By: Anton Hopen, U.S. Registered Patent Attorney 
Managing Partner, Smith & Hopen 
Board Certified in Intellectual Property 

After 25 years in patent law, I have witnessed firsthand how shifts in USPTO leadership can reshape our innovation ecosystem. Few figures illustrate this dynamic better than billionaire-inventor Howard Lutnick, longtime CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, whose extensive patent portfolio and dual experience as both innovator and litigant speak volumes about the challenges and opportunities in today’s patent system. On February 5, 2025, Lutnick advanced out of committee by a 16-12 vote heading for likely confirmation by the full Senate. As he is poised to become the next Commerce Secretary—thus assuming oversight of the USPTO—the innovation community is keenly interested in what his appointment might mean for post-grant reviews, the ongoing effects of the Alice decision, administrative backlogs, and foreign filing practices. 

USPTO Leadership: A Tale of Two Directors 

The evolution of USPTO policy in recent years offers a window into the possible direction under a Lutnick-led Commerce Department. Notably, the tenures of former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and his immediate successor Kathi Vidal provide a stark contrast in policy priorities. 

Andrei Iancu’s Pro-Inventor Approach: 

Appointed during the Trump administration, Andrei Iancu was widely regarded as pro-inventor. During his tenure, Iancu supported policies that favored patent owners. One notable initiative was his backing of the NHK-Fintiv rule—a discretionary tool that allowed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to deny inter partes review (IPR) petitions when a challenged patent was concurrently being asserted in district court litigation. This discretion, which many believe helped keep the PTAB’s total claims invalidation rate around 60%, was intended to protect patents deemed commercially valuable. Iancu’s policies were designed to provide inventors with greater certainty and reduce the risk that valid patents would be undermined in an administrative setting. 

Kathi Vidal’s Emphasis on Patent Quality: 

In contrast, when Kathi Vidal assumed the role of USPTO Director under the Biden administration, her policy focus shifted toward enhancing patent quality. Vidal’s tenure saw a marked increase in PTAB invalidation rates—with total claims invalidation rising from approximately 59% in 2021 to 71% in the first half of 2024. Vidal narrowed the application of the Fintiv rule early in her term, thereby reducing discretionary denials and emphasizing a rigorous review of patent validity. Additionally, she leveraged the director review process established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision to add an extra layer of scrutiny to PTAB outcomes. Her policies reflected a commitment to ensuring that only patents meeting strict quality standards survived post-grant challenges, even if this meant a higher risk of invalidation for some patents. 

This cyclical pattern—alternating between a pro-inventor stance and a pro-patent quality approach—illustrates how USPTO policy can shift significantly with changes in leadership. It also sets the stage for anticipating what might happen if Howard Lutnick, whose background combines aggressive patent monetization with firsthand experience in litigation, assumes a key policy-making role as Commerce Secretary. 

Potential Priorities Under Howard Lutnick 

As Commerce Secretary, Lutnick’s influence will extend to setting the broader policy direction for the USPTO. His background, which includes having his name on over 400 U.S. patents and more than 800 worldwide, suggests that he is intimately familiar with both the value and the vulnerabilities of a robust patent portfolio. Given his experience and the current debates in patent policy, several potential priorities emerge: 

Rebalancing Post-Grant Reviews: 

Data from the USPTO show that roughly 70% of challenged claims in IPR proceedings are being invalidated. Pending legislation such as the PREVAIL Act proposes reforming these procedures by setting higher thresholds for IPR initiation and clarifying review standards. Under a pro-inventor policy framework reminiscent of Iancu’s tenure, Lutnick might advocate for reforms designed to reduce the frequency of administrative invalidation—thus providing more certainty to patent owners while ensuring that only truly weak patents are subject to review. 

Modernizing USPTO Operations: 

A persistent concern among inventors and companies is the lengthy delay in patent examination. The USPTO Dashboard for Patent Pendency now indicates an average first examination time of 20.3 months. Such delays can stymie investment and market entry for new technologies although there are programs such as Track One prioritized examination that can speed up first examination to under three months. Given his experience in fast-paced financial markets, Lutnick is expected to support modernization efforts that include investments in digital tools, improved staffing, and more efficient triage systems. By streamlining operations, the USPTO can better focus its resources on high-quality applications—a critical objective for protecting innovation. 

Refining the Alice Standard: 

The 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision fundamentally altered the landscape for software and business method patents by tightening the criteria for what constitutes an “abstract idea.” While this decision has curtailed certain abusive litigation practices, it has also injected uncertainty into areas of genuine technological advancement. Legislative proposals like the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act aim to clarify these standards by providing more precise guidelines on patent eligibility. Given that some of Lutnick’s own fintech-related patents have encountered challenges under the Alice framework, he may well support efforts to refine these rules so that innovative, non-abstract technologies are not inadvertently invalidated. 

