IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays!

In today’s interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground.

But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you!

The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators.

News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision.

Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously.

China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute.

The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded.

China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026.

Now let’s jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis!

Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table.

Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability

Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground.

When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage.

One Program, Not Twenty

With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge.

Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up.

Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk

One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice.

Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure

Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved.

McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it.

Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters

Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably.

Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data.

A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws.

AI Governance: Policy Before Tools

Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained.

He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal.

The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement

McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain.

Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward.

McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator.

The Full Transcript:

Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast.

Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me.

Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity.

Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program.

Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid.

Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well.

Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key.

Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point.

Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve?

Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us.

Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast.

Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

Register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting at https://inta.org !!

In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, I spoke with Deborah Hampton, President of the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Global Brand Enforcement and Trademark Team Leader at the Chemours Company.

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 173 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s interview guest is Deborah Hampton. She is the Global Brand Enforcement & Trademark Team Leader at The Chemours Company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademarks Association. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you:

The US Department of Justice and the USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the right of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) to seek injunctions against patent infringers. This position challenges established post-eBay case law, which has made it difficult for NPEs to obtain injunctive relief.

The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that security for costs can be provided through specialized insurance policies. This significantly lowers the financial barriers to bringing patent actions at the UPC, as companies no longer need to deposit large amounts of liquid capital as security.

Huawei has filed a new lawsuit at UPC Mannheim against twelve Walt Disney Group companies (Ref. UPC-CFL-0000352/2026), asserting EP 3 211 897 relating to transform coefficient coding under the HEVC standard used by Disney+. Two additional suits were filed at Munich Regional Court I. In a parallel action, Huawei is suing Meta and Facebook at the UPC over EP 3 471 419, covering video compression in end devices. This continues Huawei’s strategy of pressuring streaming and platform providers into licensing its SEP portfolios.

In a landmark first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): whether the UPC has jurisdiction over defendants without a seat in a UPC member state, provided a co-defendant is domiciled within the UPC territory (“long-arm jurisdiction”). The case arose from a dispute between Dyson and Chinese competitor Dreame; the first-instance injunction was simultaneously extended to cover newer Dreame hair dryers. For German companies, this signals a gradual expansion of UPC jurisdiction beyond its territorial borders, with significant implications for cross-border patent strategy.

And now let’s jump into the interview with Deborah Hampton:

Our conversation covered one central question:
How must intellectual property enforcement evolve in a world that is more global, digital, and complex than ever before?

A Career Built on Intellectual Property

Deborah Hampton has spent more than four decades in the field of intellectual property. She began her career as a paralegal in a small IP firm in New York and quickly discovered her passion for the subject.

Over the years, IP has taken her around the world. She has worked with leading professionals, governments, and institutions. Her experience reflects a key truth: IP is not a narrow legal discipline. It is a global ecosystem that connects law, business, innovation, and policy.

Counterfeiting: A Much Bigger Problem Than Many Think

One of the key topics in our discussion was counterfeiting.

Many people still see counterfeit goods as a minor issue—cheap handbags or fake T-shirts bought on holiday. But the reality is far more serious.

Counterfeiting creates real risks for consumers because products often bypass safety and quality standards. It damages trust in brands and undermines legitimate marketplaces, especially online.

The economic impact is also significant. Companies lose revenue, innovation slows down, and jobs are affected. Smaller businesses suffer the most because they often lack the resources to fight counterfeiting effectively.

Perhaps most concerning is the link to organized crime. Counterfeiting is not an isolated activity. It is often part of larger illegal networks.

From Deborah Hampton’s perspective, effective enforcement must address both supply and demand. That includes stronger border measures, better online enforcement, and, importantly, consumer education.

The Core Problem: Fragmentation in IP Enforcement

A central theme of the interview was fragmentation.

Many companies approach IP protection in silos. Legal teams, cybersecurity experts, business units, and external advisors often work separately. Even when they pursue the same goal, their efforts are not aligned.

This leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and unnecessary risks.

To address this, Deborah Hampton has launched a Presidential Task Force at INTA. The goal is to create a unified approach to IP protection and enforcement.

The idea is simple but powerful:
Bring all stakeholders together and align strategy, enforcement, and measurement.

This includes not only companies and their advisors but also regulators, courts, customs authorities, and IP offices. Only a coordinated approach can effectively address global challenges like counterfeiting.

The Changing Role of IP Professionals

Another important insight is how the role of IP professionals is changing.

In the past, IP work was often reactive and focused on legal protection. Today, expectations are much higher.

IP professionals are now expected to:

Act as strategic advisors to the business

Align IP with commercial goals

Manage global and digital portfolios

Use data to make better decisions

At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming how IP is managed and enforced. These tools create efficiencies but also raise new legal and strategic questions.

Budget constraints add another layer of complexity. Teams must achieve more with fewer resources.

In short, IP professionals must become more strategic, more integrated, and more business-focused.

Why the INTA Annual Meeting Matters

We also discussed the upcoming INTA Annual Meeting in London.

For many in the field, this event is the most important gathering of the year. It brings together more than 10,000 professionals from around 140 jurisdictions.

According to Deborah Hampton, the value lies in three areas:

First, the return on investment is exceptionally high. The combination of education, networking, and business development is difficult to replicate elsewhere.

Second, the educational program is extensive. It covers law, policy, technology, and the business of intangible assets.

Third, the networking opportunities are unmatched. The meeting creates a unique environment where a year’s worth of work can be done in a single week.

At the same time, Hampton addressed a sensitive issue: attending without registering. She made it clear that this practice undermines the entire system. Without proper support from participants, events like this would not be possible.

A Clear Message for the Future

If there is one key takeaway from the conversation, it is this:

Intellectual property protection must become more coordinated, more strategic, and more closely aligned with business objectives.

The challenges are growing. Counterfeiting is more sophisticated. Markets are more global. Technology is changing rapidly.

But the opportunity is also clear. By breaking down silos and working together across functions and borders, companies can protect their IP more effectively and create real value.

For IP professionals, this means stepping into a broader role. Not just as legal experts, but as strategic partners in the business.

Rolf Claessen: Today’s guest on the IP Fridays podcast is Deborah Hampton. If you don’t know Deborah, she’s the global brand and enforcement and trademark team leader at the Chemours company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademark Association. Thank you for being on our podcast IP Fridays, Deborah.

Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Rolf Claessen: So you have been in the field of IP for more than 25 years now. How did you get there and where did it lead to you?

Deborah A. Hampton: I’ve actually been an IP practitioner for 43 years. I started at a small IP firm in New York; it was my first paralegal position, and I fell in love with IP from the very beginning. This field has allowed me to travel the world meeting some amazing and brilliant colleagues as well as high-ranking government, judicial, and IPO officials. I’ve also worked extremely hard to stay abreast of trends, statutes, precedent cases, and practices that enhance the way we do our jobs.

Rolf Claessen: Wow. That sounds really exciting. I didn’t know you’ve been in the field so long. Great to hear that. So I’m personally very interested in the fight against counterfeit goods. Why, in your personal opinion, is it so important to fight counterfeit goods? Maybe you can share your thoughts on why it is important and a little bit about how you do it.

Deborah A. Hampton: There are a number of factors that I always take into consideration when it comes to counterfeit goods. Starting with consumer safety, counterfeits often bypass safety and quality standards, putting consumers at real risk. Then there’s consumer trust; fake goods undermine confidence in brands and legitimate marketplaces, especially online.

Economic harm is another factor; counterfeiting drains revenue from lawful businesses, weakens innovation, and ultimately costs jobs. Smaller businesses (SMEs) are hit the hardest because they lack resources to combat fakes at scale.

The factor that scares me the most is organized crime, as counterfeiting fuels criminal networks and is linked to broader illicit activity. There is also the issue of fair competition, where fake goods distort markets by undercutting compliant, responsible producers. Finally, strong enforcement protects the integrity of the IP system and the trademarks that drive investment, innovation, and growth.

It is important to combat the production, sale, and demand for counterfeit goods. At INTA, our anti-counterfeiting priorities focus on customs and border measures, criminal enforcement, online counterfeiting, and consumer education. Our Anti-Counterfeiting Committee leads initiatives to address the production and sale of fakes by monitoring worldwide developments in treaties and legislation and proposing policy recommendations to the board. We also partner with stakeholders to promote cooperation across agencies and borders.

Additionally, the Unreal Campaign Committee addresses the demand for counterfeit goods by educating young consumers ages 14 to 23 about the importance of brands and the dangers of fakes. I remember being that age and wanting low-priced goods that looked good, but now I realize I probably wasn’t always getting genuine products.

