Patents per year


by Dennis Crouch

The chart above is titled USPTO Patent Grant Rate. For this post, the "grant rate" refers to how many patents are being granted rather than the percentage of applications that are patented.  The chart itself shows an annualized grant rate calculated on a 20-week moving average.  In addition, I color-coded the chart to identify the name of the USPTO Director at the helm for each date.  Because of the backward-looking 20-week average, calculations in the early months of any Director's term will include some patents issued during the term of a prior director. 

The chart generally has an upward trend that corresponds with an increase in the number of patent applications being filed and patents being issued.  That information can also be found in charts that only show annual information. This chart is intended to move to a deeper level of granularity to identify trends within a given year.  The chart shows a number of peaks and valleys that each have an interesting story. 

25 thoughts on “Patents per year

  1. Vacation Planner Digest

    And once the vacationer has finished digesting, there’s the matter of the airplane lavatory…

  2. Why limit the graph to “technical” articles? The USPTO doesn’t limit itself to patents on technical advances. At the very least you’d need to include articles from Modern Contract Drafting Weekly and Vacation Planner Digest.

  3. No, I meant what I said.

    It wold be interesting to evaluate how many allowances (under Kappos) would have happened under Dudas had the same “Quality does not equal reject” mentality had been in force.

    Oh that’s right – in MM’s imaginary world, Kappos never had to say such a quote.

  4. Given as the rags did not quote Prof. Crouch’s story when he (at my urging) posted a complete story, I would say that my efforts were a success.

    I will let you count the negatives.

  5. Because facts have an anti-patent bias, I guess.

    They can, if taken out of context.

    Of course you typically don’t even bother with that and go for the straight out blatant lies.

    (And we both know exactly what those are)

  6. The call to have a complete picture helps to diffuse such rants.

    Oh, I see. So, how many rants on anti-patent sites have you diffused with your “call to have a complete picture”?

  7. the prior art is virtually non-existant

    Right. Because document management systems were invented in 1996.

    It’s not even entertaining

    You’re right. It’s much more fun to receive letters from some patent attorneys hiding behind their shell company and threatening to sue you for infringing some j— patent.

  8. FYI, the priority date for this guy appears to go back to 1996 (at least partially), so the prior art is virtually non-existant and the patent expires in a few years.

    I fail to see the problem.

  9. When was it filed?

    Come on, you’ve just gotten all troll-y. It’s not even entertaining. Take it to techdirt, but leave the professional sites alone.

  10. link to

    Issued: July 26, 2011

    1. A computer data management system including … a document management system capable of transmitting … an electronic document to a plurality of external destinations …comprising:

    at least one … multifunction peripheral capable of rendering … said … electronic document;

    at least one memory storing a plurality of interface protocols for interfacing and communicating;

    at least one processor responsively connectable to said at least one memory, and implementing the plurality of interface protocols as a software application for interfacing and communicating with … external devices and applications,

    wherein the computer data management system includes integration of … said … electronic document using software so that said … electronic document gets seamlessly replicated and transmitted to at least one of said plurality of external destinations.

    Heckuva job, Kappos.

  11. If you ever bothered to open your eyes Leopold, you would notice that the anti-patent sites feed off of one-sided reporting for their mantra of “too many patents are being granted.”

    The call to have a complete picture helps to diffuse such rants.

    Or perhaps you – in your inimical manner – are agreeing with me again…?

  12. In the “two birds with one stone” category, how many of the payers granted under Kappos should have been granted under Dudas?

  13. At the end of his term, will Kappos have granted more patents than any other Director in USPTO history (thereby seizing the title from Dudas)? It looks like a close call from this chart.

  14. Somebody remind me – what event happened in the middle of the Dudas regime to cause that huge step upward?

  15. Cue the comments complaining that you really should have posted a completely different chart.

    That’s an annualized moving average you’re plotting, correct?

Comments are closed.