by Dennis Crouch
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a total of 312,100 utility patents in the calendar year 2023. This marks the fourth consecutive year of decline in the number of issued patents. The 2022 figures show a 3% decrease from the previous year and a 12% decrease from the record-high numbers seen in 2019, as depicted in the chart below. One of the biggest changes from 2022 to 2023 is that non-US patent applicants dropped from 51% of the total down to 48%. In fact, numbers from US-applicants increased over the past year. There was a roughly parallel shift when looking at the % of patents naming a US inventor — up from 47% in 2022 to 50% in 2023.
It’s important to recognize that patent issuance in any given year is largely based on innovations and applications filed 2-5 years prior or more. For example, the 2023 decline reflects a drop in underlying patent filings, R&D, and new invention volume primarily from 2018 to 2020, with most applications pending examination for years before grant. Similarly, the 2022 and prior year patent volumes correlate most directly with late 2010s economic, policy and innovation landscapes. So this data is more of a backwards-looking snapshot. The drivers behind 2023’s applicant mix shift likely originated a few years back as well — established in the midst of the COVID pandemic. Though issuing patents now, the underlying applicant behaviors and investment decisions providing this US boost trace back to the 2020-2022 period or earlier based on typical application lag. Any analysis of the grant mix changes must recognize this context, and account for influencers at the time of filing rather than issuance to best understand the shift.
Rather than an economic indicator, the grant numbers and details surrounding them are (I believe) more reflective of the operation of the USPTO and the faith innovative companies have in the patent system.
As usual the number of patents sued on in 2023 is still only about 1 % of the above-indicated number of 312,100 new utility patents issued in 2023.
Unified Patents reports that “NPE (PAE)s are responsible for 58% of all suits brought in 2023.” Also, indicating that the total number of patent suits filed this year were down somewhat due to one major PAE filing less new lawsuits.
… that “1%” further overstates the percentage of suits, given as suits are typically on patent claims (so figure probably 1/20th of the percentage or so).
So much for the “scourge” of “Oh N0es, Lawsuits out of control.”
As for, “Unified Patents” (talk about your Tr011), I am sure they (and you) won’t bother reminding everyone that because of the Efficient Infringer propaganda, Congress forced suit numbers to greatly expand in the America Invents Act.
^^* said expansion aimed at one particular type of entity – to be precise.
Actually, what upstairs/downstairs post is remarkable. It means that between 1998 and 2022 that US patents have gone from 100K to 200K, which certainly has not kept pace with the size of the tech industry. It indicates that the patent system is not healthy.
Which is what I have said for a long time that if you take out the foreign filings, then the patent system is not doing well.
“[i]f you take out the foreign filings, then the patent system is not doing well.” But, as far as I know, almost every country’s patent system depends on foreign filings, North Korea and the like countries possibly being the exception: patents are territorial, so if you want patent protection on more than your home turf, you are going to be a foreign filer in most of the world. And so it goes for companies like Huawei, Samsung, Hitachi, Philips, Rolls-Royce, and so on, for filing in the US.
Of the major countries, Japan used to be, though I don’t think it still is, and China seems to be, though I don’t have the numbers, countries where local applicants dominate. In Japan, it was the habit of filing applications where perhaps in other countries the inventors would be authors on a scientific paper, but many of those applications were never examined (back in the days of 7 year deferred request for examination). China I suspect now may be the same as Japan was.
Derek Freyberg, your post is fine in that foreign filings are fine and good.
The point is to look at US innovation without the foreign filings–not whether foreign filing are good or bad. Foreign filings are good in general and illustrate that the US is an important market.
I would add the emphasis that OFTEN new firms will/must “start local,” and combined with the fact that ALL patent law (outside any treaties that exist for comity sake), is Sovereign-Centric law.
Now mind you, those who have their vision jaded (like large international firms, Big Pharma, Efficient Infringers and the like) will have long lost sight of these important localizing factors.
The ἀρετή of the patent system is to promote technological innovation. The acid test of whether the patent system is faltering is if technological innovation is slowing down. Is technological innovation slowing down? Where do we observe measurable evidence of such a slowdown?
