USPTO Patent Grants

By Dennis Crouch

With the sequester, the USPTO has slowed its operation somewhat over the past two months. As a result, fewer patents issued per week in May/June 2013 than in prior months. However, the Office is still on track to issue a record number of patents in 2013 — an approximate 5% increase over 2012. The recent spate of subject matter eligibility cases is not expected to have any discernible impact on this result. The following chart is updated through June 27, 2013 and shows the number of utility patents granted per calendar year with a projection for the second half of 2013 based upon the first-half returns.

72 thoughts on “USPTO Patent Grants

  1. 71

    LOL – Almost as hot and bothered as the 0rgy between Malcolm, Keeping It Real, Robert, Francis, Shrivan, and Vivika M.

    Oh wait…

  2. 70

    a little nibbling at the far edges of patentable subject matter.

    Ah, how the tunes change.

    Remember this classic quote: “The Court’s analysis [in Prometheus] creates a framework for patent eligibility in which almost any method claim can be invalidated”?

    Or this one: “This SCOTUS decision is a disaster for all of patent law and future innovation within the USA.” (<--regular patentlyo commenter and j-nk patent cheerleader "stepback") Eric Guttag: "those 9 technology-challenged Justices (also too arrogant as well as ignorant) have just created a new jurisprudential “disaster” in our area of the law that will likely cost us more American jobs" (<---LOL) And of course there's Big Gene Quinn himself: "The sky is falling! Those who feel the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. is terrible are right, although many won’t likely fully apprehend the gravity of the situation at first. Those in the biotech, medical diagnostics and pharmaceutical industries have just been taken out behind the woodshed and summarily executed by the Supreme Court this morning. An enormous number of patents will now have no enforceable claims. Hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate value has been erased. " By the way, if you want to see a classic example of an echo chamber in full circle jerk mode, check out this thread: link to

    The lovefest between anon, EG, and Gene is about as hot and bothered as it can possible get. Echolicious! Three peabrains in a pod.

  3. 69

    OK, Hawk_Eye, I am thinking about quality not quantity.

    Now what?

    Rewrite the law?

    Define quality? Doesn’t ‘quality’ mean meeting the law? If you have a patent that does not meet the law, have you taken advantage of the mechanisms for revoking the patent, or like certain others, do you merely want to QQ about it and try to tear down the entire patent system?

    I don’t think that you understand the non-linearity of innovation. Sure there are patents out there that are not of ‘high quality.’ So what? If the patent covers something that does not work or that is not wanted, what exactly is the harm? Do you know that ‘promote’ has as part of its historical base meaning the tie to spread the word (rather than merely advance the state of the art)? Do you know that there is no requirement that a patent must make things ‘better?’ Does your idea of ‘quality’ include this notion of ‘linear advance’ that is but a fallacy of how innovation actually works?

  4. 68

    I wonder how many of the patent grants are as bad as this one;

    Need to think about quality not quantity.

  5. 67

    What’s with your assumptions all to the negative?

    heavyhanded? dickish? assuming? angry?

    I think you need to lighten up. Just because I am direct and to the point (and correct), does not mean any of those things that YOU are assuming.

    I need not ask for clarity as I provided clarity.

    If you think I misstated something, please, by all means point that out.


  6. 66

    I did not assume he missed the points. His statement plainly indicates he missed the points.

    I am not angry at all. I was in fact being pleasant and guiding the wayward chap to be better informed. A kindness, really.

  7. 64

    What’s with the heavy handed response? Ask for clarity. No need to be dickish.

  8. 61

    Funny how that works.
    Funny how that happens when all that has been accomplished is a little nibbling at the far edges of patentable subject matter.

  9. 57

    Dennis: The recent spate of subject matter eligibility cases is not expected to have any discernible impact on this result.

    Funny how that works.

  10. 54

    There are many software patents in Europe. You have not found a good way to try to distinguish between software and hardware because their is no way.

