From the mainstage to breakout discussions, it was clear that in-house and outside counsel align on one answer: better data and reporting that translate patents into business outcomes.
Here is a recap of some key conversations from IPCC New York and their implications for your IP team.
Executives don’t want filing counts. The days of measuring portfolio value by the number of applications filed or patents issued are in the past. They want to see how patents protect or increase revenue, block competitors, and future-proof roadmap bets.
The expectation is growing that IP leaders will share qualitative reports about the value of IP. When businesses see coverage on differentiators, exposure against top rivals, and clear portfolio gaps, the perception of IP changes. Proof through data moves IP into a more critical business role.
As budgeting season wraps up, many companies have been considering how they will incorporate AI into their 2026 strategy and tech stack. AI is really catching on in certain areas: helping to automate inventor disclosures, conduct prior art searches, classify patent portfolios, and prune maintenance fees. In the last 6 months, more and more practitioners have also begun trialing and consistently using GenAI in patent drafting. Law firms are launching AI committees dedicated to testing new tools and incorporating them into their workflows.
I heard two patterns: some in-house teams are pushing firms to use AI to lower fees, and some firms are adopting AI to protect margins. Either way, clients expect to share in the savings.
Creating an AI task force cross-functionally may also help get groups from different departments collaborating on how to solve hard problems. Ensure the right governance is in place. But the overall consensus is that total avoidance of AI is shortsighted and that this technology can create many efficiencies if adopted correctly.
Some in-house teams are pressuring their firms to use AI to drive costs down, while some firms are proactively incorporating AI to help increase their margins. Either way, corporate IP teams expect they will at least share in the savings from AI with their firms in the form of lower fixed fee arrangements.
Grab the handout, AI Across the Patent Prosecution Lifecycle, to see where AI is already working across disclosures, prior art, drafting, prosecution, and portfolio strategy.
In a budget-constrained environment, IP teams must be judicious about where and what they file. Some IP teams are leveraging data to determine where roadmaps are exposed, and then filing or buy assets with intent. Where assets overlap or no longer support the strategy, they prune or sell.
One theme stood out: culture can block good decisions. Some teams resist dropping assets, while others resist filing. Data calms both camps. Show the coverage map, the cost curve, and the risk if a competitor moves first.
In-house teams expect more from outside counsel than prosecution support alone. They want firms to have strong product-level insights and informed strategy recommendations. Firms need to help their clients be more judicious in their filing approach.
Discretionary denials under Fintiv continue to shape strategy. If a district court case is moving, don’t assume IPR will be available as a safety valve. The takeaway is simple: assess risk earlier, file smarter, and avoid duplicating issues already advancing in court.
There is also renewed talk about injunctions for practicing entities. eBay still governs, but the temperature is rising. If you sell products, maintaining a living continuation practice on genuine differentiators may help you shape claims to real-world use cases and supply-chain choke points.
That strategy could prepare you to enforce, not just to allow.
In the fireside chat with USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, ‘quality, quality, quality’ landed. Examiners now get more weight on FAOM and tighter credit on interviews unless they move prosecution. Examiners now receive relatively more weight for the first action on the merits and tighter credit for interviews unless they advance prosecution.
Treat interviews as high-leverage moments rather than routine touchpoints since you may only have one shot. Arrive with data that supports a concrete path to allowance, and document outcomes so you can justify additional discussions when needed. Interview early in prosecution for the highest impact on allowance rate - dispelling confusion about what the invention does early can help provide important clarification and avoid unnecessary office actions later on.
This is an operations problem as much as a legal one. Patent analytics gives you the insight into which levers to pull.
Budget constraints and some disillusionment with the patent system has caused in-house teams to be more thoughtful about what to patent vs. what to keep as a trade secret. Ask one question first: can a competitor discover the innovation in the wild?
If yes, patent it. If not, and you can control access, you may consider keeping it as a trade secret and training teams to avoid accidental disclosure.
On AI inventorship, several counsel called it messy. They’re separating human contributions from machine output and documenting it. Governance here protects enforceability later.
The signal from IPCC’s Fall New York was clear: in today’s IP industry, cost restrictions are impacting nearly every facet of portfolio strategy. IP teams are forced to be more surgical about where and what they file, and they need data to do that in an informed way. Prosecution strategy is changing with the new PAP and increased USPTO fees, so practitioners need to be highly aware of what will work best when. Firms need to be more strategic in a world of commoditized prosecution and help their clients in their quest to trim budgets. AI is no longer a shiny new object, and teams that don’t begin adopting will eventually fall behind.
If you’re looking for new ways to align IP trends and outcomes with business strategy, see how solutions from Juristat Analytics connect patent data to executive decision-making.