As innovation begets innovation AND the patent clause use of the word “promote” is NOT limited to any type of (linear) technical advance, AND includes the advertising meaning aligned with promotion (or share the word), any “acid test” is most definitely not whether or not technological innovation is slowing down – per se – but are we not accelerating (across most all fronts – not just in some ‘flavor of the day’).
Hence, my note that if we are looking at UN-normed (raw) patent count data, we should be viewing the data on a log chart.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 31, 2023 at 7:56 am
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat[S] due to filter….
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 31, 2023 at 7:55 am
As for the hidden link in the ( 0 b n 0 x 1 0 u s) Greek, one has to wonder which side of the spectrum that Nichols (and Greg) views as having aband0ned the C0nstitut10n.
There has been a real discussion of these issues at ipwatchdog where papers have looked at the slowdown.
What has happened is that we have several large tech companies swallowing up the tech space and the patent system not helping the small companies. Plus we see the same thing with pharmaceuticals.
Take a look at what it took to just assert one patent against Apple. $100 million dollars.
link to wsj.com
The acid test of whether the patent system is faltering is if technological innovation is slowing down. Is technological innovation slowing down? Where do we observe measurable evidence of such a slowdown?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The only evidence that would satisfy everyone would be to create two identical economic systems — one with strong patent rights and another we weaker patent rights — and then compare the output of those systems. Needless to say that is an impossibility.
Framing the issue is this way is a poor way of evaluating the patent system. You can do better.
Framing the issue is this way is a poor way of evaluating the patent system.
No, really, the way I am framing it is the right way to frame it. It is an occupational hazard that we patent professionals are naturally inclined to evaluate the patent system according to whether it is working well for ourselves (although we tend to pretend that we are evaluating it according to whether it is working well for our clients).
No country on Earth, however, charters its patent system for the benefit of patent attorneys. The patent systems exist for the benefit of the public at large. If the rate of technological innovation were slowing down, the public at large should be able to notice this.
Is the increase between the iPhone 14 and 15 less impressive than between 5 and 6? Are there more years between the launch of new cancer drugs now than there was pre-KSR? Is the rate at which average fuel economy for 4-door sedans improves slower now than it was pre-Alice? These are objectively answerable questions? Someone who wishes to advance the affirmative case that the patent system is ailing really ought to be able to point to actual facts along these lines if one wishes to be taken seriously.
In the immediate aftermath of Mayo/Alice, I was convinced that innovation would suffer. I was sure that we would see a slowdown in the rate of new drugs, or new software, or something. Here we are ten years later, however, and try as I might, I have not been able to spot the slowdown. Evidently, then, I was wrong, and so were all the other folks making the same assertion.
Someone who wishes to advance the affirmative case that the patent system is ailing really ought to be able to point to actual facts along these lines if one wishes to be taken seriously.
The fact you even raise this point either means you are completely unaware of how technology advances, lack the capability to engage in simple logic, and/or you are being disingenuous.
Let’s address your question of “Is the increase between the iPhone 14 and 15 less impressive than between 5 and 6?” My first response to that, as it pertains to the US patent system, is what are the factors that drive innovation? My guess is that for any given company or product there are dozens of different factors that drive innovation — only one of which is the patent system. Consequently, when you make the statement “I was sure that we would see a slowdown in the rate of new drugs, or new software, or something. Here we are ten years later, however, and try as I might, I have not been able to spot the slowdown,” it is readily apparent that you made, at that time, the incredibly naive assumption that the US patent system was the only thing driving innovation (or at least the US patent system was the main factor driving innovation).
All it takes is some exposure to real inventors to see that the current patent system is hampering innovation. Look at Myriad Genetics, who lost AMP v. Myriad back in June of 2023. Since that time, Myriad’s stock has lost about 40% of its value and its revenues have only increased slightly over the last 10 years. Over the same time period the S&P500 has essentially tripled in value and Nasdaq composite had quadrupled. I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why Myriad’s stock has tanked in 10 years, but I have little doubt that Myriad was relying upon its testing patents to bolster its revenues on that genetic testing it provided.
