Tech Patent Filing Process

Filing High. Granting Low. What’s Really Happening? IPO data (2020–2023) reveals a striking pattern. Public institutions: IITs – ~63% grant rate NITs – ~67% grant rate IISc – ~68% grant rate Several private universities: 2–5% grant rate Some with 0% grant rate despite 1500+ filings That’s not a gap. That’s a structural problem. Filing ≠ Innovation Patent filing is easy. Patent grant requires novelty, inventive step, proper drafting, and serious prosecution. When thousands of patents are filed but almost none are granted, we must ask: Are patents being filed for rankings, funding, and branding — rather than real innovation and commercialization? If public reimbursement schemes reward filing numbers without measuring grant success or tech transfer, we are incentivizing quantity over quality. That’s dangerous for India’s IP ecosystem. If there is no intention to prosecute seriously, defend, or commercialize — then mass filing becomes paperwork, not innovation. India doesn’t need patent volume. India needs patent value. Comment below, if you have different view.... #IPR #PatentQuality #InnovationPolicy #HigherEducation #StartupIndia #patentscam #patentfiling

Recent USPTO data reveals concerning trends in both patent grant rates and examination backlogs that warrant careful attention from the patent community. The examination backlog is well over 800,000 unexamined applications, surpassing the previous crisis levels of 2008. This represents a major increase from approximately 526,000 applications in early 2018. While the grant rate remains relatively high at 75-80% compared to the 50% levels seen in 2009, we've observed a modest decline since Director Vidal's confirmation in 2022. This shift suggests a recalibration of examination practices, though still maintaining the more applicant-friendly approach initiated under Director Kappos's tenure. Recognize here that the rise in grant rate is in the face of major eligibility doctrine changes and implementation of KSR. The growing backlog stems from multiple factors: reduced examiner production expectations implemented in 2019, increased examiner attrition during the pandemic, and application filing rates that did not decline post-pandemic as expected. While the USPTO reports taking a "multifaceted" approach focused on examiner hiring and training, the potential for a federal #hiringfreeze in 2025 may complicate these efforts. Plot Twist: The backlog serves some beneficial functions - at least for some - providing time for prior art to mature under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and allowing applicants to refine their understanding of commercial value before paying more in prosecution fees. However, these institutional benefits come with public costs. Extended pendency enables strategic claim amendments that can surprise and potentially chill market participants, triggers Patent Term Adjustment extending monopoly periods, and potentially erodes public confidence in the patent system's effectiveness. https://lnkd.in/g5diAxan

𝗔 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗲𝗿𝗮. In my previous post, I examined how business method patents in the U.S. have evolved from the permissive State Street era to today's more restrictive environment, and how eligibility analysis now focuses on technical implementation rather than business concepts. Now I'll explain the practical elements that determine whether your business method invention is likely to survive eligibility scrutiny. 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 The importance of thorough technical specifications cannot be overstated. I've reviewed numerous applications drafted by firms inexperienced with post-Alice requirements that contain woefully inadequate technical detail. When these applications face inevitable eligibility rejections, amending the claims becomes nearly impossible due to insufficient specification support. Examples of the kinds of details that contribute to patent eligibility of business methods are: • Detailed technical architecture • Specific algorithms and processes • Technical problems and solutions These elements provide the foundation for arguments that the invention improves computer functionality, implements a particular machine, or offers a technical solution to a technical problem—all pathways to establishing eligibility under current standards. 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗩𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 Despite the challenges, major financial institutions continue to obtain substantial patent portfolios covering fintech innovations. Household names in banking and finance obtain thousands of patents annually, demonstrating that financial inventions remain patent-eligible with the right approach. I've successfully obtained patents for financial service clients without significant eligibility hurdles by focusing on complex algorithms, novel user interfaces, and specific technical implementations that go beyond abstract business concepts. These elements provide the technical substance needed to overcome eligibility barriers. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 The key to successful business method patenting almost always lies in the technical substance behind the business concept. While eligibility requirements have created significant obstacles, they haven't closed the door entirely—they've simply raised the bar for the level of technical innovation and disclosure required. Working with a patent attorney who understands the nuances of business method patenting can make the difference between rejection and valuable protection. By approaching business method innovations with a focus on their technical underpinnings rather than just their commercial applications, companies can continue to build valuable patent portfolios even in this challenging environment. #softwarepatents #businessmethodpatents