    And, software innovation in Europe is a joke compared to the U.S.A. Just compare the sales numbers. Joke.

    And, Europeans are nothing but followers by and large. The only countries you have that innovate are Germany and the U.K. both with very strong patent systems.

  11. 53

    More of the ‘goodies’ from Malcolm’s book of FAIL:

    The Supreme Court wisely held that 101 would suffice.

    LOL – who was one that advocated otherwise with a WHATEVER mentality? (that would be Malcolm)

    Double LOL – who JUST RECENTLY delved back into the WHATEVER mentality on a discussion of 101 and tried to conflate the discussion with 103? (that would be Malcolm)

    Triple LOL – who recently was wrong about a Supreme Court case and tried to argue a 102/103 timing into the 101 judicial exception of product of nature? (that would be Malcolm)

    Wrong prior to Prometheus and moved the goalposts, wrong after Prometheus and moved to the same lame tactics of conflation, and STILL wrong about Yet here we have Eric and Gene still bemoaning an easily applied and predictable holding in a well-written and well-reasoned decision.”

    LOL – so ‘well-written and well-reasoned’ that when he FINALLY attempted a substantive squaring of Prometheus with the precedent case most on point, Malcolm tossed his pet theory into a bonfire of his own making. There has been only a single entity anywhere that has attempted to use those adjectives for the Prometheus decision.

    Mmmmmm, toasty.

  12. 52

    EU do not have software patents. Yet software innovation in europe is as good as in US. (Hint: its about sharing the knowlege, FLOSS+net is therefor more effective then patent system)

  13. 51


    If invalidation or narrowing of such claim cost MILIONS of dolars, then you can forget about any meaningfull correlation. Because you can not even begin to estimate how many invalidation would be found if it was cheaper.

    (Yes, I do suggest that most invalid/wrongly issued patents wont ever reach court room… That is just too costly for defendant/infriger…)

    Some meaningfull metrics?

    1) How many companies settle when they DO FIND good defenses in light of 101, 102, 103, 112, etc. (How many think they would win if they wanted to spent that moneys)

    2) How many companies settle, and then patentee bring case to ITC against its competition (with settlement as fulfilment for “home industry”)

    3) How many patents that get invalidated are issued AFTER case law changed (or what ever you call situation when SC or FC make some important decision, and USPTO should change its guidelines for examiners)

    4) How many cases could be executed cheaper by simply rearanging schedules. (So that most expensive things are done at the end of trial, etc.)

    But hey, we do have FTC investigating “NPE” doings. We will get reliable data.

  14. 50

    You should state why you think the 2nd patent gets the PTA same as the first maybe? And also note that the terminal disclaimer, if you drafted it properly or used a common template, states that the 2nd patent should expire along with the first.

    link to

    Or at least that’s what it looks like.

  15. 49

    Patent eligibility needs to be greatly expanded, not reduced. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself. If more things were patentable, technological innovation would explode in America. The ancient Romans and Greeks never had patents, so they never had any technological innovation. Why more people do not understand this simple notion is incredibly mind-boggling and beyond belief. This lack of understanding patents defies logic and common sense. The fashion apparel industry and food cuisine do not have the benefit of patents, and consequently these industries never have any innovation whatsoever – These fields have been mired in stagnation for centuries due to the lack of patent protection.

  16. 48

    We asked for

    LOL – who is ‘we?’ You, your svckpuppets and the little circle club that play the games of feigned ignorance and misstatements as much as you?

    LOL. Funny? yes – just not in the way that you are thinking.

  17. 47

    This is just pure cr-p, but it’s by no means an unusual argument to make

    LOL – the ONLY person ever to say this was you Malcolm (and yes, I am including your svckpuppets Keeping It Real, Robert, Francis, Shrivan and Vivika M as you). What’s that word you love so much? dissembling?

    LOL – it fits you just as much as the other word of choice: hypocrite.

