26 thoughts on “Percent of US Patents Assigned to Chinese Companies

  1. 5

    Real question for those who know:

    Any recommendation/s for China / international prep & pros law firm/s?

    I’m done filing for U.S. patents.

    Time to look to those countries which still welcome, encourage, and support all inventors and their creations — where virtually all innovations are eligible for patent protection.

    Like America used to be.

      1. 5.1.1

        China = communist country. So have fun.
        China is an exceptionally poor example of a communist company. It is a totalitarian government. It has a socialist market economy that has many elements of what is described in the west as capitalism. Today’s China is communist in name only.

        Also, most modern economies have strong socialist features. In the United States, for example, examples of socialism include the public infrastructure, social security, public transportation, fire/police services, public parks, public schools, and Medicare/Medicaid. The so-called “Nordic Model” includes even more socialist attributes. Many European countries are somewhere between the US and the Nordic model (but probably tend to be closer to the Nordic model than the US).

      2. 5.1.2

        In addition to Wt’s most excellent comment,

        Two different missteps by Litig8tor….

        You do understand that the actual government of China is NOT “communist,” eh? Sure, “in name,” but in reality that country is an empire.

        I’ve been there – studied there – and there is more nay ked “capitalism” buried in the Empire than most would understand. It is only through a strict Empire-control set-up that the current government remains in power, and any view that the nation is a “commune” should be properly dismissed.

    1. 5.2

      “where virtually all innovations are eligible for patent protection”

      Am I wrongly under the impression that China generally doesn’t allow patents on the diagnosis and treatment of diseases?

      1. 5.2.1

        You are correct. I gather that when Pro Say writes “virtually all innovations are eligible,” he means that virtually all computer implemented innovations are eligible.

  2. 4

    Curious what database you used to track this. I used to be able to do this easily on the old USPTO database but am struggling with the new PTO database. Assume one of the commercial databases?

  3. 3

    Surely this will lead the courts and Congress doing all they can to make design patents stronger than ever and easier to enforce!

    Because it’s all about innovation and we all know China is the world leader in ornamental design. Right?


    1. 2.1

      You use the word disparate — and it is not clear just what you mean by that word.

      Are you comparing apples and oranges again?

      1. 2.1.1

        I really dislike the new PTO patent searching tool. It’s horrible, and you cannot do a lot of the things you could do with the old search tool. I wish they would keep the old one as a legacy search tool, but alas, they haven’t.


            Search under a law firm, used to be use “LREP” to search for that. Search for an Assignee, used to be “AN” I believe. Now I have no idea how to do that. Maybe you can, but the User Interface provides no guidance as to how to do so.


              You can still do these things.

              The assignee name index is “.as.” (and the applicant name index is “.aanm.”).
              And for firm there is “.firm.” and “.lfrm.” (and kind of “.att.” also).

              Some of these are available in the GUI’s help tab, and all search indices are available at:
              link to ppubs.uspto.gov

              This new search program is an improvement over the prior internal search. The problem is that it gives a lot of flexibility in how to use it. And it looks like the default arrangement in the public search program is atrocious.


                Thanks Ben!

                Now that Public PAIR is gone, do you have any tidbits to quick access to Image File Wrappers of other people’s applications?

    1. 1.2

      Greg’s obsequious question actually bespeaks a better point that I routinely provide:

      Separate out the large multi-nationals with the foreign entities in order to obtain a better picture of those entities more likely aligned with advancing innovation in (and for) this Sovereign.

      Those that can, and do (highly aligned with the group that I indicate) play international arbitrage with their business factors (only one of which is innovation) simply have less material interest with promotion of innovation directly under – and hence, for — the US Sovereign.

      If we have to put up with corporations having “voices,” the least we can do is diminish those voices that are not tied to advancing innovation for THIS Sovereign.

      There is no Uber One World Order, and we should not pretend there is one (or should be one).


          Second misstep by Litig8tor….

          I fully know what “sovereign means,” and your quip is most errant. By itself, your, “Seems not” only shows your own lack of understanding.

      1. 1.3.1

        I like Litig8or’s definition. I am merely wondering how Prof C was using the term when he assembled this chart.

      2. 1.3.2

        LOL – my pal with the shifting historical pseudonym provides a rather interesting contrast with his own RACY ISM reply at 1.3 (slanty…? Really? Don’t you know that Dr. Seuss was “corrected” for his portrayal in And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street) with his ‘suggestion’ of awarding someone a MAGA cap.

        Inadvertent irony is yummy.

Comments are closed.