Addressing the Surge in Foreign Filings: 

The USPTO documents a dramatic increase in filings from foreign entities, particularly from China. This influx has contributed to longer processing times and has raised concerns about the quality and intent of these filings. While many foreign filings represent legitimate innovation, others may be strategic or even exploitative, placing undue strain on USPTO resources. Lutnick has noted the issue of foreign filings in public forums, emphasizing that the system must differentiate between genuine commercial activity and filings intended to exploit procedural loopholes. Measures to tighten verification protocols and enforce robust evidence requirements may therefore be on his agenda. 

Balancing Competing Interests: A Look at the Legislative Landscape 

The ongoing debate over USPTO policy is not limited to internal administrative practices—it is also reflected in pending legislation. As noted, proposals like the PREVAIL Act (PTAB) and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act are designed to recalibrate the balance between protecting inventors and maintaining high patent quality. Under Iancu’s tenure, a pro-inventor approach sought to shield valid patents from overly aggressive administrative challenges. Conversely, under Vidal’s leadership, a focus on quality led to higher rates of patent invalidation. 

Lutnick’s potential role as Commerce Secretary may signal yet another shift—one that could bring the system closer to the pro-inventor model, while still preserving safeguards to prevent abuse. It is important for seasoned inventors and stakeholders to evaluate potential policy shifts objectively. While Andrei Iancu’s policies were lauded for providing stronger protections to patent owners—and Kathi Vidal’s approach was designed to elevate patent quality—the next chapter in USPTO policy under a Lutnick-influenced Commerce Department will likely involve a balancing act. The challenge lies in safeguarding genuine innovation without allowing procedural abuses to undermine the system. 

Learn more in the video below:

Our previous funding blog presented the different forms of funding available to startups and the pros and cons of each.  When starting a company, funding is a critical component in helping move your innovation forward.  

USF has a robust innovation ecosystem supports researchers, inventors, and entrepreneurs as they translate technology from the lab to the marketplace. The Innovation Ecosystem’s expertise, resources, and facilities work together to foster the growth of early-stage technologies and entrepreneurial start-up companies. Tech Transfer works closely with its university startups to identify and assist with funding opportunities and promotes programs designed to help reduce risk and support early-stage companies to a point where they can attract other sources of funding. Here are a few of the programs to help fund startups. 

NSF I-Corps at USF 

NSF I-Corps is a public-private partnership program that teaches university entrepreneurs with a targeted curriculum to identify valuable product opportunities from academic research and offers entrepreneurship training to participants. As a designated I-Corps Site, USF provides teams infrastructure, advice, resources, networking opportunities, training and up to $3,000 in funding to enable groups to transition their work into the marketplace or into becoming I-Corps Team applicants. 

With the support and mentorship of this program, teams can learn first-hand about entrepreneurship and explore the transition of their ideas, devices, processes or other intellectual activities into the marketplace. 

To learn more about this program: https://www.usf.edu/research-innovation/innovation-enterprise/i-corps/index.aspx 

Foundation Bull Ring Accelerator Grant program 

The Foundation Bull Ring Accelerator Grant program (BRAG) is designed to support early-stage Tampa Bay Technology Incubator (TBTI) affiliated start-up companies that were formed on the basis of licensed USF technologies. 

BRAG provides up to $25,000 of grant funding to support the entrepreneurial ecosystem at USF and help bridge the “valley” or “ditch” of death experienced by early-stage technology companies. The goal of this program is not to replace private capital, but to help reduce risk and develop start-ups to a point where they can attract other sources of funding.  

To learn more about this program: https://www.usf.edu/research-innovation/innovation-enterprise/usf-research-foundation/usf-startup-funding.aspx 

The Corridor Matching Grant Research Program 

The Florida High Tech Corridor’s Matching Grants Research Program fosters applied research and connections between industry partners, and faculty and student researchers at the University of South Florida. 

The Matching Grant Research Program at USF can provide up to $150,000 in matching grant funds for collaborative research projects between local industry partners and USF researchers, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) / Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funded projects. Corridor funding is used to expand the project’s scope of work and support cutting-edge research endeavors to benefit local industry, the university, and the region. 

To learn more about this program: https://www.usf.edu/research-innovation/innovation-enterprise/florida-high-tech-corridor/matching-grant-research-program.aspx 

Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer Programs (SBIR/STTR) 

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs are United States government programs that award grants to small businesses to support innovation and scientific excellence. These programs provide non-dilutive federal funding to U.S. small business bringing innovative technologies to market and can be a great resource to USF start-up companies and collaborating companies. 