  18. 46


    Are you equally concerned with type I and type II errors?

    Are you aware of the clandestine (and largely undocumented) ‘inner programs’ at the Office that skewed reviews against allowances, but made no attempt to correct faulty rejections – and which directly led to the massive backlogs in other queues of work at the Office?

    Let’s include those metrics in compensation too – wouldn’t you agree?

  19. 45

    The fact that you believe you can justify what you wrote to Kalpana and that you believe that I did not make a fair point about you being a pr*ck is just further evidence of your s0ci0pathy

    You really have gone off the deep end Malcolm.

    Tell me – explicitly and in legal terms – what concerning my response to Kalpana at 6:13 is even remotely incorrect.

    Give me ONE example.

    Or will this be like when I ask you to provide a single valid example from your accusation that I have 1ied about you that you turn tale and run away?

    The tendency of yours to accuse that which you do is captured vividly on these pages (and yes they are archived, so even the ‘very busy’ people running multi-million dollar law firms can find plenty of examples of your disingenuous B$).

    Even from other worlds.

  20. 43

    We both know

    LOL – we both know what, exactly, Malcolm?

    You have not found the NUTS yet to admit a simple fact.

    Still have not seen from you those simple words: “anon was right.”

    The board has had to put up with 21,000 other mewling QQ words from you. But those three have not appeared.


  21. 42

    You prosecute for 15 years, and are finally allowed a 1st patent with a 3 year term adjustment.

    How is that accomplished?

    “in the interest of justice” – I think you need a better basis in law.

  22. 41

    If it’s not ok to ask an unrelated patent prosecution question on this post’s comment thread, please stop reading.

    Here are the facts: You prosecute for 15 years, and are finally allowed a 1st patent with a 3 year term adjustment. You never file a reissue, but timely file a continuation with similar but very slightly broader claims, and, in just over 2 years those broader claims issue, with terminal disclaimer, as a non-obvious double patent of the 1st patent, but with a term adjustment of only one week instead of 3 years.

    Now you’d like to petition USPTO within two months of issue of the 2nd patent, to ask that, in the interest of justice, the 2nd patent’s term be extended out as long as the term of the 1st patent.

    Question: Any thoughts on whether such a petition has any chance of success, and what you might say in it?

  23. 39

    Oh yes, and voter fraud! Another issue of great concern to the same class of folks who are concerned about the horrifying societal effects of minimum wage, paid sick leave, post-patent grant review procedures, and the available of inequitable conduct defense for patent infringement.

    link to

  24. 38

    That is one very large CRP of hooey from you Malcolm.

    There may be worthwhile thoughts in there, but in NO WAY have you expressed any such worthwhile thoughts in anything approaching a civil or respectful tone anytime within the last couple of years.

    You should really try to express your thoughts with respect without your usual misrepresentations of fact, of law and of what others post – and most definitely not to your mischaracterizations as you put forth above. My demands are anything BUT impossible to meet, as long ago I outlined what was needed for quality blogging and my recommendations stand (and stand in sharp contrast to what you ACTUALLY do).

    I have always said that you have a large degree of control – don’t CRP and I won’t rub your nose in your own CRP. It is not the differences of opinion that is the CRP, but the way you go about those differences with your cheap, stale, banal, and deceptive tactics.

    And yes, even after 21,000 words on the Myriad decision, you have YET gotten the nuts to admit to the obvious FACT that I got the decision right and you got the decision wrong. If you were ‘so honest and straight forward’ this beatdown of you could have been avoided.

    The plain and simple fact is that you are NOT honest. Quite in fact you deserve the beatdowns you get and that you refuse to change and address things in any semblance of intellectual honesty.

    As I said the quality improvement picture is in your hands.

  25. 36

    72% of all posts on this thread today are from or about Malcolm


    Weirdest. Blogtroll. Ever.

  26. 35

    72% of all posts on this thread today are from or about Malcolm.