Over more than a decade of filing patents across multiple jurisdictions for a wide range of technologies developed by our research group, we have gained valuable lessons that are not commonly emphasized in academic environments. The patent examination process is inherently rigorous and challenging, grounded in core principles such as novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and the strength of experimental evidence. One of the most important lessons we have learned is that patent examination differs significantly across jurisdictions. In our experience working with the United States, Europe, Australia, China, India, and parts of the Middle East, these differences are substantial and consequential. A patent granted in one jurisdiction—no matter how rigorous the system—does not guarantee approval in another. Each system varies in its examination style, evaluation criteria, speed, and even the tone and depth of examiner feedback. As a result, the same invention may be interpreted and assessed differently depending on the jurisdiction. Patent attorneys play a critical role in navigating this complexity. Their expertise is essential in structuring the technical language, refining claim scope, and strategically organizing claims to address examiner feedback. This often involves adding clarity, narrowing scope, or, in some cases, removing claims altogether based on the merits of the objections raised. It is not uncommon for a patent application that initially includes 20–30 claims to be reduced to only a handful of approved claims. Throughout this process, the responsibility of the inventors is to ensure that the core technical value and integrity of the innovation are preserved—something that can be particularly challenging. In summary, patents granted for the same technology across different jurisdictions are rarely identical. This reality underscores the importance of early education and training for researchers in intellectual property and patent drafting. Equipping researchers with these skills at early stages will significantly enhance their ability to protect innovations, collaborate effectively with patent attorneys, and support institutional technology transfer efforts. I am very grateful for my research team members and collaborators who have done an amazing job developing these patents and defending their novelty in all these jurisdictions. The gratitude goes to the great efforts of Qatar Foundation Innovation Team later become the Office of Innovation and Industrial Relations (OIIR) of HBKU and to the Texas A&M University Innovation Office.

Earlier this week, Kathi Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, posted assurances inconsistent with US patent examiners' experiences. "In 2022, the USPTO began implementing processes for routing patent applications to increase the likelihood that a patent application would be assigned to an examiner with the right technical background in the first instance." Two days ago, examiners posted on reddit: "Why do they place you outside your speciality? Curious as to why if you have years/decades of experience it seems counter intuitive to getting the work done after." "I had another examiner complaining to me about getting access from a specific area that she has no experience in. I happen to be an expert in that sub-field. Do I get those types cases? Nope" "my specialist is rather specific ceramics and glass science which falls in Chem E, I has hired by Mech E" "The Office views examiners as interchangeable widgets" https://lnkd.in/gscvJfH3 If Kathi Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property has been unable to *hear* the patent examiners' objections, maybe its time to re-read this Dept of Commerce OIG August 2023 report exposing patent classification and application routing process failures: "We found that average error rate for initial classification exceeded the acceptable rate. For example, from March 2021 through December 2022, the vendors averaged a 19-percent and 27-percent error rate, respectively or CPC classification." "SPEs denied 5,899 items [requests by examiners to challenge the assigned classification] without providing an explanation." https://lnkd.in/gqBVd4FD Instead of assigning applications to examiners based on their area of technical competence, some patent applications are assigned in a way that creates ethics conflicts for the patent examiners. And as recently as February 14, 2024, the Dept of Commerce OIG has exposed significant rates of potential ethical violations in the assignment of patent applications. "Based on the sample results, we estimated that in CY2022, about 2,100 patent examiners filed [confidential financial disclosure report] CFDRs - or 29.9 percent - had potential financial conflicts that ethics officials failed to identify." "In 12 of the 26 instances, the examiners were assigned patent applications for companies reported their CFDR." An example of such financial conflict "if an examiner worked in an art unit that covered aeronautics and a held stock in an aerospace company, we considered that a potential conflict." https://lnkd.in/gHVr872w https://lnkd.in/gm2wSwzn Sure doesn't seem that USPTO leadership is working together with patent examiners or Dept of Commerce OIG's oversight.

Patents aren’t just about innovation. They’re about persistence (and money). At LOOMIA, the hardest part of getting patents approved hasn’t been proving our technology works. It’s been arguing with the patent office over technical distinctions. It’s a process of: ↳ Constant back-and-forth ↳ Fine-tuning claims ↳ proving uniqueness (All while costs pile up) The biggest challenge? ↳ Global patenting. Protecting an idea across multiple countries is expensive. You don’t just file once... you file in every major market, each with its own legal hurdles. The reality? Many great ideas never get patented. Not because they aren’t innovative, but because the process is long, costly, and exhausting. If you’ve gone through the patenting process, what’s one thing you wish you knew before you started?

🚀 The Patent Office is Waiting for Your Applications… But Are We Ready? 🤔 A recent news piece ended with an encouraging note—“the patent office is waiting for your applications.” But let’s take a step back and assess the ground realities. Yes, the decline in patent applications may partly reflect the scale of R&D in India's private sector. However, that’s just one side of the story. The Indian patent system itself faces several critical bottlenecks that continue to deter innovation and timely protection of IP: 🔹 Infrastructural & Technical Challenges – Frequent issues with online filing, DSC/e-signing, and payment failures make the process unnecessarily cumbersome. 🔹 Severe Delays in Disposal – Many applications remain pending for over five years (minimising the term of patent protection), far beyond reasonable expectations. Unlike in other jurisdictions where offices are bound by deadlines, here the burden falls on applicants, who must file petitions (often with penal fees) just to push things forward. 🔹 Lack of Adequate Workforce – A shortage of trained manpower at the patent office means backlogs continue to pile up. While larger IP firms may have the resources to navigate these inefficiencies, independent practitioners and smaller applicants face significant hurdles. The system needs practical reforms that prioritize efficiency and transparency. 💡 Instead of just encouraging more filings, shouldn’t we first fix these fundamental issues? What are your thoughts? Have you faced similar challenges? Let’s start a discussion and push for positive change! 👇 #Patents #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #IndiaIP #PatentFiling #R&D #PolicyReforms

