joined by return guest Gaston Kroub on this special episode to discuss how an unprecedented IP dispute between two of the world’s richest men might play out. In response to Meta successfully launching Threads, Musk’s go to lawyer Alex Spiro sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg expressing "serious concerns that Meta...has engaged in systematic, willful, and unlawful misappropriation of Twitter's trade secrets and other intellectual property" and intention to...
info_outlineGood lawyers effectively deal with the present. Very few have what it takes to create the future. Professor Ryan Abbott is doing just that.
He leads the DABUS project: the first time ever an AI machine has been named as an inventor on a patent application. Most thought that the project was an interesting academic exercise that was unlikely to go anywhere. Some - uncharitably - dismissed it as "a publicity stunt."
Yet, the DABUS project did get a patent in South Africa. And, an Australian judge ruled that AI machine can be recognized as an inventor. Even more significantly, the DABUS project successfully raised awareness about the issue of AI inventorship among policy makers all over the world.
But what does it mean for an AI system to be named as an inventor in the real world?
In this episode, Abbott makes his case for the skeptics: Identifying AI as the inventor on patents is morally and commercially important. He also explains how to judge whether the human pushing the buttons is as much an inventor as the AI they’re programming.
On this episode, Eli and Prof. Abbott talk about the Artificial Inventor Project, whether everything will be “obvious” in the future, and Prof. Abbott’s fascinating new book “The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law.”
Episode Highlights:
[1:41] Meet our guest: Abbott explains how degrees in law and medicine pushed him towards patents. He worked for the World Health Organization (WHO) on patents related to life sciences.
[6:17] The eureka moment: Around 2013, Abbott noticed that life sciences companies were using AI to scan through large databases for information, which prompted research and inventions. Normally, people who did that would be named on the resulting patents.
[8:32] The case for AI inventors: Based on his observations, Abbott outlines his academic argument for naming AI on patents: It incentivizes humans to build machines that come up with inventions, which is exactly the purpose of the patent system.
[11:39] Meet DABUS: Abbott discusses how he teamed up with Dr. Stephen Thaler, who invented a type of AI called DABUS and is a pioneer of naming AI on patents. DABUS is the AI identified in patents Abbott is defending in courts around the world as a leader of the Artificial Inventor Project.
[12:13] Breaking the mold: The Artificial Inventor Project is breaking new ground with its attempts to name AI as inventors. AI has only just become capable of contributing to inventions — and patent lawyers still advise their clients to name themselves, not their machines.
[13:23] Copying copyright: Copyright law is ahead of patent law when it comes to AI involvement. It’s possible to guess how AI will work in patents by looking at the technology’s role in copyright cases.
[18:00] Break law, don’t make law: Abbott explains why he chose to litigate on behalf of AI inventors, rather than lobby, and why he picked the specific cases he did.
[23:51] The human touch: Humans are still involved in AI inventions — so aren’t they really the inventors? Abbott addresses the tricky topic of weighing human versus AI involvement.
[28:01] Assessing merit: Abbott explains why it can be helpful to compare AI involvement to a team of people working on a new invention in a lab. What role does someone have to play to earn credit?
[30:12] Why AI inventorship matters: Despite the difficulties, naming AI inventors is worth it. Abbott makes the case that there is a moral responsibility to accurately identify who — or what — invented something. Not to mention the impact on entitlement to the IP.
[37:36] What’s next for the Artificial Inventor Project: Abbott and Thaler's work raises broader discussions about tech and the law, and how that relationship should work.
[46:25] Are these lawsuits artificial?: Abbott responds to accusations that his project is a publicity stunt.
[48:12] A problem prediction: Abbott admits that he has concerns about how hindsight bias could affect AI inventor claims, with regards to obviousness analysis.
[49:38] Mixed messages: How differences in the way we treat driverless cars versus Uber drivers reveal our double standards about AI — and how this limits the way we use it.
[52:43] A note for the next legal generation: Abbott’s advice for future lawyers: Study up on tech as well as technicalities. Your clients will thank you.