    Yet another fine trainwreck you have gotten into.

  27. 34

    link to

    Gene Quinn’s Greatest Hits, Part I:

    You don’t hear the innovative start-ups and small businesses complaining about the patent system

    Right, it’s only the “la zy” people and “copiers” who complain when they get those threatening letters from bottom-faeding patent attorneys from Texas … oops, I meant threatening letters from “innovators”.

    Is there litigation abuse associated with the enforcement of patent rights? Yes. Does that have anything to do with the patent system? No.

    He actually said that? Too funny.

    if President George Washington, President Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Edison would disagree with an innovation related policy statement or position why would you even give the thought passing consideration?

    Deep thoughts, Gene. Really persuasive stuff there.

    to those who think I am nothing more than a patent apol0gist, you are right.


  28. 33

    You asked? I gave it – you ignored it.

    Now you want to crab about it?

    How about this: Stop ignoring the points as I make them. Stop misepresenting the facts, the law and what others post?

    You know, the very same things I have asked all along.

    And that is NOT funny that you are such a pr1ck about it.

  29. 32

    The Heritage Foundation on Patent Reform:

    link to

    Mr, Grossman asks the President to “strictly limit” the window within which a patent could be challenged, and the parties that would be allowed to initiate such a challenge, under any new post-grant review process. He contends that “[w]ithout these protections, additional post-grant review procedures are likely to weaken property rights without significantly reducing litigation.” Next, Mr. Grossman tackles the inequitable conduct doctrine, advising that “the doctrine’s great costs and limited deterrent value counsel its elimination or restriction.”

    Yes, truly important “fixes” there: make it more dificult for people targeted by patent trolls to invalidate the patents and/or render them unenforceable. I wonder what other great ideas the Heritage Foundation has? Oh, here’s one: abolish the minimum wage.

    link to

    Awesome! And then we just need to adopt Richard Epstein’s (another Heritage Foundation grifter) proposal to ditch paid sick leave. Only then can the “job creators” and “innovators” get the money they so richly (LOL) deserve. Well, at least more of it. They’ll never get it all, of course. But they’ll never stop trying either.

  30. 30

    It would be interesting how many asserted patents end up having at least one claim invalidated or narrowed. This would be a good metric to gauge the performance of the PTO and the bonus, or lack thereof, of management including directors.

    Imagine if a director got his entire compensation using such a metric?

  31. 29

    Nice misstatementd (as usual Malcolm).

    Go back and see if you can pick up the context of the comments.

    Let’s see if you can handle just a touch of intellectual honesty.

    (I won’t be holding my breath).

  32. 28

    an —hole blogtroll you are

    LOL – there you go again with that accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do.

    Your Mommy must be so ecstatic.

  33. 27

    Nice rant Malcolm.

    But try this time in English. Speak slowly. Comeplete your thoughts. Enunciate. And above all else, breathe.


  34. 22

    when I want more and more, I don’t lie in law journal articles.

    That’s nice. Want a lolly?

  35. 21

    LOL – please stop now Malcolm and put the shovel down before you start imagining things with 12 year old Chinese boys like you have done in the past.

  36. 20

    My post at 6:13 explains the points missed.

    Try reading it for the first time.

    Better tr011ing please.

  37. 19

    Thankfully, I’m not alone and, even better, my targets are big, real, and have a tendency to be completely unaware of how they are perceived by the people whose money they want to take away.

    LOL – that you share your nice shiny hat with Keeping It Real, Robert, Francis, Shrivan and Vivika M., there is no doubt.

    But we both know that you do not believe in the patent system, and it is that work (not your deception and attempted destruction work) that I am referencing.

    We both knew that, but you cannot help yourself from being a pr1ck about it. Par for the course.

  38. 18

    it’s a “bad thing” to give a bloated whining crybaby more candy just because they threaten to cry louder.

    You are doing that self-projecting thing again.