Rolf Claessen: Yes, that helps me explain to friends who buy fake clothes on holiday in Turkey and don’t realize the harm they are doing. You’re also on the presidential task force for unifying IP protection and enforcement strategy. Can you tell us more about who is part of this task force and what the agenda is?

Deborah A. Hampton: When I was nominated to become an officer, I immediately wondered what my presidential task force topic would be and what I would wear for the opening ceremonies. The 2026 task force is titled “Unifying Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Strategy”. The goal is to eliminate value leakage and risk caused by fragmented approaches to IP protection. We want to deliver a unified global operating model that aligns strategy and enforcement, allowing organizations to work smarter and quantify their impact across all jurisdictions.

Many organizations, including my own, currently operate in disconnected silos that sometimes work at cross purposes. The challenge is to maintain internal coordination across all intangible-related aspects. We have many stakeholders—business, security, cybersecurity, outside counsel, customers, the judiciary, and IPOs—all striving for the same goal, but the road we take is not always unified. I hope to build a strong cross-functional partnership focused on protecting all forms of IP, including patents and designs, not just brands.

Rolf Claessen: Right, IP includes patents and designs and everything. Most importantly, you are this year’s INTA president. What is your agenda for the year and what do you want people in the field to realize?

Deborah A. Hampton: As president, I chair the board and steward our strategy and governance. I am also an ambassador, representing INTA globally to IPOs and government officials.

My agenda has three pillars. First is the 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, which is the roadmap for our future. Second is my Presidential Task Force on unifying IP strategies. Third is volunteer mobilization; with a new committee structure in 2026, I want to energize our volunteers and recognize their contributions.

I want people in the field to prioritize mentorship and professional development for the next generation. We need to ensure young practitioners are prepared to lead. I also want them to embrace the unified approach to IP protection we are advocating.

Rolf Claessen: That’s a powerful vision. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for the work you’re doing with INTA.

Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you again for the opportunity. I really enjoyed the interview

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I welcome you to Episode 172 of our podcast IP Fridays. Today’s interview guests are Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, Jeanine Wright, and Mark Stignani, who is Partner & Chair of Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeaninepercivalwright

https://www.linkedin.com/in/markstignani

Inception Point AI

But before the interview I have news for you:

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on Feb 19, 2026, that specialized insurance can cover security for legal costs. This is vital for firms, as it eases litigation financing and lowers financial hurdles for patent lawsuits by removing the need for high liquid assets to enforce rights at the UPC.

On Feb 12, 2026, the WIPO Coordination Committee nominated Daren Tang for a second six-year term as Director General. Tang continues modernizing the global IP system, focusing on SMEs, women, and digital transformation. His confirmation in April is considered certain.

An AAFA study from Feb 4 reveals 41% of tested fakes (clothing/shoes) failed safety standards. Many contained toxic chemicals like phthalates, BPA, or lead. The study highlights that counterfeiters increasingly use Meta platforms to sell unsafe imitations directly to consumers.

China’s CNIPA 2026 report announced a crackdown on bad-faith patent and trademark filings. Beyond better examination quality, the agency will sanction shady IP firms and stop strategies violating “good faith” to make China’s IP system more ethical and innovation-friendly.

Now, let’s hear the interview with Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani!

How AI Is Rewiring Media & Entertainment: Key Takeaways from Ken Suzan’s Conversation with Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani

In this IP Fridays interview, Ken Suzan speaks with two repeat guests who look at the same phenomenon from two angles: Jeanine Wright, Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, as a builder of AI-native entertainment, and Mark Stignani, Partner and Chair of the Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, as a lawyer advising clients who are trying to use AI without stepping into a legal (or ethical) crater.

What emerges is a clear picture: generative AI is not just “another tool.” It is rapidly becoming the default infrastructure for creative work—while the rules around ownership, consent, and accountability lag behind.

1) What “AI-generated personalities” really are (and why that matters)

Jeanine’s company is not primarily “cloning” real people. Instead, Inception Point AI creates original, fictional personalities—characters with backstories, ambitions, and evolving arcs—then deploys them into the world as podcast hosts and content creators (and eventually actors and musicians).

Her key point: the creative work still starts with humans. Writers and creators define the concept, tone, audience, and story engine. What AI changes is speed, cost, and iteration—and therefore what is economically feasible to produce.

2) The “generative content pipeline” isn’t a magic button

A recurring misconception Ken raises is the idea that someone “pushes a button” and content pops out. Jeanine explains that real production looks more like a hybrid studio:

A creative team defines character, voice, format, and storyline.

A technical team builds what she calls an “AI orchestration layer” that combines multiple models and tools.

The “stack” differs by format: the workflow for a long-form audio drama is different from a short-form beauty clip.

This matters because it reframes AI content not as a single output, but as a pipeline decision: which tools, which data sources, which QA, and which governance steps are used—and where human review happens.

3) The biggest legal questions: origin, liability, ownership, and contracts

Mark doesn’t name a single “top issue.” He describes a cluster of problems that repeatedly show up in client conversations:

Training data and “origin story”

Clients keep asking: Can I legally use AI output if the tool was trained on copyrighted works? Even if the output looks new, the unease is about whether the tool’s capabilities are built on unlicensed inputs.

Liability for unintended harm

Mark flags risk from AI content that inadvertently infringes, defames, or carries bias. The legal exposure may not match the creator’s intent.

Ownership and protectability

He points to a big gap: many jurisdictions are still reluctant to grant classic IP rights (copyright or patent-style protection) to purely AI-generated material. That creates uncertainty around whether businesses can truly “own” what they produce.

Old contracts weren’t written for AI

A final, practical point: many agreements—talent contracts, author clauses, data licenses—predate generative AI and simply don’t address it. That leads to disputes about scope, permissions, and—crucially—indemnities.

4) Are we at a tipping point? The “gold rush” vs. “next creative era” views

Jeanine frames AI as “the world’s most powerful creative tool”—comparable to previous step-changes like animation, special effects, and CGI. For her, the strategic implication is simple: creators who learn to use AI well will expand what they can build and test, faster than ever.

Mark’s metaphor is more cautionary: he calls the moment a “gold rush” where technology is sprinting ahead of law. Courts are getting flooded with foundational disputes, while legislation is fragmented—he notes that states may move faster than federal frameworks, and that labor agreements (e.g., union protections) will be a key pressure point.

5) Democratization: more creators, more niche content, more experimentation

One of the most concrete themes is access. Jeanine argues AI will:

Lower production barriers for independent filmmakers and storytellers.

Reduce the need for “hit-making only” economics that dominate Hollywood.

Make micro-audience content commercially viable.

Her example is intentionally niche: highly localized, specialized content (like a “pollen report” for many markets) that would never have made financial sense before can now exist—and thrive—because the production cost drops and personalization scales.

6) Likeness, consent, and “digital performers”: what happens when AI resembles a real actor?

Ken pushes into a sensitive area: what if someone generates a performance that closely resembles a living actor without consent?

Mark outlines the current (imperfect) toolbox—because, as he emphasizes, most laws weren’t built for this scenario. He points to practical claims that may come into play in the U.S., such as rights of publicity and false endorsement-type theories, and notes that whether something is parody or “too close” can become a major fault line.

Jeanine explains her company’s operational approach:

They focus on original personalities, designed “from scratch.”

They build internal checks to avoid misappropriating known names, likenesses, or recognizable identities.

If they ever work with real people, the model would be licensing their likeness/voice.

A subtle but important business point also appears here: Jeanine expects AI-native characters themselves to become licensable assets—meaning the entertainment economy may expand to include “celebrity rights” for fully synthetic personalities.

7) Ethics: the real line is “deception,” not “AI vs. human”

The ethical core of the conversation is not “AI is bad” or “AI is good.” It’s how AI is used—especially whether audiences are misled.

Mark highlights several ethical risks:

Misuse of tools to manipulate faces and content (“AI slop” and political misuse).

Displacement of creative workers without adequate transition support.

A concern that AI often optimizes toward “statistical averages,” potentially flattening originality.

Jeanine agrees ethics must be designed into the system. She describes regular discussions with an ethicist and emphasizes a principle: transparency. Her company discloses when content or personalities are AI-generated. She argues that if people understand what they’re engaging with and choose it knowingly, the ethical problem shifts from “AI exists” to “Are we tricking people?”

Mark adds a real-world warning: deepfakes are now credible enough to enable serious fraud—he references a case-like scenario where a synthetic video meeting deceived an employee into authorizing a payment. The point is clear: authenticity and verification are no longer optional.

8) The “dead actor” hypothetical: legal permission vs. moral intent

Ken raises a provocative scenario: an actor’s estate authorizes an AI-generated new performance, but the actor opposed such technology while alive.

Neither guest offers a simplistic answer. Jeanine suggests that even if the estate holds legal rights, a company might choose to avoid such content out of respect and because the ethical “overhang” could damage the storytelling outcome. She also notes the harder question: people who died before today’s capabilities may never have been able to meaningfully consent to what AI can now do—raising questions about how we interpret legacy intent.