With Myriad’s profits under attack, what was the most likely outcome as it pertains to Myriad’s R&D efforts? Do you think Myriad was more likely or less likely to invest in the type of research that led to the discovery that they patented (that patent subsequently being invalidated)? I’m not in the industry so I cannot say for sure. However, I suspect (with fairly great certainty) that Myriad made a conscious effort to avoid R&D on projects for which patents of the type that were invalidated could only be granted. Maybe they tried getting patents different ways. However, the AMP v. Myriad decision represents (and represented) a great risk to their business model. And as someone who has studied business, companies are less likely to engage in a project when that project has greater risk. It is a simple calculus that most people use in their daily lives — there comes a point when the risk of a particular activity outweighs the benefit of that particular activity and when that happens, you stop (or don’t start) performing the activity.
The current patent system is more risky today than it was 10 years, which was more risky than it was 10 years before that. If you have a product/service that can be easily copied, you are less likely to bring that product/service to market if you cannot protect it with a patent. There are certain companies (e.g., Apple) that don’t need a patent protection with a single patent to protect their products. They have alternative approaches. They have thousands of patents — all of which cannot be invalidated. They have advantages in terms of marketing, supply chains, and manufacturing. They don’t need the patent system.
However, a small-time company, in many instances, does. What happens when an innovative small-time company invents something that improves upon the iPhone and discovers that Apple has incorporated that feature into their new generation of products? Maybe they have a patent and hope that the patent system with protect them. However, as we all know, that is very unlikely to happen. In that case, this innovative small company likely goes out of business. Is that good for innovation? And circling back to your point, what kind of evidence do we see of innovations that might have been brought to market but were never birthed because the innovators were previously-scrwed by the system and decided not to engage in innovation any longer?
+1
+1
+1
Myriad Genetics… lost AMP v. Myriad back in June of 2023. Since that time, Myriad’s stock has lost about 40% of its value…
Sure, you do not need to convince me that Myriad got a raw deal. I already believe as much. I think that you are confusing two analytically distinct concepts here, however: (1) did patentee X get a raw deal; and (2) does the patent system continue to function as a spur to innovation?
The whole history of the patent system is littered with examples of genius inventors getting a raw deal. Eli Whitney went bankrupt trying to commercialize his cotton gin. Nikola Tesla died in poverty, having to keep moving from one flop-house to the next because he was unable to pay his bills. Henry Cort went bankrupt and his patents were seized by his creditors before they made a fortune off of his technology. Each of these instances is a personal tragedy and a moral outrage. For better or worse, however, these repeated instances of inventors getting a raw deal has not—to all apparent evidence—soured people’s thinking about patents.
Moreover, it cannot be the business of Congress to sort out such wrongs. The Federal government has only very limited power to sand off the splintery edges of capitalism, and previous efforts to extend beyond those limits have always produced more harm than good. Therefore, Congress cannot concern itself with “is this individual patentee getting a raw deal?”. All that Congress can do is to set a patent system in place that in general incentivizes innovation, and then let the chips fall where they may.
When we want to know whether the patent system is functioning as intended, then, we cannot make that assessment by looking at this inventor or that company and following their individual financial ups and downs. That is an analysis of question no. 1—not no. 2—which is not and should not be a matter of Congress’ concern.
You answer no. 2 by looking at the total innovation landscape. Not by looking at this or that individual or entity.
With Myriad’s profits under attack, what was the most likely outcome as it pertains to Myriad’s R&D efforts? Do you think Myriad was more likely or less likely to invest in the type of research that led to the discovery that they patented (that patent subsequently being invalidated)?
Sure, this make total sense to me. Ten years ago, this was definitely how I was thinking about the question. I felt certain that investor would look at the shafting that Myriad received and redeploy their capital away from R&D. I thought that patent filings would decrease in about five years, and the rate of new products and services emerging on the market would decline. I have been waiting ever since to spot such trends, and they stubbornly refuse to emerge. The data have falsified my 2013 hypothesis—the same hypothesis that you evidently wish to continue to advance in the face of a decade’s worth of counter-evidence.
For better or worse, however, these repeated instances of inventors getting a raw deal has not—to all apparent evidence—soured people’s thinking about patents.
