Pre-AIA Filing Numbers

By Dennis Crouch

The chart above shows weekly application filings for the first 10 weeks of 2013, including the week ending on March 15, 2013. That date is important because it was the last day that patent applications could be filed under the old first-to-invent regime. New applications filed today will be judged under the first-to-file regime of the America Invents Act.

In January and February 2013, filing averaged about 7,100 non-provisional applications per week. In the three weeks before the change-over, the filing increased substantially. In all, about one-month worth of extra applications were filed during those three weeks (about 33,000 non-provisional applications). As the chart shows, applicants also ramped-up filing of provisional applications. See also http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/filing-lead-up-to-.html.

Week Ending On

Apps

ProvApps

11-Jan-13

6603

2875

18-Jan-13

7017

2993

25-Jan-13

6608

2893

01-Feb-13

8262

3277

08-Feb-13

7228

3124

15-Feb-13

6947

3200

22-Feb-13

7120

3015

01-Mar-13

10063

3739

08-Mar-13

10239

4099

15-Mar-13

34182

24259

26 thoughts on “Pre-AIA Filing Numbers

  1. Nice attempt at dust-kicking Malcolm.

    Your aversion to any sense of quality control that would prevent you from misrepresenting facts (and law and what others post) is well known, as is your unfounded disdain for someone who runs a blog and kicks out those who engage in such shenanigans.

    [shrug] and stand by your desire to spin.

  2. when you try to twist the law into something that it is not.

    Are patent thickets real or not, anon? Do patentees knowingly and willfully pursue broad claims that they know are invalid simply to confound their competitors?

    If the answer to either question is “no”, then I assume the commenter will be warned to cease posting false information. Right? Isn’t that how it works in Patent Blog Paradise, anon? You’ve been bragging about the alleged “differences” between Gene’s blog and this one for a long time. Maybe there’s something else going on that you’re “missing.” Nah, couldn’t be that.

  3. Meanwhile, across the pond, the UK gets it right and finds (in one instanc, anyway) an isolated enantiomer obvious in view of the parent racemic mixture:

    This is another case in which a patentee defending his patent has attempted to analyse a single multi-faceted question (“was the invention obvious?”) by chopping it up into a series of sub-questions, and then treating each of the sub-questions in isolation. . . . [T]hat is the wrong approach.

    I wonder if the UK will be paying much attention to the Federal Circuit’s mind-numbing “lead compound” scheme for making chemical composition claims appear less obvious than they really are.

    More here:

    link to patentdocs.org

  4. The AIA stimulated an immense increase in innovation that looks unprecedented

    No doubt. The statute should be revised monthly to provide further stimulation. There’s a danger, of course, that the economy might collapse under the weight of all that innovation.

  5. you post to imply that this medical method claim is considered “borderline” at Gene’s blog

    It was. In fact, multiple commenters discussed how the claim could be granted if “unexpected results” were shown.

    somehow you think that I would approve of this ridiculous claim.

    You regularly defend claims that are as bad or worse. Again, other than Myriad’s composition claims, I don’t recall you ever stepping up and calling any patent claim “ridiculous”, ever. I certainly do recall you disparaging anyone who would dare question the validity of a granted claim. That happens all the time.

    Didn’t you learn your lesson from being the first to post to the USPTO Integration take-away from the 9-0 Dance a Jig Baby self-immolation and humiliation Prometheus posting?

    When did you stop beating your wife?

  6. Wow – look at the huge jump in filings on Mar. 15,2013. The AIA stimulated an immense increase in innovation that looks unprecedented (increase in patenting = increase in innovation, economic growth, jobs and prosperity). The AIA will help stimulate the U.S. economy to unheard of high levels.

  7. LOL – let me know when you post regularly there Francis – and how it goes for you when you try to twist the law into something that it is not.

    Until then, kindly STFU, [shrug], and stand by.

  8. you may have noticed that Gene actually had this to say:

    “I found a bunch of claims that should have absolutely no chance of ever being patented.”

    I did notice that. I also noted that you weren’t there in the comments asking Gene to produce the prior art and accusing Gene of being “anti-patent” for “smearing” Johnson and Johnson.

    What happened? Did the Easter Bunny steal your referree whistle?

    In any event, it’s interesting that over at IP Watchdog one can evidently discuss “patent thickets” without having to endure the sight of you and your cohorts soiling themselves, as happens here regularly.

  9. I refer to the AIA by its given name only under duress, anon. Usually, I refer to it as the Abominable Inane Act.

  10. More off-point ranting from Malcolm.

    Did you even bother reading the article by Gene Quinn at all, Malcolm?

    If you had, you may have noticed that Gene actually had this to say:

    I found a bunch of claims that should have absolutely no chance of ever being patented.

    and

    It is a violation of USPTO rules to seek a claim that you know you are not entitled to receive. Is there anyone that could possibly rationalize in any intellectually honest way seeking a claim that covers applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain?

    You accuse others of dissembling, and yet, you post to imply that this medical method claim is considered “borderline” at Gene’s blog, and that somehow you think that I would approve of this ridiculous claim.

    C’mon Francis, at least read what you refer to.

    Didn’t you learn your lesson from being the first to post to the USPTO Integration take-away from the 9-0 Dance a Jig Baby self-immolation and humiliation Prometheus posting?

    LOL – you cannot even kick up dust and go on a frolic without utter FAILing these days, Malcolm. I suggest you take a long, very very very long vacation and try to piece together your shattered remnants of balloon that once encased your fragile ego.

  11. the anti-patent people, the very people who are the proud sponsors of the ill-named America Invents Act

    Huh. Sounds like Congress is “anti-patent” in the same way it’s “anti-gun”.

    Meanwhile, over at anon’s favorite blog:

    filing borderline claims to build dense patent thickets is rife in this industry.

    “Thickets”??? Patent thickets??!!! Good lorb, someone didn’t get the script!!!!! Blow the whistle!!!!!! Blow the whistle!!!!!!!

    Fyi, here’s the “borderline claim”:

    1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising a) placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade, b) keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition c) removing said composition from said environment, and d) applying said composition topically to the region of pain.

  12. ALL of which have to do with avoiding the effects of the new law, which supposedly is so much better.

    Getting less and paying more – the only people this is better for are the anti-patent people, the very people who are the proud sponsors of the ill-named America Invents Act.

  13. I’m guessing that a statistically significant but undeterminal number of the “spike” filings were also done to avoid the filing fee increase that went into effect a few days later with the thought that one may as well get whatever benefit that there was to be had with the pre-16th filing as well. In other words, there is likely a conflation of effects in play.

  14. according to the fabulous math skills of Malcolm, there was no spike

    Never said that.

    no need for a spike,

    Most applications that were rush filed probably did not need to be rush filed.

    none of this really happened

    No idea what you’re talking about.

    I’d still like to see a quantitative comparison between the pre-GATT “spike” and this one.

  15. LOL – but according to the fabulous math skills of Malcolm, there was no spike, no need for a spike, and none of this really happened.

    D’oh (said in the best Homer Simpson tones)

Comments are closed.