In this fireside conversation, a senior USPTO official discusses current patent policy priorities, PTAB practice, and how the Office is approaching emerging technologies and global enforcement pressures.
Under Director Squires’ leadership, the PTAB has seen reduced reliance on discretionary denials and a recalibrated role for inter partes review. This session brings together former PTAB faculty and experienced PTAB litigators to examine how institution standards are being applied in practice, why certain challenges are proving less viable than before, and when alternatives such as ex parte re-examination may offer a more effective path.
- Why challengers are re-assessing IPR risk and turning to ex parte re-examination, including trade-offs around timing, estoppel, and examiner workload.
- How patent owners are using PTAB uncertainty to influence parallel litigation and settlement leverage.
- Practical guidance on selecting and sequencing invalidity tools in the current PTAB environment
- Consider venues in alternative jurisdictions such as the EPO and UPC.

Deborah Sterling

Ryan Daniel

Victoria Reines
This judges’ panel offers candid insight into how courts approach patent disputes involving complex technologies, including software, electronics, and standards-based products. Drawing on recent decisions and, judges from key US jurisdictions will discuss what most influences outcomes from claim construction and technical tutorials to expert testimony and damages models.

Klaus Grabinski

Martin McGee
Hatch-Waxman case outcomes are often decided by early choices that shape risk, cost, and leverage long before trial. This session offers a structured review of how companies are building and defending Hatch-Waxman cases, from the first Paragraph IV notice through to final judgement.
- Identify strategic decision points from Paragraph IV notice to trial, and where early decisions most influence outcomes.
- Review recent key Hatch-Waxman cases, such as Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025), and Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025); examine how their outcomes have influenced litigation strategy.
- Managing evidence, discovery scope, and expert strategy.
- Compare US Hatch-Waxman litigation strategy to parallel approaches in Canada and other key jurisdictions, including differences in timing, remedies and leverage.

Jim Harrington

Laura Chubb
Ten years on from the enactment of the DTSA, trade secret law has become a core pillar of U.S. IP enforcement. Over that period, courts have clarified key aspects of the statute, including reasonable measures, extraterritorial reach, damages, and the interaction between federal and state trade secret claims. At the same time, in-house counsel, litigators, and policymakers have increasingly questioned whether the DTSA is operating as originally intended, or whether targeted reform is now needed to address cost, overreach, and changing business realities. This debate will assess whether the DTSA remains fit for purpose as it enters its second decade.
- How DTSA jurisprudence has evolved since 2016, including court treatment of reasonable measures and trade secret identification.
- Concerns around litigation cost, discovery burden, and overbroad claims in modern DTSA cases.
- How courts are applying the DTSA’s extraterritorial provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 1837.
- Whether recent enforcement outcomes and damages awards align with congressional intent.
- Review the Uniform Law Commission’s Drafting Committee’s decisions in updating the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).

Ken Corsello
Ken Corsello is an IP Law Counsel at IBM. He currently focuses on drafting and negotiating patent licenses and assignment agreements. At IBM, he has worked on patent procurement, litigation, client counseling, product clearance, and IP transactional matters.
Before joining IBM, Ken was a law clerk to Chief Judge Glenn Archer at the Federal Circuit; an Associate Solicitor in the USPTO; and in private practice at law firms in Washington, D.C. He did his undergraduate work in Computer Science at SUNY Stony Brook, received his JD from the Catholic University, and obtained an LL.M. from George Washington University.
Ken has been the chair of IPO’s Trade Secrets Committee since 2016. His recent presentations on trade secret law include participating in a panel at the USPTO’s “Trending Issues in Trade Secrets: 2019” symposium and as a witness on behalf of IPO at the 2018 hearing on “Safeguarding Trade Secrets in the United States” held by the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
This presentation uses litigation and settlement data to examine how patent type, timing, and strategy influence settlement outcomes, retained exclusivity, and overall leverage across pharma patent litigation.
Join this session for a review of recent trade secret cases and outcomes across key jurisdictions in the US and further afield; examine how reasonable measure standards have evolved, and what courts are now accepting.

William Logan
Gain firsthand insight into how judges from the PTAB and federal courts in key jurisdictions are approaching pharmaceutical and biotech patent disputes. This session offers a rare opportunity to hear directly from the decision-makers on litigation strategy, evidentiary expectations, and what most influences outcomes in complex patent cases.

Klaus Grabinski
In light of recent changes in PTAB practice under new USPTO Director John A. Squires, in-house teams are reassessing disclosure risk, IPR exposure, and long-term enforceability, particularly for manufacturing processes, algorithms, and data-driven know-how. This session focuses on how companies are making these calls in practice, and how patent strategy is directly shaping trade secret risk in later disputes.
- How PTAB institution trends, discretionary denial, and parallel-proceeding strategy are influencing decisions to rely more heavily on trade secrets.
- Where patent specifications, prosecution history, and expert positions have later been used to argue that information was disclosed and no longer secret.
- Managing the risk of over-disclosure in patent filings while preserving meaningful trade secret protection.
- When companies deliberately shift from patenting to trade secret protection over a product’s lifecycle, and what triggers that shift.

Erica LoRe

Damon Gupta
Damon Gupta is a Director, Patent Counsel at Spark Therapeutics, Inc., a leader in gene therapy and member of the Roche Group. With over a decade of experience in intellectual property (IP) law and a background in molecular biology, Damon advises biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies on patent strategy, IP transactions, and risk mitigation. At Spark, Damon leads efforts to protect proprietary assets, including trade secrets, manage IP disputes, and provides IP support to cross-functional teams, including R&D, manufacturing, and corporate transactions. Damon holds a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, an M.S. from Baylor College of Medicine, and a B.S. from The Ohio State University.