Have you talked to inventors who have to put up their own money and have already been screwed by the system? If so, you wouldn’t be writing what you are writing. There will always be people who pay for things that will ultimately provide them no benefit. The vitamin & supplement industry is approximately $40B in the US alone in 2023. That is a whole lot of money being spent on things that probably don’t do anything good. Many inventors (and consumers) spent their money on things that don’t help them. However, there are a class of inventors who are knowledgeable about the patent system and realize that they are getting screwed by it.
All that Congress can do is to set a patent system in place that in general incentivizes innovation, and then let the chips fall where they may.
They did that in 1951 and yet the judiciary has continually chipped away at it since then. A patent issued 20 or 30 years ago had a much greater chance of being successfully used than a patent issued today. I don’t think anyone would debate that point. However, if things continue down this path, I wonder what will the US patent system look like 10 or 20 years from now. I answered Dennis’s test question today with the answer is that the patent is not patent eligible (Hooke’s law) which makes everything else moot, and its not much of a stretch to make that argument. I’m sure there are people drafting 12b6 motions to dismiss right now based upon similar logic and it would not surprise me if some District Court judge and some Federal Circuit panel agreed. Once purely mechanical devices get knocked out under 101, the horse is out of the bar and it will be next to impossible to put it back in.
I thought that patent filings would decrease in about five years, and the rate of new products and services emerging on the market would decline.
You’ve completely omitted addressing my point is that innovation (in total) is driven by lots of factors besides the patent system. Consequently, you cannot evaluate changes to the patent system impact by just looking at innovation (in total). There are other variables at play that you are not accounting for. Although an imperfect analogy, you are like someone who dismisses that global warming (or climate change) is happening because they experienced a colder than normal day. Like temperature, innovation is driven by lots of factors. As such, you cannot assume that a change in one factor will necessarily be noticeable.
There is an additional reason why many patents are obtained and maintained absent any direct economic value. Some companies tout the size of their patent portfolios to try to convince stock market investors that they are a “high tech” company.
Have you talked to inventors who have to put up their own money and have already been screwed by the system? If so, you wouldn’t be writing what you are writing.
Right, this comes back to that occupational hazard that I noted above. We patent professionals are inclined—by personal proximity to such concerns—to assess the health of the patent system according to how it is working for ourselves (although we prefer to phrase it as a concern for our dissatisfied clients).
The universe does not care whence the innovation arises. Is the innovation arising? That is all about which the broader society (and thus the patent system, which is chartered for and by the ordinary society) can concern itself.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Is innovation continuing apace? If so, then the patent system is functioning well, even if this or that participant is dissatisfied with its functioning.
You’ve completely omitted addressing my point is that innovation (in total) is driven by lots of factors besides the patent system.
That is because it is less meaningful a point than you think. There is little to address here. I put forward the thesis that we can tell that recent changes in the law have not much damaged the working of the patent system because innovation continues apace. You responded with the alternative hypothesis that perhaps recent changes have damaged the patent system, but that we do not see a deleterious effect on innovation because patents are not—in the grand scheme of things—all that important to innovation.
These really amount just to two different ways of saying the same thing. What exactly is the functional difference between these two hypotheses? How should Congress adjust the functioning of the system to achieve more innovation if one is true instead of the other? You are expressing more agreement with my thesis on this point than you care to admit.
[W]hat kind of evidence do we see of innovations that might have been brought to market but were never birthed because the innovators were previously-scr[e]wed by the system and decided not to engage in innovation any longer?
You are hypothesizing that there are further changes that could be made to the patent laws that would leave all of the current benefits in place, but bring additional benefits into the scene? This is a happy thought. If such changes exist, I hope that Congress crafts them into a bill that can get passed into law. Certainly Senators Tillis & Coons seem very interested in finding such win-wins, and I am encouraged by their persistence in this quest. Here is hoping that such improvements are achieved. The result would be good for everyone.
Greg is projecting a false feeling that – while HE may feel – there is NO evidence that this is the “hazard” that affects most all professionals.
The double-down falsity of “but we ‘claim’ it in terms of impacts to our clients PRESUMES a very large ethical lapse of practitioners who DO maintain the benefit to clients as a guiding light.
and he then repeats his error of MERELY “proceeding apace.”
Sorry Greg, innovations “proceeded apace BEFORE the existence of patent systems, and the reason for patent systems is to garner more than merely “proceeding apace.”