Mark underscores the practical contract problem: many rights are drafted “in perpetuity,” but that doesn’t automatically settle the ethical question.

9) Five-year forecast: “AI everywhere,” but audiences may stratify

Ken closes with a prediction question: in five years, how much entertainment content will significantly involve AI—and will audiences care?

Jeanine predicts AI becomes the default creative layer for most content creation. Mark is slightly more conservative on the percentage, but adds an important nuance: the market will likely stratify. Low-cost, high-volume content may become saturated with AI, while premium segments may emphasize “human-made” as a differentiator—especially if disclosure norms become standard.

Bottom line for business leaders and creators

This interview lands on a pragmatic conclusion: AI will change how content is made at scale, and the competitive edge will go to teams that combine creative taste, operational discipline, and legal/ethical governance.

If you’re building, commissioning, or distributing content, the questions you can’t dodge anymore are:

What’s the provenance of the tools and data you rely on?

Who is responsible when output harms, infringes, or misleads?

What rights can you actually claim in AI-assisted work?

Do your contracts and disclosures match the new reality?

Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. We have two returning guests to the IP Friday’s podcast. Joining me today is Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani. Our topic for discussion, how is AI transforming the media and entertainment industries today? We look at the issues from differing perspectives. A bit about our guests, Jeanine Wright is a seasoned board member, CEO, global COO and CFO. She’s led organizations from startup to a $475 million plus revenue subsidiary of a public company. She excels in growth strategy, adopting innovative technologies, scaling operations and financial management. Jeanine is a media and entertainment attorney and trial litigator turned technologist and qualified financial expert. She is the co-founder and CEO of Inception Point AI, a growing company that is paving new ground with AI-generated personalities and content through developing technology and story. Mark Stignani is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is the chair of the data analytics department with a particular emphasis on artificial intelligence, machine learning, cryptocurrency and ESG. Mark combines the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning with his skills as a corporate and IP counsel to deliver unparalleled insights and strategies to his clients. Welcome, Jeanine and Mark to the IP Friday’s podcast.

Jeanine Wright: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and fun to be back. It feels nostalgic to be here.

Ken Suzan: That’s right. And you both were on the program. So it’s fantastic that you’re both back again. So our format, I’m going to ask a question to Jeanine and or Mark and sometimes to both of you. So that’s going to be how we proceed. Let’s jump right in. Jeanine, your company creates AI-generated actors. For listeners who may not be familiar, can you briefly explain what that means and what’s now possible that wasn’t even two years ago?

Jeanine Wright: Sure. Yeah, we are creating AI-generated personalities. So new characters, new personalities from scratch. We design who these personalities are and will be, how they will evolve. So we give them complex backstories. We give them hopes and dreams and aspirations. We every aspect of them, their families, how they’re going to evolve. And in the same way that, say, you know, Disney designs the character for its next animated feature or, you know, an electronic arts designs a character for its next major video game. We are doing that for these personalities and then we are launching them into the world as podcast hosts, content creators on social platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. And even in the future, you know, actors in feature length films, musicians, etc.

Ken Suzan: Very fascinating. Mark, from your practice, what’s the single biggest legal question or dispute you’re seeing clients wrestle with when it comes to AI and media creation?

Mark Stignani: Well, I think that, you know, it’s not just one thing, it’s like four things. But most of them tend to be kind of the origin story of AI data or AI tools that they use because, you know, but for the use of AI tools trained on copyrighted materials, the tools wouldn’t really exist in their current form. So a lot of my clients are wondering about, you know, can I legally use this output if it’s built upon somebody else’s IP? The second ask, the second flavor of that is really, is there liability being created if I take AI content that inadvertently infringes or defames or biases there? So there’s the whole notion of training bias from the training materials that comes out. The third phase is really, you know, can I really own this? Because much of the world does not really give IP rights into AI-generated inventions, copyrighted materials. It’s still kind of a big razor. Then at the end of the day, you know, if it’s an existing relationship, does my contract even contemplate this? So everything from authors contracts on up to just use of data rights that predate AI.

Ken Suzan: And Jeanine and Mark, a question to both of you. How would you describe where we are right now in the AI revolution in media and entertainment? Are we approaching a tipping point? And if so, what are the things we need to watch for?

Jeanine Wright: Yeah, I definitely think that we’re at a phase where people are starting to come to the realization that AI is the world’s most powerful creative tool. But that, you know, storytelling and point of view is what creates demand and audiences. And AI doesn’t threaten or change that. But it does mean that as people evolve in this medium, they’re very likely going to need to adopt, utilize and figure out how to hone their craft with these AI-generated content and these AI-generated toolings. So this is, you know, something that people have done certainly in the past in all sorts of ways in using new tools. And we’ve seen that make a significant change in the industry. So you look at, you know, the dawn of animation as a medium. You look at use of special effects, computer-generated imagery in the likes of Pixar. And this is certainly the next phase of that evolution. But because of the power of the tool and what will become the ubiquity of the tool, I think that it’s pretty revolutionary and all the more necessary for people to figure out how to embrace this as part of their creative process.

Ken Suzan: Thank you, Jeanine. Mark, your thoughts?

Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, I liken this to historically to like the California gold rush right now, because, you know, the technology is so far outpaced in any of the legal frameworks that are available. And so we’re just trying to shoehorn things in left and right here. So, I mean, the courts are beginning to start to engage with the foundational questions. I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I just noticed Anthropic got sued again by another group of people, big music group, because of the downloaded works they’ve done. I mean, so the courts are, you know, the courts are certainly inundated with, you know, too many of these foundational questions. Legislatively, hard to tell. I mean, federal law, the federal government is not moving uniformly on this other than to let the gold rush continue without much check and balance to it. Whereas states are now probably moving a lot faster. Colorado, Illinois, even Minnesota is attempting to craft legislation and limitations on what you can do with content and where to go with it. So, I mean, the things we need to watch for any of the fair use decisions coming out here, you know, some of the SAG-AFTRA contract clauses. And, you know, again, the federal government, I just, you know, I got a big shrug going as to what they’re actually going to come up with here in the next 90 to 100 days. So, but, you know, I think they’ll be forced into doing something sooner than later.

Ken Suzan: Okay, let’s jump into the topic of the rise of generative content pipelines. My first question to Jeanine. Studios and production companies are now building what some call generative content pipelines. This is where AI systems produce everything from scripts to visual effects to voice performances. What efficiencies and creative possibilities does this unlock for the industry?

Jeanine Wright: Yeah, so this is quite a bit of what we do. And if I could help pull the curtain back and explain a little bit.

Ken Suzan: That’d be great.

Jeanine Wright: Yeah, there’s this assumption that, you know, somebody is just sitting behind a machine pushing a button and an out pops, you know, what it is that we’re producing. There’s actually quite a bit of humans still in the loop in the process. You know, we have my team as creators. The other half of my team is the technologists. And those creators are working largely at what we describe as the the tip of the sphere. So they’re, of course, coming up with the concepts of who are these personalities? What are these personalities, characters, backgrounds going to be a lot of like rich personality development? And then they’re creating like what are the formats? What are the kind of story arcs? What is the kinds of content that this this character wants to tell? And what are the audiences they’re desiring to reach and what’s most going to resonate with them? And then what we built internally is what we refer to as an AI orchestration layer. So that allows us to pull from basically all of the different models and then all of these different really cool AI tools. And put those together in such a way and combine those in such a way that we can have the kind of output that our creative team envisions for what they want it to be. And at the end of the day, what you what the stack looks like for, say, a long form audio drama, like the combination of LLMs that we’re going to use in different parts of scripting and production and, you know, ideating and all of that. And the kinds of tooling that we use to actually make it and get it to sound good and have the kinds of personality characteristics that we want to be in an authentic voice for a podcast is going to be different than the tech stack and the tool stack that we might use for a short form Instagram beauty tip reel. And so there’s a lot of art in being able to pull all of these tools together to get them to do exactly what you want them to do. But I think the second part of your question is just as interesting as the first. I mean, what is what possibilities is this unlocking? So of course you’re finding efficiencies in the creative production process. You can move faster. You can do things were less expensive, perhaps, and you were able to do it before. But on the creator side, I think one thing that hasn’t been talked about enough is how it is really like blown wide the aperture of what creators can do and can envision. Traditionally, you know, Hollywood podcasting, many of these businesses that become big businesses have become hit making businesses where they need to focus on a very narrow of wide gen pop content that they think is going to get tens of millions, hundreds of millions in, you know, fans and dollars in revenue for every piece of content that they make. So the problem with that is, is that it really narrows the kinds of things that ultimately get made, which is why you see things happening in Hollywood, like the Blacklist, which is, you know, this famous list of really exceptional content that remains unpredited, unproduced, or why you see things like, you know, 70 to 80% of the top 100 movies being based on pre-existing IP, right? Because these are such huge bets that you need to feel very confident that you’re going to be able to get big, big audiences and big, big dollars from it. But with AI, and really lowering the barrier to entry, lowering the costs of production and marketing, the experimentation that you can do is really, really phenomenal. So, you know, my creative team, if they have an idea, they make it, you know, they don’t have to wring their hands through like a green lighting process of, you know, should we, shouldn’t we, like we, we can make an experiment with lots of different things, we can do various different versions of something. We can see what would this look like if I placed it in the 1800s, or what if I gave this character an Australian accent, and it’s just the power of being able to have this creative partner that can ideate with you and experiment with you at rocket speed. With the creators that are embracing it, you can see how it is really fun for them to be able to have this wide of a range of possibility.

