Inventor Count

by Dennis Crouch

The chart below shows the number of inventors per patent over the past seven years.  What you can see is a continued increase in the percentage of patents with teams of inventors. In particular, the percentage of patents with only one inventor continues to fall while the percentage of patents with three or more inventors continues to rise.  These results follow the long trend that I discussed back in 2009: See Dennis Crouch, The Changing Nature of Inventing: Collaborative Inventing at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/the-changing-nature-inventing-collaborative-inventing.html

PatentlyO199

See also http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/the-number-of-inventors-per-patent-has-risen-fairly-steadily-for-the-past-40-years-today-most-patents-are-directed-toward-i.htmlhttp://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/05/persons-skilled-in-the-art-should-the-now-established-model-of-team-based-inventing-impact-the-obviousness-analysis.html

 

 

8 thoughts on “Inventor Count

  1. A case of first impression to those who like to think:

    Draw in you mind three circlea, in order: large, small and then medium.

    Now consider the large circle the claim scope of the issued patent, the small the scope after the first reexamination, and the medium the scope after the second reexamination.

    Section 305 says, in part, “No proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent will be permitted in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter… ”

    Is the medium scope permitted?

  2. It is neither the flash of whatever (idea) or reduction to material form (implementation) alone. It doesn’t even need to be implemented here in the US, just enabled by the patent application of course. It has to be the idea And enablement to be an invention, as well as being new and novel and not obvious, whatever that is supposed to mean. Perhaps that is what you are hinting at Anon?

  3. BTW, what is “invention”? Is it the flash of genius (one brain) or does it go as far as reducing the mental flash to material form (which reduction these days usually involves more than one brain).

    It is expressly not flash of genius.

    It is likewise not merely reduction to practice.

    0-2 MaxDrei.

    Want to take that last swing at something substantial or do you want to miss with more of your banal QQ of “anon is picking on me” for your third strike? (I already provided you with a resolution to your QQ: stop posting crrp)

  4. All too often I see $500+/hr for boilerplate output, for both patent app filings & the so-called (self-proclaimed) patent litigation expertise.

    $500+/hr is what I quote when I don’t actually want the business.

  5. Just because only one inventor is named does not mean there is no employer or assignee. Indeed, I wonder what % of US pat applns with a single named inventor are filed at the expense of that single inventor. Normally an employer pays, right? Outside the USA, it is a very small percentage of inventors who pay their own drafting and filing fees. How much bigger is it, inside the USA, I wonder.

    In other words, nearly all PTO filings are paid for by companies. Within companies, thanks to the internet, there is nowadays much more discussion between employee engineers and scientists. The likelihood that only one employee contributed to the invention is increasingly remote. Hence the curve.

    BTW, what is “invention”? Is it the flash of genius (one brain) or does it go as far as reducing the mental flash to material form (which reduction these days usually involves more than one brain).

  6. In my 13+ year invention odyssey, I’ve met a lot of patent attorneys. I have to say the legal help is expensive, but I position that at the bottom of my list of complaints. At the top is the broken PTO and a judiciary hostile to inventors.

    Sadly, it’s the process itself that is broken.

    The only inventors who last long enough to monetize their inventions are, like me, obsessive idiots.

  7. Calistus,
    Very well said…a legal system for only the big corps, courtesy of their lobbyists. I would also add the spiraling attorney costs as well. I know, supply and demand; you get what you pay for; malpractice costs; yada, yada, yada…

    All too often I see $500+/hr for boilerplate output, for both patent app filings & the so-called (self-proclaimed) patent litigation expertise.

  8. Perhaps it is related to the weighting of patent law away from individual inventors to the benefit of infringers, or the public disparagement of inventors when they enforce or sell their patents for enforcement (the whole patent troll thing), or the decades of an inventor’s life and treasure that must be invested just to get a patent allowed. There might be other reasons too, but as an individual inventor, I can’t think of any.

Comments are closed.