This is an updated version of a chart that I made a few years ago -- this time using utility patents issued 1/2009 through 11/2011. To create the chart, I grouped patents according to the number of claims in the issued patent and then calculated the average number of claims for each group. As usual, the 20-count claims is an anomaly.
« Summary of Mayo v. Prometheus Oral Argument | Main | Chisum on the New Rules of Patent Priority »
Dec 08, 2011
Comments
Subscribe
19,000+ individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.
Recent Posts
- Motiva v. ITC and Nintendo
- Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- Supreme Court to hear another Case Involving Licensees in Good Standing who Challenge Patent Rights
- Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy,
- After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0
- Supreme Court Looks More Closely at Reviewing Therasense
- Forrester v. Wheelabrator: No Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Tortious Interference Claims Involving Prospect of Claim Construction
- Expanding Post-Grant Business Method Reviews: S. 866
- Patent Troll Panel at Yale Law School
- Supreme Court: Patent Rights Block Farmers from Saving and Re-Planting Patented Seeds
- Don’t break the chain – ensuring valid claims to priority based on US patent filings has become easier.
- CLS Bank v. Alice Corp: Court Finds Many Software Patents Ineligible
- Apple's European Multi-Touch Patent Revived by the English Court of Appeals
- May 8, 2013 9:19:00 PM
- Is This True?: The Most Innovative Products are Not Being Patented
- Hispanic National Bar Association IP Institute
- Patent Ownership Split in Divorce and Divided Ownership Negates Standing to Sue
- Secretary of Commerce then PTO Director
- Allergan v. Sandoz: The Thin Line of Nonobviousness
- Slow and Steady: PTAB Continuing to Address Backlog of Ex Parte Appeals
- Guest Post: Nine Reasons why the Supreme Court Should Side with Myriad and Affirm the Patenting of Isolated Human Genes
- Lazare Kaplan v. Photoscribe: Make Sure to Always File a Cross-Appeal (Except When You Shouldn't)
- UK Moving on Design Patent Rights
- Biogen v. Glaxosmithkline: Prosecution History Disclaimer and Claim Construction
- Patently-O Wordle
- FCBA and Santa Clara Program on Advanced Complex Litigation
- SO THAT’S WHAT “RAND” MEANS?: A Brief Report on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Microsoft v. Motorola
- Don’t Write This Letter to the Patent Office
- Tidbit: About 3% of recently
- Issue Preclusion in Repeat Patent Cases
Categories
- Academic Studies
- Accelerated Examination
- All Elements
- Amicus Brief
- Anticipation
- Articles and Publications
- Attorney Fees
- Bayh-Dole
- Best Mode
- Biotech
- Bits and Bytes
- Blogroll
- Book Review
- BPAI
- Business Developments
- CAFC
- Certificate of Correction
- Chemical
- Claim Construction
- Claim Drafting Tips
- Conference or CLE
- Contributory Infringement
- Copyright
- Current Affairs
- Damages
- Declaratory Judgment
- Design Patent
- Disclaimer
- Dissent
- District Court
- Doctrine of Equivalents
- Doctrine of Patent Misuse
- EFiling
- En Banc
- Enablement
- False Marking
- Fees
- First Sale / Exhaustion
- Gaming
- Graham Factors
- Guest Post
- Indefinite
- Inducement
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Interference
- Invalidity
- Inventors
- Inventorship
- ITC
- Jobs
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm Practice
- Law School
- Lear Doctrine
- License
- Local Rules
- Means Plus Function
- Medical Device
- Method Claims
- Motivation to Combine
- Obviousness
- On Sale
- Ownership
- Patent Applications
- Patent Cases 2004
- Patent Cases 2005
- Patent Cases 2006
- Patent Cases 2007
- Patent Cases 2008
- Patent Cases 2009
- Patent Cases 2010
- Patent Cases 2011
- Patent Cases 2012
- Patent Legislation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Q&A
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Petitions
- Pharma
- PHOSITA
- Post Grant Review
- Preissuance Submissions
- Printed Matter Doctrine
- Prior Art
- Priority Rights
- Procedure
- Provisional Patent Application
- PTAB
- Public Use
- Rantanen
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Revival
- Science
- Settlement
- Software
- Standing
- State Immunity
- statutory bar
- Statutory Construction
- Summary Judgment
- Supreme Court
- Survey
- Takings
- Teaching Away
- Television
- TipCast
- Tools
- Trade Secret
- Trademark
- Transnational
- USPTO News
- Vitiation
- Weblogs
Friends
- Patent Docs
- Patent Baristas
- Orange Book Blog
- Patent Prospectors
- IP Kat
- Prof Goldman
- David Donoghue
- Michael C. Smith
- SCOTUS Blog
- ELS
- Spicy IP
- The Patent Law Journal
- ABA blawgs
- Green Patents
- Delaware IP
- Inventive Step
- IP Spotlight
- Gray on Claims
- Patents4Life
- Bryan Beel
- Bill Vobach
- IP Watchdog
- Levin Crouch Patent Mediation Services
Recent Comments
- anon on Motiva v. ITC and Nintendo
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- Inviting Body Punches on Supreme Court to hear another Case Involving Licensees in Good Standing who Challenge Patent Rights
- LB on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- LB on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- Paul F. Morgan on Motiva v. ITC and Nintendo
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- McCracken on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- bad joke ahead on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- anon on Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy,
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- anon on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- 6 on Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy,
- MM on Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy,
- Kevin E. Noonan on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- MM on Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- anon on Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy,
Terms of Use & Disclaimer
- Terms of Use
- Patently-O on Facebook
Connect with Patently-O readers. -
-