Ken Suzan: Mark, when you hear about these generative pipelines, what are the immediate red flags or concerns that come to mind from a legal standpoint? How about ethics underlying all of this? Well,

Mark Stignani: that was not, that’s the number one red flag because I mean, we are seeing not just that in the entertainment industry, but it literally at political levels, and the kind of the phrase, to turn the phrase AI slop being generated, we’re seeing, you know, people’s facial expressions altered. In some cases, we’re seeing AI tools being misused to exploit various groups of individuals and genders and age groups. So I mean, there’s a whole lot of things ethically that people are using AI for that just don’t quite cover it. Especially in the entertainment industry, I mean, we’re looking at a fair amount of displacement of human workers without adequate transition support, devaluation of the creative labor. I mean, the thing though that I’m always from a technical standpoint is AI is simply a statistical average of most everything. So it kind of devalues the benefit of having a human creator, a human contribution to it. That’s the ethical side. But on the legal side, I see chain of title issues. I mean, because these are built on very questionable IP ownership stages, I mean, in most of these tools, there has been some large copying, training and taking of copyrighted materials. Is it transformational? Maybe. But there’s certainly not a chain of title, nor is there permission granted for that training. I mentioned SAG-AFTRA earlier, I think there’s a potential set of union contract aspects to this that if you know many of these agreements and use sub-licenses for authors and actor agreements, they weren’t written with AI in mind. So that’s another red flag. And also I just think in indemnification. So if we ultimately get to a point where groups are liable for using content without previous license, then who’s liable? Is the tool maker the liable group or the actual end user? So those are probably my top four red flags. But I think ethics is probably my biggest place because just because we can do something from an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean we should.

Jeanine Wright: Yeah, if I can respond to both of those points. I mean, one from a legal perspective, just to be very clear, I mean, we are always pulling from multiple different models and always pulling from multiple different sources. And we even have data sources that we license or use for single source of truth on certain pieces of information. So we’re always pulling things together from multiple different sources. We also have built into our process, you know, internal QAing and checking to make sure that we’re not misappropriating the name or likeness of any existing known personality or character. We are creating original personalities there. We design their voice from scratch. We design their look from scratch. So we’re not on our personality side, we’re not pulling or even taking inspiration from existing intellectual property that’s already out there in creating these personalities. On the ethical side, I agree. I mean, when we came out of stealth, we came out of stealth in September. There was certainly quite a bit of backlash from folks in my—I previously co-founded a company in the audio space. I mean, there’s been many rounds of layoffs in audio and in many other parts of the entertainment industry. So I’m very sensitive to the feedback around, like, is this job displacement? I mean, I do think that the CEO of NVIDIA said it right when he said, you’re likely not going to lose your job to AI, but you will lose your job to somebody who knows how to use AI. I think these tools are transforming the way that content is made and that the faster that people can embrace this tooling, the more likely they’re going to be having the kinds of roles that they want in, you know, in content creation and storytelling in the future. And we are hiring. I’m hiring AI video creators, AI audio creators. I’m hiring AI developers. So people who are looking for those roles, I mean, please reach out to me, we would love to work with you and we’d love to grow with you. We also take the ethics very seriously. For the last few months or so, I’ve met regularly with an ethicist, we talk about all sorts of issues around, you know, is designing AI-generated people, you know, good for humanity? And what about authenticity and transparency and deception, and how are we in building in this space going to avoid some of the problems that we’ve seen with things like social media and other forms of technology? So we keep that very top of mind and we try to build on our own internal values-based system and, you know, continue to elevate and include the humanity as part of the conversation.

Ken Suzan: Thank you, Jeanine. Jeanine, some argue that AI content pipelines will level the field for filmmaking, giving independent creators access to tools that were once available only to major studios. Is that the future you envision?

Jeanine Wright: I do think that with AI you will see an incredible democratization of access to technology and access to these capabilities. So I do think, you know, rise of independent filmmakers, you won’t have as many people who are sitting on a brilliant idea for the next fantastic script or movie that just cannot get it made because they will be able to with these tools, get something made and out there, at least to get the attention of somebody who could then decide that they want to invest in it at a studio kind of level in the future. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that I think, you know, AI will empower more niche content and more creators who can thrive in micro-communities. So it used to be because of this hit generation business model, everything needed to be made for the masses and a lot of content for niche audiences and micro-communities was neglected because there was just no way to make that content commercially viable. But now, if you can leverage AI—we make a pollen report podcast in 300 markets, you know, nobody would have ever made that before, but it is very valuable information, a very valuable piece of content for people who really care about the pollen in their local community. So there’s all sorts of ways that being able to leverage AI is making it more accessible both to the creator and to the audience that is looking for content that truly resonates with them.

Ken Suzan: Mark, let’s talk about the legal landscape right now. If someone creates an AI-generated performance that closely resembles a living actor without their consent, what legal recourse does that actor have?

Mark Stignani: Well, I mean, I think we can go back to the OpenAI Scarlett Johansson thing where, you know, if it’s simply—well, the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” type of aspect there. You know, I think it’s pretty straightforward that they need to walk it back. I mean, the US doesn’t have moral rights, really, but there’s a public visage right, if you will. And so, one of the things that I find predominantly useful here is that these actors likely have rights of publicity there, we probably have a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, and you know, again, if the performance is not parody, and it’s so close to the original performance, we probably have a copyright discussion. But again, all of these laws predate the use of AI, so we’re going to probably see new sets of law. I mean, we’re probably going to see “resurrection” frameworks, we’ll probably have frameworks for synthetic actors and likenesses, but the rules just aren’t there yet. So, unfortunately, your question is largely predictive versus well-settled at this point.

Ken Suzan: Jeanine, your company works with AI actors. How do you navigate the questions of consent and likeness compensation when creating digital performers?

Jeanine Wright: I mean, if we—so first of all, if we were to work with a person who is an existing real-life person or was an existing real-life person, then we would work with them to license their name and likeness or their voice or whatever aspects of it we were going to use in creating content in partnership with them. Not typically our business model; we are, as I said, designing all of our personalities from scratch and making all of our content originally. So, we’ve not had to do that historically. Now, you know, the flip side is: can I license my characters as if they’re similar to living characters? Like will I be able to license the name and likeness and voice of my AI-generated personalities? I think the answer is yes and we’re already starting to do that.

Ken Suzan: Let’s just switch gears into ethics and AI because I find this to be a really fascinating issue. I want to look at a hypothetical. And this is to both of you, Jeanine and Mark: an AI system creates a new performance by a beloved actor who passed away decades ago, and the actor’s estate authorizes it, but the actor was known to have expressed opposition to such technology during their lifetime. Is this ethical?

Jeanine Wright: This feels like a Gifts, Wills, and Trusts exam question.

Ken Suzan: It sounds like it, that’s right.

Jeanine Wright: Throwing me back to my law school days. Exactly. What are your thoughts? It’d be interesting to see like who has the rights there. I mean, I think if you have the legal rights, the question is around, you know, is it ethical to go against what you knew was somebody’s wishes at the time? I guess the honest answer is I don’t know. It would depend a lot on the circumstances of the case. I mean, if we were faced with a situation like that where there was a discrepancy, we would probably move away from doing that content out of respect for the deceased and out of a feeling that, you know, if this person felt strongly against it, then it would be less likely that you could make that storytelling exceptional in some way—it would color it in a way that you wouldn’t want in the outcome. And I feel like there’s—I mean, certainly going forward and it’s already happening—there are plenty of people I think who have name, likeness, and voice rights that they are ready to license that wouldn’t have this overhang.

Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts?

Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, again, I have to kind of go back to our property law—the Rule Against Perpetuities. You know, from a property standpoint to AI rights and likenesses—since most of the digital replica contracts that I’ve reviewed generally do talk about things in perpetuity. But if it’s not written down for that actor and the estate is doing this—is it ethical? You know, that is the debate.