Greg disses ANY view point that he does not like (“it is less meaningful a point than you think“) – an unsurprising move by the guy that does not like “his feelings hurt.”
As to the vap1d hidden signaling (Tillis “&” Coons), Drum’s nonsense on Woke and Harvard proceeds along a false “MUST” strawman. Not only that, his own faculty hire list simply does not reflect the point that he thinks it to be, as there is a LARGE disparity in demographics to the actual hirings (the “diversity” factor is immensely outsized).
This is NOT to say that any of this particular group has been hired on something like a quota, but it is to say that Drum is NOT making the point that he asserts (and closer to the immediate instance of the President stepping down to her ‘lowly’ $900,000 a year professorship, THAT person has no business teaching anyone, and IS a direct result of Woke hiring.
s”a”me…
What is the possible point in the hidden signaling of the Drum nonsense on “interventions”…?
“No, really, the way I am framing it is the right way to frame it.”
As noted above, Greg’s “way” is most definitely NOT the right way to frame it.
As for: “The only evidence that would satisfy everyone would be to create two identical economic systems — one with strong patent rights and another we weaker patent rights — and then compare the output of those systems. Needless to say that is an impossibility.”
We DO have some (while not exact, can be considered ‘similar enough’) examples in comparisions between the Golden Age of the US Patent and those innovation promotion ‘efforts’ of the “for the commons” nations….
iPhone 1″4″…
The power of sin is the law….?
“There was really no need for this post. ”
Translation: “Wah”
With all due respect, Smelly, F off.
Julie is pointing out a very real issue with this country’s Executive ‘leadership’ kowtowing to the Chinese government. I “get” that your Sprint Left proclivities eliminate any cognition when it comes to non-patent law matters, but seriously, your view that either I or Night Writer somehow lead in “most ridiculous (BOTH or EITHER quantity or quality) shows a complete disregard for the hidden links of Greg “I-Use-My-Real-Name-Except-When-I-Don’t” DeLassus and his stunningly mindless adoration of Sprint Left propagandists.
One of the biggest changes from 2022 to 2023 is that non-US patent applicants dropped from 51% of the total down to 48%. In fact, numbers from US-applicants increased over the past year. There was a roughly parallel shift when looking at the % of patents naming a US inventor — up from 47% in 2022 to 50% in 2023.
This is interesting to know. Thanks, Prof. Crouch, for breaking the numbers out like this. Thanks also to Upstairs Downstairs for the breakdown in 3.1.
The St. Louis Fed website has a useful tool for seeing how many patents are associated with filers from foreign countries. Here’s a graph showing that the number of patents issued to foreign applicants increased from ~72,000 in 1998 to ~206,000 in 2020. Thus, 206,000/350,00 or ~60% of patents issued by the PTO in 2020 were to the increasingly frequent foreign filers.
link to fred.stlouisfed.org
Sorry, I had too many screens open when I got my numbers. Disregard the above numbers in “3”.
The St. Louis Fed website has a useful tool for seeing how many patents are associated with filers from foreign countries. Here’s a graph showing that the number of patents issued to foreign applicants increased from ~67,000 in 1998 to ~187,000 in 2020. Thus, 187,000/389,00 or ~48% of patents issued by the PTO in 2020 were to the increasingly frequent foreign filers.
link to fred.stlouisfed.org
This might be a better link:
“https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1dsDE”
link to fred.stlouisfed.org
I shouldn’t have used that 389,000 figure. It included design patents and plant patents, while the 187,000 number was just for utility patents. This link from the PTO shows that the total number of UTILITY patents issued by the PTO in 2020 was actually 352,010.
link to uspto.gov
So, the percentage of US utility patents issued to foreign applicants in 2020 was ~ 187,000/352,000 or ~53.1%.
The percentage of utility patents issued to Chinese applicants: ~6%
The percentage of utility patents issued to S. Korean applicants: ~6.2%
The percentage of utility patents issued to Japanese applicants: ~14.6%
The percentage of utility patents issued to California applicants: ~13%
Here is a link to a compilation of the St Louis Federal Reserve’s charts for US, Japan and China originating applications granted by USPTO, 1990-2020
link to linkedin.com
I am actually surprised that you have not been accused of being a Xenophobic R@cyist yet.