One inventor can hold up your entire patent. This happens more often than you think. If an inventor refuses to assign their rights to the company, the company does not fully own the patent. Instead, that inventor remains a co-owner. That creates problems in litigation, licensing, and ownership. Litigation A co-owner must typically be joined in an infringement lawsuit. If they refuse to participate, the company may not be able to enforce the patent at all. Licensing In the U.S., each co-owner can license the patent without the consent of the others, unless there is an agreement that says otherwise. That means your “partner” could grant a license to a third party and you may not see a dollar. Ownership and control You do not have exclusive control over the asset. Decisions about enforcement, licensing, and strategy become complicated quickly. Now layer in a tougher scenario. What if that inventor is also a founder or partner in the company? A breakdown in the business relationship can turn into a patent ownership dispute. At that point, your most valuable IP asset is tied up in a broader conflict between the parties. All of this is avoidable. Assignment provisions in employment agreements and founder agreements should clearly require that inventions are assigned to the company. And if an inventor later refuses to sign a separate assignment document, those agreements can often be recorded as evidence of the assignment itself, if they were drafted properly. It is a simple step that prevents a very expensive problem later.

A granted patent is not as safe as it looks. Most founders think patent grant is the finish line. It isn't. For the next nine months, anyone in the world can try to take it away. This is called opposition. At the European Patent Office, anyone can challenge a granted European patent within nine months of grant. You don't need to be sued. You don't need to be a competitor. Just file, pay the fee, and the EPO reconsiders whether the patent should have been granted. The outcomes are serious: → The patent can be revoked entirely. → The patent can be narrowed. → The patent can be maintained as granted. One challenge. All European countries at once. About 2% of granted European patents are opposed each year. Of those, recent figures suggest roughly 38% are revoked, 32% are narrowed, and 30% survive unchanged. Why does it exist? → For competitors, it's the cleanest way to remove a patent that threatens their business. Cheaper than country-by-country litigation. → For patentees, it's a stress test. If the patent survives, it comes out stronger. The lesson for founders: → If you own a patent, the first nine months are the most dangerous. Draft with opposition in mind. → If a competitor's patent is in your way, the nine-month clock starts immediately. Miss it, and your options shrink to expensive national court actions. A patent is powerful. But it's only fully tested after grant. — Hi, I'm Mahmoud, a European Patent Attorney. I write about IP and patents. 🔔 Follow me for practical IP insights, and feel free to reach out. #innovation #startups #entrepreneurship #business #patents #intellectualproperty #patentstrategy #legaltech #founders #IP

Patent Pitfalls: Common Mistakes in Indian Patent Applications Navigating the Indian patent system requires meticulous attention and legal understanding. Here are the most common mistakes applicants make—and how to avoid them: - **Insufficient Disclosure:** Many applications fail due to vague or incomplete technical descriptions. The invention must be explained in enough detail, with drawings or examples, so that a person skilled in the art can reproduce it. Omitting essential steps or making general, unsupported claims often leads to rejection. *How to avoid:* Clearly describe every feature, process, or component and support general statements with examples or technical details. - **Lack of Prior Art Search:** Failing to perform a comprehensive prior art search results in patents being denied for lacking novelty or inventive step. Relying only on Google is not enough. *How to avoid:* Search patent databases locally and internationally, and review similar inventions for overlap. - **Inadequate or Incorrect Documentation:** Missing forms, wrong inventor names, or incomplete specifications are routine issues that compromise the process. *How to avoid:* Double-check all paperwork for accuracy and completeness before submission. - **Improperly Drafted Claims:** Claims that are too broad, narrow, or ambiguous can either invalidate the patent or leave it with insufficient protection. *How to avoid:* Use terminology precisely and balance the claim scope; have claims reviewed by a patent attorney. - **Premature Disclosure:** Publicizing the invention before filing (in presentations or publications) risks losing rights in India’s “first-to-file” system. *How to avoid:* Always file before any public disclosure and use non-disclosure agreements with collaborators. - **Missed Deadlines:** Delayed filings or failing to meet examination/response deadlines result in abandonment or loss of rights *How to avoid:* Track all statutory deadlines closely. - **DIY Approach:** Without professional help, applicants often make drafting or procedural errors due to unfamiliarity with Indian law. *How to avoid:* Consult a registered patent agent or attorney at every stage for compliance and strategy. By carefully describing the invention, researching thoroughly, managing documents, and seeking legal guidance, inventors can steer clear of major patent pitfalls and improve their chances of a successful patent grant in India.