Jeanine Wright: Well, gold star to you, Mark, for bringing up the Rule Against Perpetuities. There’s another one that I haven’t heard for many years. This is really taking me back to my law school days.

Ken Suzan: It’s a throwback.

Jeanine Wright: The other thing that’s really interesting is that this technology is really so revolutionary and new that it’s hard to even contemplate now what it is going to be in a decade, much less for people who have passed away to have contemplated what the potential for it could be today. So you could have somebody who is, perhaps, a deceased musician who expressed concerns about digital representations of themselves or digital music while they were alive. But now, the possibility is that you could recreate—certainly I could use my technology to recreate—that musician from scratch in a very detailed way, trained on tons of different available data. Not just like a digital twin or a moving image of them, but to really rebuild their personality from scratch, so that they and their music could be reintroduced to totally new generations in a very respectful and authentic way to them. It’s hard to know, with the understanding that that is possible, whether or not somebody who is deceased today would or would not agree to something like that. I mean, many of them might want, under those circumstances, for their music to live on. These deceased actors and musicians could live forever with the power of AI technology.

Mark Stignani: Yeah, I really just kind of go to the whole—is deep-faking a famous actor the best way to preserve them or keep them live? Again, that’s a bit more of an ethical question because the deep fakes are getting good enough right now to create huge problems. Even zoom meetings in Hong Kong where a CFO was on a call with five synthetic actors who all looked like his coworkers and they sent a big check out based upon that. So again, the technology is getting good enough to fool people.

Jeanine Wright: I think that’s right, Mark, but I guess I would just highlight the same way that it always has been: the ethical line isn’t AI versus human, the ethical line is about deception. Like, are you deceiving people? And if people know what it is that they’re getting and they’re choosing to engage with it, then I think it isn’t about the power of the technology. In our business, we have elected—not everybody has—but we have elected to be AI transparent. So we tell people when they listen to our show, we include it in our show notes, we include it on our socials. Even when we’re designing our characters to be very photo-realistic, we make an extra point to make sure that people know that this is AI-generated content or an AI personality. Like, our intention is not to deceive and to be candid. From a business model perspective, we don’t need to. I mean, there’s already people who know and understand that it is AI, and AI is different than people. Because it is AI, there’s all sorts of things that you can do with it that you would not be able to do with a real person. You know, we get people who ask us on the podcast side, we get all sorts of crazy funny requests. You know, people who say, “Can I text with this personality? Can I talk to them on the phone? Can they help me cook in the kitchen? Can they sing me Happy Birthday? Can they show up at my Zoom meeting today because I think my boss would love it?”

You know, all sorts of different ways that people are wanting to engage with these characters. And now we’re in the process of rolling out real-time personalities so people will be able to engage with our personalities live. It is a totally different way that people are able to engage with content, and people can, as they choose, decide what kind of content they want to engage with.

Ken Suzan: Jeanine and Mark, we’re coming to the end of this podcast. I would love to keep talking for hours but we have to stay to our timetable here. Last question: five years from now, what percentage of entertainment content do you predict will involve significant AI generation, and will audiences care about that percentage? Jeanine?

Jeanine Wright: I mean, I would say 99.9%. I mean, already you’re seeing—I think YouTube did a survey—that it was like 90% of its top creators said that they’re using AI as material components of their content creation process. So, I think this will be the default way that content is created. And content that is not made with AI, you know, there’ll be special film festivals for non-AI generated content, and that will be a special separate thing than the thing that everybody is doing now.

Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts?

Mark Stignani: Yeah, I go a little lower. I mean, I think Jeanine is right that we’re seeing, especially in the low-quality content creation and like the YouTube shorts and things like that, you know, there’s so much AI being pushed forward that the FTC even acquired an “AI slop” title to it. I do think that disclosure will become normalized, that the industries will be pushed to say when something is AI and what is not. And I think it’s very much like, you know, do you care about quality or not? If you value the human input or the human factor in this, there will be an upper tier where it’s “AI-free” or low AI assistant. I think that it’s going to stratify because the stuff coming through the social media platforms right now—I can’t be on it right now just because there’s so much nonsense. Even my children, who are without much AI training at all, find it just too unbelievable for them. So, I think it will become normalized, but I think that we’re going to see a bunch of tiers.

Ken Suzan: Well, Jeanine and Mark, this has been a fantastic discussion of an ever-evolving field in IP law. Thank you to both of you for spending time with us today on the IP Friday’s podcast.

Jeanine Wright: Thank you so much for having me.

Mark Stignani: Appreciate your time. Thank you again.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 171 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s interview guest is the president of the German Patent and Trademark Office Eva Schewior! But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you:

The US Supreme Court has taken up an important patent law case concerning so-called “skinny labels” for generic drugs. Specifically, the highest US court is reviewing a case in which Amarin accuses generic drug manufacturer Hikma of inciting doctors to use the cholesterol drug Vascepa in violation of patents by providing a limited package insert.

In two landmark decisions, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified the criteria for inventive step and essentially confirmed the EPO’s typical “problem-solution” approach (Amgen v Sanofi and Meril v Edwards). However, experts are not entirely sure whether the Court of Appeal’s decisions, particularly those relating to the determination of the closest prior art, deviate from EPO practice.

As a result of Brexit, mutual recognition of trademark use between the EU and the UK will cease to apply from January 1, 2026. Use of a trademark only in the UK will then no longer count as use of an EU trademark for the purpose of maintaining rights – and conversely, EU use will no longer count for British trademarks.

Bayer is attacking several mRNA vaccine manufacturers in the US (Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and J&J separately). The core allegation: patent infringements relating to old (Monsanto) patents on mRNA stabilization; Bayer is seeking damages, not sales bans.

DISCO Pharmaceuticals from Cologne signs an exclusive license agreement with Amgen (potentially up to USD 618 million plus royalties) for novel cancer therapies targeting surface structures. Relevant from an IP perspective: license scope, milestones, data/know-how allocation.

And now let’s jump into the interview with Eva Schewior!

The German IP System in Transition: Key Insights from DPMA President Eva Schewior

In an in-depth conversation on the IP Fridays podcast, Eva Schewior, President of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA), outlined how Germany’s IP system is responding to rising demand, technological change, and a fundamentally altered European patent landscape. The interview offers valuable insights for innovators, companies, and IP professionals navigating patent, trademark, and design protection in Europe.

Sustained Demand and Procedural Efficiency

Despite the introduction of the Unitary Patent system, national German IP rights continue to see strong and growing demand. According to Schewior, application numbers at the DPMA have been increasing for years, which she views as a strong vote of confidence in the quality and reliability of German IP rights. At the same time, this success creates pressure on examination capacity.

The average duration of patent proceedings at the DPMA is currently around three years and two months from filing to grant, provided applicants request examination early and avoid extensions. Internationally, this timeframe remains competitive. Nevertheless, shortening procedures remains a strategic priority. Search requests alone have risen by almost 50% over the past decade, yet the DPMA still delivers search reports on time in around 90% of cases.

To better reflect applicant needs, the DPMA distinguishes between two main user groups: applicants seeking a rapid grant, often as a basis for international filings, and applicants primarily interested in a fast, high-quality initial assessment through search or first examination. Future procedural adjustments are being considered to better serve both groups.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence already plays a practical role at the DPMA, particularly in patent search, classification, and the translation of Asian patent literature. Schewior emphasized that the office is closely monitoring rapid developments in AI to assess where these tools can further improve efficiency.

However, she made clear that AI will remain a supporting technology. In public administration, and especially in IP examination, final decisions must always be taken and reviewed by humans. AI is seen as a way to relieve examiners of routine tasks so they can focus on substantive examination and quality.

Maintaining and Monitoring Examination Quality

Quality assurance is a central pillar of the DPMA’s work. Schewior reported consistently positive feedback from users, but stressed that maintaining quality is a continuous task. The office applies systematic double checks for grants and refusals and uses internal quality management tools to randomly review searches and first office actions during ongoing proceedings.

External feedback is equally important. The DPMA’s User Advisory Board, which includes patent attorneys, startups, and patent information centers, plays a key role in identifying issues and suggesting improvements. Several of its recommendations have already been implemented.

Trademark Filings and Bad-Faith Applications

The trademark side of the DPMA has experienced particularly strong growth. In 2025, the office received around 95,000 trademark applications, an increase of approximately 18% compared to the previous year. Much of this growth came from abroad, especially from China.

While new trademark types such as sound marks, multimedia marks, and holograms have so far seen only moderate uptake, word marks and figurative marks remain dominant. A growing challenge, however, is the rise in bad-faith trademark filings. The DPMA has responded by intensively training examiners to identify and handle such cases.