It still looks like a bubble. The most commercially valuable patents are now trading around $100,000. The vast majority are illiquid and unenforceable under U.S. case law and procedures.
Re: “The most commercially valuable patents are now trading around $100,000.”
Really commercially valuable patents are not even for sale. That is, patents competitively protecting key features of lucrative major products of the patent owning company, including but not limited to pharmaceuticals. Nor are clearly extensively infringed patents that can survive an IPR going to sell for so little.
Yes, most patents are not saleable at all, for reasons including technical obsolescence, being commercial impractical or inferior to alternatives, having only claims easily designed around, readily available prior art never cited, only being for a small niche market, unpaid maintenance fees, etc.
About time we ALL fight the current Efficient Infringer narratives (including the ‘0h N0es, Patent Tr011s”), eh?
The items of your laments are LARGELY due to the anti-patent narratives that have been SOOOO bandied about with reckless abandon for several decades now.
“Really commercially valuable patents are not even for sale. ”
Yeah I was about to say, all of the “good” and even “mediocre” patents that my guys are getting do not appear to ever change hands. They just stay with the big boys. Maybe possibly there is some change to some other big boy.
Which of course is opposite what the old 271 Blog found back in the day (the so-called ‘Tr011s’ had a much more rigorous vetting system than other patent transactions.
Go figure huh. Whatever fits the desired narrative from the anti-patent folk.
My emphasis:
US Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times TO Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
35 U.S.C. 283 Injunction.
The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.
The direct tie in order to protect the holder of a right – with emphasis of securing that right – appears to have been fundamentally obscured.
The Supremes simply read 35 U.S.C. 283’s limiting words ” in accordance with the principles of equity” and applied them. If you want everyone who obtains or buys patents to get injunctions for infringements it would require removing those words from the statute.
No – the entire words of the statute must be applied.
Further – as I have long posted, the “in accordance with the principles of equity” follow the correct view that one remedy (injunction) which may be an “Atom B0mb” in other areas of law is NOT so in patent law.
As a remedies reminder for you:
Equity (and not that Sprint Left stuff) calls first and foremost for the aggrieved to be made as whole as possible.
When it comes to the patent right – the very nature of the right transgressed is not any type of “Must Make” (to which money as a remedy is usually a first go-to).
It is a Negative Right – and easily the best remedy is the one that most approximates the right at the heart of the issue.
While certainly this is NOT a de facto “automatic” remedy, it should be extremely few and far between that any other (less important) equitable factor steers the course to a different remedy.
what are the equitable factors required by the statute for an injunction when the present owner of a patent does not have any product or market that can be harmed, and only wants or can benefit, from a cash recovery, and only the public would be deprived by an injunction? [Which cash damages can be doubled or trebled and have added-on attorney fees for willful infringement or defense misconduct.] Back when I started, patent suit injunction awards were more common, because far more patent suits were by companies whose product sales were being hurt by infringer’s product sales. PAE’s were unheard of.
BTW, re my last sentence, a patent law academic study [over say 50 years] of the percentage of patent suits that were by product manufacturers or sellers, versus PAEs or contingent-fee attorneys, would be more useful and relevant than some of the others published lately.
academic….
About the only thing W0RSE than mere litigators….
This is the absolutely WR0NG question to be asking, as it is NOT in accord with the actual transgression, to which the principles of equity are to be applied to:
“what are the equitable factors required by the statute for an injunction when the present owner of a patent does not have any product or market that can be harmed, and only wants or can benefit, from a cash recovery, and only the public would be deprived by an injunction?”
First action for you: understand what the patent right actually is (I do remember that once upon a time you had a registration number, so your faux pas is even more heinous).
+1
Or maybe those words are not limiting and just recognize that an injunction is an equitable remedy not a legal one, meaning the court has greater discretion “to prevent the violation of any right secured.”
Yes – the context of WHY applying the principles of equity MUST be firmly kept in mind.
I still think that these numbers need to be separated out to understand what is going on. There are different sources of patent applications. Ones from purely foreign innovation. Ones from purely domestic innovation. And ones where there is a mix where international corporations have teams of inventors working in different countries.