    As I said: you need to get into a line of work that you can believe in what you are doing. This dissonance is like a cancer eating your soul and making you into a foul person.

    Get out while you can.

  39. 17

    1iars have that problem – they think everyone is 1ying.

    Malcolm’s cheap rhetorical tool of accuse-others-of-that-which-he-does is also well known, and well, obvious.

  40. 15

    Perhaps MM, but when I want more and more, I don’t lie in law journal articles.

    Perhaps your problem is that you are using projection and assuming that we are intellectual dishonest like you.

  41. 14

    They just want more of them. All. The. Time.

    LOL – you act like that is supposed to be a bad thing…

    You really need to get into a profession that you can believe in the work that you are supposed to do.

  42. 13

    Squint as I may, I don’t see you making an actual point here Malcolm.

    Nice vacuous post.


  43. 12

    One has to wonder about guys like NWPA and Gene Quinn who apparently still can’t get allowed claims.

    Oh, they can get allowed claims. They just want more of them. All. The. Time.

  44. 11

    McCracken, you have been slackin.
    Funny gifs are what we need
    Not your positions fake
    Your posts have gone to seed
    Some advice, you need to take:

    Know your limitations.

  45. 9

    Congress is incompetant for not getting the budget done. This will increase PTA calculations due to delay from the PTO. It will slow economic investment because you really can’t make SEC statements accurately without puffery until the patent is granted. While large companies may not care as much, smaller companies do. Thus the sequester is have a real but insideous impact on the economy and this is just one of the ways.

  46. 8

    ‘good times’ appears to be the same person that impersonated ‘greedy lawyers’ in a stint of posts awhile back.

    The same gambit of ‘ha, you have to love the crooked system, I’m an insider and I am admitting how bad it is’ will suffer the same fate. The lack of knowledge of how the system works and the negative ASSumptions of failure on the part of advocates of the system belie the falsehood and deception.

    Perhaps we have another volunteer to find that one single example of a modern advanced country who has seen the light and chucked all IP laws and has reached Nirvana.

  47. 7

    Now that it’s the allowance office rather than the rejection office, my life is 1000 times easier. One has to wonder about guys like NWPA and Gene Quinn who apparently still can’t get allowed claims. What the heck are they doing?

  48. 6

    The answer arises that ALL of them are subject to litigation and possible subsequent invalidation.

    You are aware that litigation is the enforcement mechanism for patents, right? You appear not to be familiar with law and appear to be reacting to the anti-patent drumbeat that someone trying to enforce their patent right must be a bad thing.

    As to subjecting patents to possible invalidation, you appear again to be unfamiliar with law and seem to think that a common defense must mean that the infringer is always right.

    I suggest that you become a bit more knowledgeable about patent law and a bit less susceptible to the anti-patent propaganda dousing the general public.

  49. 5

    The question arises how many of the granted patents would be subjected to litigation and subsequent invalidation.

  50. 4

    Time to repeal sequestration — it is just a head wind on the economy, reduces revenues and thereby increases the deficit.

  51. 3

    It looks like by about 2017 the number of yearly grants will have doubled.

    Prediction for 2017: unemployment rates in the US will remain well below pre-recession levels. The US population size will remain roughly the same. A record number of patent infringement suits will be filed and a record number of ordinary people who have never seen a patent will receive a letter accusing them of patent infringement. Those letters will be signed by someone in the top 1% income bracket. Good times.

    link to

  52. 1

    Fyi, Steph Kennedy at IP Troll Tracker has created a potentially useful website for consolidating threatening letters from patent trolls:

    link to

    I notice mention at the site of Jim Logan’s junk patent on audio information dissemination (8,112,504, among others). This is the one where Logan imagined a personal audio device that could “interact with the internet and your preferences to pull down, to your personal player, all the personal stuff you wanted to listen to” and basically just claimed that. And the USPTO, of course, happily bent over and took his money.

    Good article here:

    link to

Comments are closed.