Procedural reforms following EU trademark law modernization have also shifted competencies. Applicants can now choose whether to bring revocation and invalidity actions before the courts or directly before the DPMA. While courts may act faster, proceedings before the DPMA involve significantly lower financial risk, as each party generally bears its own costs.

Accelerated Examination as a Practical Tool

Despite rising filing numbers, the DPMA aims to avoid significant delays in trademark proceedings. Organizational restructuring within the trademark department is intended to balance workloads across teams.

Schewior highlighted the option of accelerated trademark examination, available for a relatively modest additional fee. In practice, this can lead to registration within a matter of weeks, without affecting priority, since the filing date remains decisive.

New Protection for Geographical Indications

A major recent development is the extension of EU-wide protection for geographical indications to craft and industrial products. Since late 2025, the DPMA acts as the national authority for German applications in this area. The first application has already been filed, notably for a traditional German product.

Under the new system, applications undergo a national examination phase at the DPMA before being forwarded to the EUIPO for final decision. Products eligible for protection must originate from a specific region and derive their quality or reputation from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. The EU estimates that around 40 German products may qualify.

Outreach, SMEs, and Education

Schewior underlined the DPMA’s statutory duty to inform the public about IP rights, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. The office has significantly expanded its presence on platforms such as LinkedIn and YouTube, offering accessible and practical IP content.

Studies show that fewer than 10% of European SMEs use IP rights, despite evidence that IP-owning companies generate higher revenues. To address this gap, the DPMA is expanding outreach formats, strengthening cooperation with educational institutions, and publishing new empirical studies, including a forthcoming analysis of patenting behavior among innovative German startups conducted with WIPO.

Strategic Challenges Ahead

Looking forward, Schewior identified several key challenges: insufficient awareness of IP protection among SMEs and startups, a tendency in some sectors to rely solely on trade secrets, and the growing problem of product and trademark piracy linked to organized crime.

From an institutional perspective, the DPMA must remain attractive and competitive in a European system offering multiple routes to protection. This requires legally robust decisions, efficient procedures, qualified staff, and continuous investment in IT and training.

Careers at the DPMA

Finally, Schewior highlighted recruitment as a strategic priority. The DPMA recently hired around 50 new patent examiners and continues to seek experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace, as well as IT specialists, lawyers, and staff in many other functions. She emphasized the DPMA’s role as Europe’s largest national patent office and a globally significant, stable, and family-friendly employer at the forefront of technological development.

German and European Patents as Complementary Options

In her closing remarks, Schewior addressed the post-UPC patent landscape. Rather than competing, German and European patent systems complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent alone may be sufficient, particularly where Germany is the core market. At the same time, the possibility of holding both a European patent and a national German patent offers strategic resilience, as national protection can survive even if a European patent is revoked.

Her key message was clear: the range of options has never been broader, but making informed strategic choices is more important than ever.

If you would like, I can also adapt this article for a specialist legal audience, condense it for a magazine format, or rework it as a thought-leadership piece for LinkedIn or your website.

Rolf Claessen:

Today’s interview guest is Eva Schewior. If you don’t know her yet, she is the President of the German Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you very much for being here.

Eva Schewior:

I’m very happy that you’re having me today. Thank you, Mr. Claessen.

Rolf Claessen:

Shortening the length of procedures has been a stated goal since you took office. What is the current situation, and which measures are in place to achieve this goal?

Eva Schewior:

First of all, I’m very glad that German IP rights are in high demand. Even though applicants in Europe have multiple options today to obtain protection for their innovations, we have seen increasing application numbers for years at my office, even after the introduction of the Unitary Patent system. I see this as very positive feedback for our work.

It is clear, however, that the high number of applications leads to a constantly increasing workload. At the same time, we want to remain attractive for our applicants. This means we must offer not only high-quality IP rights but also reasonable durations of proceedings. Ensuring this remains a central and permanent objective of our strategy.

The average duration of proceedings from filing to grant is currently about three years and two months, provided that applicants file an examination request within the first four months after application and do not request extensions of time limits. In other cases, the average duration of proceedings is admittedly longer. With these three years and two months, we do not have to shy away from international comparison. Nonetheless, we strive to get better.

In the last few years, we were able to improve the number of concluded proceedings or to keep them at a high level. In some areas, we were even able to shorten durations of proceedings a bit, though not yet to the extent that we would have wished for. Our efforts are often overtaken by the increasing demand for our services.

Just to give you an example, in the last ten to fifteen years, search requests increased by nearly fifty percent. Despite this, we managed to deliver search reports in ninety percent of all cases in time, so that customers have enough time left to take a decision on a subsequent application.

I have to admit that we are not equally successful with the first official communication containing the first results of our examination. Here, our applicants need a bit more patience due to longer durations of proceedings. But I think I do not have to explain to your expert audience that longer processing times depend on various reasons, which are in no way solely to be found on our side as an examination office.

To further reduce the length of proceedings, we need targeted measures. To identify them, we have analyzed the needs of our applicants. It has been shown that there are two main interests in patent procedures. About three quarters of our applicants have a very strong interest in obtaining a patent. They mainly expect us to make fast decisions on their applications. Here we find applicants who want to have their invention protected within Germany but often also wish for subsequent protection outside Germany.

The remaining quarter consists of applicants that are solely interested in a fast and high-quality first assessment of the application by means of a search or a first official examination. We observe that these applicants use our services before they subsequently apply outside Germany. This latter group has little interest in continuing the procedure before my office here in Germany.

We are currently considering how we can act in the best interest of both groups. What I can certainly say is that we will continue to address this topic. And of course, in general, it can be said that if we want to shorten the duration of proceedings, we need motivated and highly skilled patent examiners.

Therefore, we are currently recruiting many young colleagues for our offices in Munich and Jena, and we want to make our procedures more efficient by using new technical options, thus taking workload from patent examiners and enabling them to concentrate on their core tasks and on speedy examination.

Rolf Claessen:

Thank you very much. I also feel that the German Patent and Trademark Office has become quite popular, especially with the start of the UPC. Some applicants seem to find that it is a very clever option to also file national patents in Germany.

Eva Schewior:

I think you’re perfectly right, and I think we will come to this point later.

Rolf Claessen:

In 2023, you mentioned artificial intelligence as an important tool for supporting patent examiners. What has happened regarding AI since then?

Eva Schewior:

Of course, we are already successfully using AI at our office. For instance, in the field of patent search, we use AI-based tools that make our examiners’ work easier. We also use AI quite successfully for classification and for the translation of Asian patent literature into English.

In the meantime, we have seen a rapid development of AI in the market. I think it is strategically imperative to get an overview and to make realistic assessments of what AI is capable of doing to make our procedures more efficient. Therefore, we are observing the market to find out where AI can perform tasks so that we enable examiners to concentrate on their core business.

There are many ideas right now in our office where artificial intelligence can help us tackle challenges, for instance demographic change, which certainly also affects our office, and maintaining our quality standards. We will strategically promote new tools in this field to cope with these challenges.

But this much is also clear: humans will always stay in our focus. Especially in public administration, I consider it a fundamental principle that in the end, decisions must be taken and reviewed by humans. AI may help us reach our goals in a more efficient way, but it can never replace patent or trademark examiners.

Rolf Claessen:

You have made quality improvements in patent examination a priority and have already implemented a number of measures. How would you describe the current situation?

Eva Schewior:

I often receive positive feedback from different sides that our users are very satisfied with the quality of our examination, and I’m very glad about that. But maintaining this quality standard is a permanent task, and we must not become careless here.

For years, for instance, we have established double checks for all grants and rejections. In addition, we have introduced a quality management tool that enables us, even during the examination process, to randomly check the quality of first office communications and searches. This helps us detect critical trends and take appropriate countermeasures at a very early stage.

What is also very important when it comes to patent quality is to actively ask our customers for their feedback. We do this in different ways. Just to give you an example, we have a User Advisory Board, which is a panel of external experts implemented a couple of years ago. Discussing questions of quality is regularly on the agenda of this board. We carefully listen to criticism, ideas, and suggestions, and we have already implemented some of them for the benefit of the office and our users.

Rolf Claessen:

The German Patent and Trademark Office, as the largest patent and trademark office in Europe, records very high numbers of trademark applications. What are you currently especially concerned with in the trademark area?

Eva Schewior:

In 2025, we saw around ninety-five thousand trademark applications. This is an increase of eighteen percent compared to the previous year, and I have to say that this took us by surprise. Especially applications from outside Germany, and above all from China, have risen significantly.

It is of course challenging to cope with such a sudden increase on an organizational level. Another challenge is dealing with trademark applications filed in bad faith, which we are currently seeing more and more of. We have thoroughly trained our trademark examiners on how to identify and handle such applications.