To learn more about this program: https://www.usf.edu/research-innovation/innovation-enterprise/florida-high-tech-corridor/sbir-sttr-programs.aspx 

Florida Funders 

Florida Funders is a hybrid between a venture capital fund and an investor network that discovers, funds, and builds early-stage technology companies.  Florida Funders has been called the most active VC with the biggest investor network.  The Florida Funders has a Venture Partner Program to help their companies by hand-selecting the right investors to guide them through their growth.   

To learn more about this program: https://www.floridafunders.com/ 

Though startup funding can be overwhelming, understanding the types of startup funding and what is available to you can help.  The programs identified above can be a great resource for funding for your startup. For more information on USF startups and resources, please visit: https://www.usf.edu/research-innovation/pl/startups-news/index.aspx 

As an aspiring entrepreneur, understanding the various forms of funding for startup companies is crucial. In this blog, we address the most common types of startup funding and the associated pros and con of each. 

_{Sources: Center for Venture Research, US Small Business Administration, Angel Resource Institute, Angel Capital Education Foundation}

Self-Funding or Bootstrapping 

• Boot strapping involves using personal savings, personal loads or revenue generated by the business itself to finance startup operations and growth. 
  • Pros: Allows founders to maintain full control over their company. Avoids debt and equity dilution. Encourages lean operations and resourcefulness. 
  • Cons: Limits initial growth potential due to constrained resources. Can be risky if personal finances are heavily invested. Growth may be slower compared to funded competitors. 

Friends and Family

• This can be a great source for getting started but should be clearly and legally defined because of potential personal complications. 
  • Pros: Quick access to capital. Flexible terms compared to formal investors. Supports the business with personal trust and belief in the founder. 
  • Cons: Strains personal relationships if the business fails. Limited funding capacity. Potential for conflicts over business decisions.

Angel Investor 

• Individual investors who provide early-stage funding to startups 
  • Pros: Provide early-stage funding and mentorship. Often more willing to take risks compared to traditional investors. Can offer valuable industry expertise. 
  • Cons: May demand significant equity. Funding amounts can vary widely. Less structured compared to institutional investors.

Venture Capital

• A form of private equity typically provided by investors who expect to receive a high return on their investment.  
  • Pros: Offers substantial funding for rapid growth. Provides industry expertise and networking opportunities. Can validate the business model.
  • Cons: Requires significant equity stake and control. High expectations for growth and return on investment. Lengthy due diligence process.

• Corporate Venture Capital Direct investment by a company into external startup companies. 
  • Pros: Offers substantial funding for rapid growth. Provides industry expertise and networking opportunities. Can validate the business model.
  • Cons: Requires significant equity stake and control. High expectations for growth and return on investment. Lengthy due diligence process.

Bank Loans

• Borrowing funds from banks, online lenders, or government programs. Small business loans are a more traditional way of getting startup capital and can help you retain full ownership. 
  • Pros: Provides capital without diluting equity. Predictable repayment terms and interest rates. Builds business credit history.
  • Cons: Requires collateral and personal guarantees. Debt servicing can strain cash flow. Limited availability for early-stage startups without established revenue.

Crowdfunding 

• Raising funds from a large number of people via online platforms.  
  • Pros: Access to a large pool of diverse potential investors. Validates market interest and product demand. Often provides marketing benefits and early adopter engagement.
  • Cons: High competition for attention. Success depends on effective marketing and product appeal. Legal and regulatory complexities.

Grants and Subsidies  

• Non-repayable funds provided by government agencies, foundations, or organizations.
  • Pros: Non-dilutive funding. Supports specific projects or research initiatives. Often provided by governments or non-profits.
  • Cons: Highly competitive application process. Stringent requirements and reporting obligations. Limited availability based on eligibility criteria.

Choosing the right funding source depends on the startup’s stage of growth, industry dynamics, funding needs, and long-term strategic goals. Each option comes with trade-offs in terms of control, financial obligations, and potential for growth acceleration. Startups often combine multiple funding sources throughout their lifecycle to optimize resources and mitigate risks.  

Assess your startup’s needs, growth trajectory and risk tolerance to choose the most suitable funding avenue. 

In our next blog, we will talk about funding resources available through USF, The Florida High Tech Corridor and other regional and state entities. 

USF Tech Transfer values the innovative technologies created by the faculty and students we work with every day and strives to make the process of disclosing a seamless experience. With TTO’s Inventor Portal, USF inventors can now submit their Invention Disclosures online in one easy step! 