You are absolutely correct – the provision of mere ‘raw data’ loses so very many teaching moments that have L O N G been pointed out to the good professor.
So much so, that the “c0nsp1racy the0ry” of a ‘Certain Narrative’ being propagandized is only FED.
As for other context, it is not only the inputs (applications filed) that have major impacts, but also case law, trends of practitioners applying/leveraging case law (yes, those “d@mn scriviners” react so much more quickly than the Royal Nine of the Supreme Court can rewrite the law), and such things as macro-economics that tell a much better “narrative.”
^^^ these types of comments – yours and mine – are ever so S L O W L Y making their impact.
As they say, DEEP waters appear calm. 😉
Yes. Even separating out issued patents where all inventors are from China would be illustrative.
Since the graph does not appear to be normalized for growth in population, here is a link to show the growth in US population over the years.
link to worldometers.info
“the graph does not appear to be normalized for growth in population”
LOL — this nonsense again? I guess it’s time for some Friday laughs.
Outside of normalization factors (and your aversion is merely a symptom of your r@g1ng cognitive dissonance), I would prefer to see any raw data in a log plot, given the very reason we have a patent system is to promote innovation — and thus we should expect non-linear GROWTH in patents.
Of course, I do not expect you to comprehend that (let alone acknowledge it).
You be[ing] you and all.
+1
Not necessarily just China. I’d be interested in what sophisticated patentees from e.g., Japan, Korea, UK, and Germany are doing. Are they decreasing US filings? If so, are they also decreasing non-US filings (i.e., is it an overall slowdown in innovation or a problem with the US patent system)??
If one is to give credit to some of Peter Zeihan’s prognostications, China has THE W0RST ‘cliff effect’ as to their national anything – including their massive subsidization of world wide patent filings.
How many hastily examined patents are being granted to watchlisted Chinese entities covering sanctioned technologies?
Right now, USPTO PEDS shows over 500 recently allowed patent applications for Huawei. Why is the US patent system working against our US interests?
link to linkedin.com
Somehow, I have to believe that “Equity” (or Hunter Biden ties) have something to do with it.
But watch the Sprint Left folk run to deep denial.
There was really no need for this post. Your lead over Nightwiper for most ridiculous (quantity and quality) posts of 2023 is quite secure.
See post 5 above.
Also, “Breeze,” – you have not yet (if ever) provided your ‘view’ on the Israel/Hamas debacle.
Gee, why is that? It’s not as if you have not “shared” other non-patent law views of yours, so why is it?
(we both know why, eh?)
If you know why please enlighten me.
“please enlighten me.”
Are you really saying that YOU do not know what your (parrot-like) Narrative is supposed to be?
It’s almost three months now.
And it’s not as if you have been shy about speaking up on other Sprint Left topics on these boards (so that cannot be it).
Of course, YOU can ‘put this to rest’ quite easily by – you know – actually stating your position.
And yet, you do no such thing, and instead (so like the Sprint Left) merely want to squelch discussions that happen to be ‘inconvenient.’
Your move (and your choice – or lack thereof – will scream volumes).
What is “Your Truth?” ™
Sooooo predictable, Breeze.
“Of course, YOU can ‘put this to rest’ quite easily by – you know – actually stating your position.”
Why do I need to “put to rest” something that is of no interest to anybody on this site except a weird0 like you?
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 3, 2024 at 1:09 pm
Who said anything about “need?”
Of course, if you want to view your own lack of commitment to Sprint Left principles, by all means do so.
On the other hand, YOU can make a note of never venturing forth non-patent law items/viewpoints if you are so “taken aback” that you view this issue as somehow arising from a “need” by my posts, and the ‘utter’ “no interest” as you would describe it.
You be you – no matter how b@d that makes you look.
I will post whatever views on any topic I want to on this site, or not, you fckn weird0.
“I will post whatever views on any topic I want to on this site, or not, ”
Of course you will – and you will continue to denigrate yourself in your selective choices, NOW even more so given your “feelings” as to projected needs and what YOU view as “no interest.”
As I noted: Your move (and your choice – or lack thereof – will scream volumes).
You always get to choose what you post and what you do not – you never get to choose HOW your choices – once made – reflect on you.
And your repeated name-calling just is not helping you.