As regards the new types of trademarks, the rush has been moderate so far. Sound marks, multimedia marks, or holograms are apparently not yet common solutions for the majority of applicants. The key focus remains on word marks and combined word and figurative marks. Nevertheless, I believe that the new trademark types are a meaningful supplement and may play a greater role as digitization advances.

The most significant changes, however, concern procedures. Applicants can now choose whether to file revocation or invalidity actions with the courts or with our office. While courts may proceed somewhat faster, the financial risk is higher. Before the DPMA, each party generally bears its own costs, apart from exceptional cases.

Rolf Claessen:

How does this dynamic filing development impact the duration of trademark proceedings?

Eva Schewior:

This is indeed a major organizational challenge. For a long time, our trademark department managed to keep durations of proceedings very short, especially with regard to registration. Despite the recent increases in applications, especially in 2025, we hope to avoid a significant extension of processing times.

We have restructured the organization of the trademark department to distribute applications more equally among teams. Applicants should also be aware that it is possible to request accelerated examination for a relatively moderate fee of two hundred euros. This often leads to registration within a very short time. The filing date, of course, always determines priority.

Rolf Claessen:

Since December 2025, the EU grants protection not only for agricultural products but also for craft and industrial products through geographical indications. Has your office already received applications?

Eva Schewior:

Yes, we have received our first application, and interestingly it concerns garden gnomes. Protected geographical indications are an important topic because they help maintain traditional know-how in regions and secure local jobs.

The DPMA is the competent authority for Germany. Applications go through a national examination phase at our office before being forwarded to the EUIPO, which takes the final decision on EU-wide registration. Eligible products must originate from a specific region and derive their quality, reputation, or characteristics from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there.

Rolf Claessen:

The DPMA has expanded its outreach activities, including social media. What else is planned?

Eva Schewior:

Raising awareness of IP rights, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, is part of our statutory duty. We currently use LinkedIn and YouTube to communicate IP topics in an understandable and engaging way. We also plan dedicated LinkedIn channels, for example for SMEs.

Studies show that fewer than ten percent of European SMEs use IP rights, even though those that do earn significantly more on average. In 2026, we will further expand outreach activities, cooperate more closely with universities and educational institutions, and publish new studies, including one on the patenting behavior of innovative German start-ups conducted together with WIPO.

Rolf Claessen:

Where do you see the biggest future challenges in IP?

Eva Schewior:

Germany depends on innovation, but awareness of IP protection is still insufficient, particularly among SMEs and start-ups. Some companies deliberately avoid IP rights and rely on trade secrets, which I consider risky. Another growing concern is the increase in product and trademark piracy, often linked to organized crime.

For our office, remaining attractive and competitive is crucial. Applicants have many options in Europe, so we need fast procedures, legally robust decisions, qualified staff, and modern IT systems.

Rolf Claessen:

The DPMA is currently recruiting. Which areas are you focusing on?

Eva Schewior:

Our focus is on patent examination and IT. We recently hired fifty new patent examiners and are particularly looking for experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace. We are Europe’s largest national patent office and offer meaningful, secure jobs with fair compensation and strong development opportunities.

Rolf Claessen:

Is there a final message you would like to share with our listeners?

Eva Schewior:

The Unitary Patent system has created many new options. German and European patent systems do not compete; they complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent may already be sufficient, especially where Germany is the core market. Holding both European and national patents can also be a strategic advantage.

My key message is: be aware of the options, stay informed, and choose your IP strategy deliberately.

Rolf Claessen:

Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays.

Eva Schewior:

Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.

Brian is: Managing Director, GlassRatner

LinkedIn bio:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianbuss

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 170 of our podcast IP Fridays! We also want to wish you a happy holiday season and a successful year 2026!

Today’s interview guest is Brian Buss. He is the managing director of GlassRatner and my co-host Ken Suzan talks with him about the valuation of intellectual property rights and damages in infringement cases.

But before we jump into the interview, I have news for you!

A US start-up called Operation Bluebird is trying to take over the “Twitter” trademark. It has asked the USPTO to cancel Twitter word marks, arguing that Elon Musk’s company X no longer uses them after the rebrand. Led by a former Twitter trademark lawyer, Operation Bluebird also filed its own “Twitter” trademark application. Commentators note that X could face challenges defending the legacy marks if they are truly no longer in use.

In parallel, the US debate on patent quality and review procedures is intensifying. The USPTO proposed controversial rule changes that would restrict Inter Partes Review (IPR). The proposal triggered substantial backlash, with more than 11,000 public comments submitted—over 4,000 of them via the civil liberties group EFF.

In the EU, a major trademark reform will take effect on 1 January 2026. It aims to simplify procedures, recognize new types of marks (including hologram, multimedia, and motion marks), and make fees more SME-friendly (e.g., lower base fees for the first class and discounts for timely renewals). Opposition procedures will be further harmonized across the EU, including a mandatory “cooling-off” period, so mid-sized brand owners should adjust filing and monitoring strategies accordingly.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to see strong uptake, especially in Germany. In the first 18 months since its launch on 1 June 2023, well over 900 cases were filed, with German local divisions (Munich, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg) leading in patent actions. While many early cases were filed in German, English now dominates as the main language of proceedings. The court has largely met its timelines, with oral hearings typically held within 12 months of filing.

China has reached a milestone in its patent system: for the first time, a country has surpassed 5 million active invention patents. CNIPA emphasizes a strategic shift from “quantity to quality,” citing growth in “high-value” patents and higher commercialization rates for university inventions. China has also led global PCT filings for six consecutive years—signals of rapid technological progress relevant to IP planning for German SMEs.

On 4 December 2025, the USPTO issued new guidance on “Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations.” These declarations allow applicants to submit additional evidence to support patent eligibility for emerging technologies such as AI systems and medical diagnostics, aiming to reduce the risk that breakthrough inventions are excluded from protection under strict eligibility case law.

In December, the European Patent Office (EPO) introduced new patent-quality measures. Third parties can now submit observations on published applications or granted patents via a simplified online form. These Third-Party Observations—supported by evidence and even filed anonymously—go directly to examination teams to flag potential obstacles early.

The Interview with Brian Buss:

Ken Suzan interviews Brian Buss, a valuation and damages expert who describes his work as “financial detective” work: identifying what intellectual property and other intangible assets are worth and how they translate into measurable economic benefits such as sales, profit, earnings, or cash flow.

Buss emphasizes that “IP” should be understood broadly, not only as formal rights (patents, trademarks, copyrights), but also as brands, technology portfolios, internet and social media assets, know-how, and other business intangibles that help generate economic value.

A central point is that IP is often a company’s most valuable resource but is rarely measured well. Buss cites a “value gap” he observed in middle-market public companies: market capitalization often exceeds the asset values shown on balance sheets, and much of the gap is explained by intangible assets and IP. He argues that valuation helps companies understand ROI on IP spend (prosecution, protection, enforcement) and supports better strategic decision-making.

He outlines common scenarios that trigger IP valuation: internal management needs (understanding performance drivers), disputes about resource allocation (e.g., technology vs. marketing), external events (M&A, licensing, partnerships, franchising, divestitures), and pricing strategy (how exclusivity supported by IP should affect product/service pricing).

On “how” valuation is performed, Buss summarizes the three standard approaches—cost (replacement/replication cost), market (comparable transactions), and income (present value of future benefits). He adds that strong IP valuation requires integrating three dimensions of analysis: financial factors (performance data and projections), behavioral factors (customer demand drivers, perceptions, brand recall, feature importance), and legal factors (registration/enforcement history and competitive IP landscape).

For practical readiness, he advises companies to improve data discipline: maintain solid books and records; develop credible budgets, forecasts, and business plans; document marketing activities; and actively collect/monitor website and social analytics (e.g., traffic sources, engagement). He stresses that these datasets inform valuation even for technology assets like patents, because they reveal whether protected features are actually marketed and valued by customers.

A concrete example is domain names, which he frames as “virtual real estate.” In due diligence for a domain sale, he would focus on analytics showing whether the domain itself drives traffic (direct type-ins, branded search terms, bookmarks) versus traffic driven by other marketing efforts. The key question is whether the address is known and used as a pathway to the business.

In closing, Buss argues that while gathering the necessary information requires effort, the investment typically pays off through greater awareness of the most valuable assets, better strategic decisions, and stronger support for growth opportunities. He presents IP valuation as a virtuous cycle of information, insight, and improved decision-making—summed up in his recurring theme: knowledge of IP value is “power” to increase business profitability and enterprise value.

Here is the full transcript:

Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian Buss. Brian is a managing director with Glass-Rattner Advisory and Capital Group. Brian provides financial analysis, corporate finance, and expert testimony around the world.

