In IPWatchdog, we argued that the EU's Digital Markets Act turns Google's intellectual property into a utility for its rivals.

In Truth on the Market, we argued that a brain-injury blood test's 20-year road to patients shows why Congress must fix patent eligibility law.

In a statement on Chatrie v. United States, we argued that the Fourth Amendment doesn't vanish because records sit on a company's servers.

Jeffrey Depp joins a Federalist Society panel with Alden Abbott, Jane Bambauer and Satya Marar on intellectual property, AI training and fair use.

In IPWatchdog, we argued that by taking Hikma v. Amarin, the Supreme Court chose a narrow drug-pricing fight over the patent questions that matter.

In The National Law Review, we argued that reining in dominant proxy advisory firms protects shareholders' property rights.

American technological leadership results from secure property rights driving risk taking not from centralized planning or regulatory micromanagement.

These proposed reforms—particularly the restrictions on serial and parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) challenges and the requirement that petitioners stipulate to litigating validity in only one forum—represent an urgently needed course-correction to restore reliability to U.S. patent rights, strengthen American innovation, and fortify the nation’s technological leadership against foreign adversaries, especially the People’s Republic of China.

In Truth on the Market, we argued that NIH's 'access plan' mandate for patent licenses is central planning that threatens biomedical innovation.