TTO’s Inventor Portal replaces the old PDF process and allows users to automatically and seamlessly disclose new inventions, copyrights, and trademarks to USF. The Inventor Portal was designed to make disclosing faster and easier and allows inventors to communicate directly with the Tech Transfer team. It also allows users to save submissions as drafts to come back to and attach other supporting documents on this user-friendly portal. The portal increases the transparency of the tech transfer process and provides real-time updates so inventors can monitor and track the status of disclosures they have submitted. Users can also add interest tags and marketing targets to enhance the marketing efforts for technologies, providing a collaborative environment between inventors and Tech Transfer. The streamlined system produces more efficiency and accuracy, and it helps manage and support the commercialization of USF innovation. The portal can be accessed at: https://usf.inteum.com/usf/inventorportal/  

To learn more about the portal and how it helps our inventors: https://www.usf.edu/news/2022/new-online-portal-to-streamline-process-for-licensing-usf-inventions.aspx 

For any questions, please contact Tech Transfer at ttoinfo@usf.edu.   

An invention disclosure is a confidential document used to evaluate technologies created by University researchers. The disclosure is the first step in engaging the office to evaluate your invention for commercialization. So what happens after you submit a disclosure? An evaluation is conducted to assess the marketability and patentability of the invention to help determine the best path to commercialization.

Our office views technology transfer as a critical component for facilitating and sparking innovation and helping to connect USF with commercial partners in the community and beyond. When faculty or students submit an invention, it moves through our evaluation process. This process is designed to protect, market, and license technologies and other intellectual property with the most commercial promise. 

Once our office receives a new invention disclosure, an analysis of the market and existing prior art is a critical step to our evaluation of the technology. The business analysis support team is comprised of well-trained graduate student interns from both life sciences and engineering who conduct an extensive search for related patents and potential marketability information. The team also prepares a detailed market analysis and valuation comparables to help assess the technology and facilitate licensing and startup discussions. This is a very important step in the tech transfer process to identify commercialization opportunities and challenges. By confirming if it meets the novelty requirements set by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the interns save the inventor time, allowing them to focus more on their research.  

_{Research interns Sivagami Bhaskar and Sonica Kolluri reviewing disclosed invention}

To learn more about our evaluation process and the internship program:  

https://www.usf.edu/news/2023/usf-sees-sharp-rise-in-innovations-and-technology.aspx

Welcome to the USF Technology Transfer Office’s blog!

As Director of the office, I have the privilege to work with faculty, staff and students across the USF campuses to help protect and ready new innovations for the commercial marketplace. Our mission is to seamlessly turn ground-breaking research into real-world solutions.

In our first post, let’s start with some basics about technology transfer:

What is a Technology Transfer Office?

A Technology Transfer Office (TTO) is a pivotal entity within academic and research institutions. Its primary role is to serve as an intermediary, facilitating the transfer of knowledge, innovations, and intellectual property from research environments to the commercial sector. TTOs bridge the gap between cutting-edge research and practical applications, ensuring that groundbreaking discoveries benefit society at large.

Why Do We Need TTOs?

1. Fostering Collaboration: TTOs foster collaboration between researchers, industry partners, and entrepreneurs. By connecting these stakeholders, TTOs create a vibrant ecosystem where ideas can flourish.

2. Turning Research into Reality: Brilliant ideas often remain confined to research papers or laboratories. TTOs play a crucial role in translating these ideas into tangible products, services, and technologies that improve lives.

3. Maximizing Impact: TTOs ensure that the immense intellectual capital generated within universities and research centers doesn’t go untapped. By licensing patents, forming spin-off companies, and promoting innovation, TTOs maximize the impact of research.

Key Functions of TTOs

1. Intellectual Property Management: TTOs safeguard and manage intellectual property (IP) arising from research. Whether it’s a groundbreaking algorithm, a novel drug compound, or a game-changing device, TTOs protect and commercialize these assets.

2. Licensing and Commercialization: TTOs negotiate licenses with industry partners, allowing them to use patented technologies. These licenses generate revenue for the institution while enabling companies to develop innovative products.

3. Start-Up Incubation: TTOs nurture fledgling start-ups by providing mentorship, workspace, and access to resources. Many successful companies trace their origins back to university-based TTOs.

4. Industry Partnerships: TTOs build strong relationships with industry players. Collaborative research projects, joint ventures, and technology-sharing agreements are common outcomes of these partnerships.

Get Involved!

Are you an inventor, entrepreneur, or industry leader? Reach out to our TTO. Let’s collaborate, innovate, and change the world together!

We encourage you to be a part of our ongoing conversation.

Stay tuned for more exciting updates from our TTO. Subscribe to our blog and follow us on social media.