Ken Suzan: Mr. Buss provides strategic advice for owners of intellectual property portfolios, transactional services such as acquisition due diligence and purchase price allocation, and valuation services for trademarks, patents, copyrights, brand assets, trade secrets, technology assets, and intangibles.

Ken Suzan: During his career, Mr. Buss has provided valuation opinions and financial analysis in business disputes and in transactions, and he has been retained as a testifying expert and consulting expert in federal court, state courts, and arbitration proceedings.

Ken Suzan: As an expert, Mr. Buss has provided over 100 expert opinions, served as an expert witness at trial and deposition, and has been published in numerous journals and publications. He is also a participant in the International Task Force on Intellectual Property Reporting for Brands.

Ken Suzan: Brian holds an MBA from San Diego State University and a bachelor’s degree from Claremont McKenna College. Welcome, Brian, to the IP Fridays podcast.

Brian Buss: Thank you, Ken, for having me. I appreciate the opportunity.

Ken Suzan: Excellent, Brian. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your professional background and what you do in the world of IP?

Brian Buss: Sure. I’m a valuation professional and an economic damages expert. Most of my work involves valuing intellectual property and intangible assets and, in litigation contexts, assessing economic damages—often related to IP disputes. My role is frequently to translate legal or technical issues into financial outcomes.

Ken Suzan: When people hear “IP,” they often think patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In your work, how broadly do you define intellectual property and intangible assets?

Brian Buss: I define it very broadly. Of course, there are the formal rights—patents, trademarks, copyrights—but there are many other intangible assets that drive value: brand reputation, customer relationships, proprietary know-how, trade secrets, data, software, domain names, social media assets, and the systems and processes a business builds over time. All of those can create economic value, even if they’re not always captured well on a balance sheet.

Ken Suzan: Why is IP valuation important for companies—especially mid-sized businesses that may not have a large in-house legal or finance team?

Brian Buss: Because IP and intangible assets can be a large portion—sometimes the largest portion—of what makes a business valuable, yet they’re often not measured or managed with the same discipline as tangible assets. Valuation can help companies understand what is actually driving revenue, profit, and enterprise value. It can also help them justify investment in IP creation, protection, and enforcement, and it can support strategic decisions like licensing, partnerships, acquisitions, or pricing.

Ken Suzan: You’ve talked elsewhere about a “value gap” between what’s on the balance sheet and what the market thinks a company is worth. Can you explain that concept?

Brian Buss: Sure. If you look at many companies—particularly in the middle market—you’ll often see that market capitalization exceeds the asset values recorded on the balance sheet. A significant portion of that difference is attributable to intangible assets and IP that accounting rules don’t fully recognize unless there’s an acquisition. That “gap” is essentially the market saying, “There is value here beyond tangible assets,” and much of it comes from intangibles.

Ken Suzan: What are the most common situations where a company needs an IP valuation?

Brian Buss: There are a few big categories. One is transactions—M&A, due diligence, purchase price allocation, and financing. Another is licensing and partnerships—setting royalty rates, structuring deals, or evaluating whether a proposed license makes economic sense. A third is internal management: understanding ROI on R&D, marketing, or IP spend, or resolving internal debates about what is really driving business performance. And of course, litigation—damages, reasonable royalties, lost profits, and other economic remedies tied to IP.

Ken Suzan: In practical terms, how do you value IP? What methods do you use?

Brian Buss: The valuation profession generally relies on three approaches: the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach. The cost approach looks at what it would cost to recreate or replace the asset. The market approach looks at comparable transactions—if you can find good comparables. The income approach is often the most relevant for IP: it looks at the present value of future economic benefits attributable to the IP, based on cash flows, risk, and time.

Ken Suzan: In addition to the financial methods, what other factors matter? For example, legal strength or market perception?

Brian Buss: Exactly. A strong valuation integrates financial, behavioral, and legal analysis. Financial is obvious—historic results, projections, margins, pricing. Behavioral is about demand drivers—what customers value, how they perceive the brand, how features influence purchasing decisions, and what drives loyalty or switching. Legal involves the nature of the IP rights, scope, enforceability, registration and maintenance history, and the competitive landscape. IP exists at the intersection of all three.

Ken Suzan: What kind of information should a company have ready if they want to do an IP valuation?

Brian Buss: Good books and records are essential—reliable financial statements, product-level revenue and cost data if possible, and credible budgets and forecasts. They should also document marketing activities, product positioning, and the role of IP in commercialization. For digital and brand assets, analytics matter—website traffic sources, conversion data, engagement metrics, and social media statistics. The more you can connect the IP or intangible asset to measurable economic outcomes, the stronger the valuation.

Ken Suzan: That’s interesting—people might not think that marketing analytics matter for patents. Can you explain how those link up?

Brian Buss: Sure. A patent might cover a particular feature or technology, but the key economic question is: does that feature drive demand? If customers value it and it supports pricing power, adoption, or market share, that’s important. Marketing materials, customer communications, sales training, and analytics can help show what the company emphasizes and what resonates with customers. It helps tie the legal right to real-world economic value.

Ken Suzan: You mentioned domain names earlier. Many people underestimate them. How do you think about domain names as an asset?

Brian Buss: I often describe domain names as virtual real estate. The question is whether the domain is a meaningful pathway to the business. In a valuation context, you’d look at the domain’s role in generating traffic—direct navigation, branded search, bookmarks, and repeat visits. You’d also look at how much traffic is attributable to the domain itself versus paid marketing. If the domain is known and drives organic traffic and credibility, it can be quite valuable.

Ken Suzan: So, if you’re doing due diligence on a domain sale, what would you look for?

Brian Buss: I’d look closely at analytics: traffic volume over time, sources of traffic, geographic distribution, conversion rates, and the relationship between marketing spend and traffic. If traffic is mostly paid and disappears when marketing stops, that’s different than sustained direct navigation. I’d also look at brand alignment, risk factors, and whether there are disputes or competing rights.

Ken Suzan: For a mid-sized company listening to this, what are the biggest “misses” you see—things companies do that reduce the value they can capture from IP?

Brian Buss: A big one is not collecting and organizing information that demonstrates value. Another is not aligning IP strategy with business strategy—filing patents or trademarks without a clear plan for how they support products, markets, and revenue. Some companies also underinvest in documenting commercialization and customer impact, which becomes important in transactions and disputes. And sometimes they simply don’t revisit their portfolios to understand what is still relevant and what is not.

Ken Suzan: How should companies think about ROI on IP spend—both the costs of prosecution and the costs of enforcement?

Brian Buss: They should start by identifying the economic role of the IP: is it supporting pricing power, is it protecting market share, is it enabling licensing revenue, is it reducing competitive entry? Then they can compare the costs—filing, maintenance, monitoring, enforcement—against the value it protects or creates. Valuation can provide a framework for that, and it can also help prioritize where to spend resources.

Ken Suzan: When valuation is used in litigation, what are the typical types of damages analysis you’re asked to perform?

Brian Buss: Commonly, reasonable royalty analysis, lost profits, unjust enrichment, and sometimes disgorgement depending on the jurisdiction and the claims. The specifics depend on the legal framework, but the core is the same: quantify the economic harm and connect it causally to the alleged infringement or misappropriation, using financial data, market evidence, and assumptions that can be tested.

Ken Suzan: Are there misconceptions about valuation that you’d like to correct for our audience?

Brian Buss: One misconception is that valuation is purely subjective or that it’s just an “opinion.” A good valuation is grounded in data, established methodologies, and transparent assumptions. Another is that intangibles can’t be measured. They can be measured—often through the economic benefits they create and through evidence of customer behavior and market dynamics. It takes work, but it’s doable.

Ken Suzan: If a company wants to prepare for a future transaction—say a sale or a major partnership—what are some practical steps they can take now to make their IP story stronger?

Brian Buss: Maintain clean records, develop credible forecasts, and document the link between IP and business results. Make sure registrations and maintenance are up to date. Track how IP supports products and competitive differentiation. Collect evidence of brand strength and customer loyalty. And if possible, structure internal reporting so you can see performance by product line or offering. That helps in due diligence and helps buyers or partners understand what they’re paying for.

Ken Suzan: Any final thoughts or advice for owners of intellectual property portfolios, transactional professionals, or executives listening to this?

Brian Buss: I’d emphasize that the investment in gathering the information needed for evaluation typically pays off. It creates awareness of the most valuable assets, supports better strategic decisions, and makes it easier to pursue growth opportunities. IP valuation is a virtuous cycle of information gathering, analysis, deeper understanding, and then decision-making. Knowledge is power, and knowledge of the value of your IP is the power to increase the profitability and value of your business. IP valuation is a key element of the management toolkit.

Ken Suzan: Brian, well said, and thank you so much for taking time today to be on the IP Fridays podcast.

Brian Buss: Thank you, Ken. I really appreciate the opportunity.