As the Climate for U.S. Patents Turns Brighter, Now is the Right Time to Invest in These Assets

“The pendulum is swinging back to re-balance the patent legal process over the next 3-5 years. When this happens, the value of a U.S. patent will increase while its cost will stay relatively low.”

After 12 years of doom and gloom for U.S. patents, the pendulum will swing back, leading to increased value. Like the age-old stock market rule says: buy low, sell high. This motto applies in the patent world as well. Cost, Strong Market

The cost of obtaining a U.S. patent has not significantly changed for the past 10 years. This remarkable stability is confirmed by the AIPLA Economic Survey, our own fees, and our general knowledge of the market. The major costs for obtaining a U.S. patent include the drafting fee, the cost of responding to USPTO office actions and the USPTO fees. The first two fees have not increased in over 10 years for many firms and the government fees have increased but remain relatively low compared to the other fees.

With respect to the price of issued patents, the 2018 IAM Benchmarking Survey points to a bear market for U.S. patents, which are “cheaper” year after year. A fall in prices is reported, with 24% of corporate respondents stating that patents are cheaper than a year ago; the previous year’s survey had 36% reporting a fall in prices.

Such relatively stable cost and low price are disharmonious with the fact that a U.S. patent covers the largest market in the world—and a growing market. Despite a slight dip in 2009, the U.S. GDP has grown steadily for the past 20 years. Even if the recent volatility in the stock market is a sign of a difficult 2019, the long-term positive trend is likely to continue. In fact, the U.S. is back on top as the most competitive country in the world, regaining the No. 1 spot for the first time since 2008 in an index produced by the World Economic Forum. The U.S. ranks first overall in business dynamism, labor markets and financial system. It comes second in innovation (behind Germany) and market size (behind China). Why would a patent that covers such a healthy market be so cheap?

Factor 1: Pre-AIA Case Law

A number of factors are at play, especially legal developments that influenced the ability of patent owners to extract value from their U.S. patents. Since 2006, this ability has been restricted. The first hit was the eBay v. MercExchange Supreme Court decision, when the Court determined that a permanent injunction should not be automatically granted based on a finding of patent infringement. Instead, the Court held, injunctions can only be granted if justified under the principles of equity. Since then, patentees have the added burden of proving, inter alia, that they suffered irreparable harm (for example lost market shares) not compensable by damages. The decision was alarming from the point of view of patent owners who had viewed the ability to obtain injunctions as an important part of a patent’s value.

The KSR v. Teleflex Supreme Court decision followed in 2007 when the Court adopted an “expansive and flexible” approach to show obviousness, which can be established without an explicit motivation to combine prior art references. According to the Court, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining [prior art] elements in the manner claimed.”  The KSR decision on its face facilitated a showing of obviousness based on seven (7) independent rationales, as opposed to the sole motivation-to-combine rational previously relied upon by accused infringers. The decision was viewed as another assault on patent rights.

Factor 2: the AIA and Subsequent Case Law

The next major attack on patent rights came from the legislature via the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2012. Initially presented as a balanced act with multiple provisions, it quickly became clear that the net effect harmed inventors and patent owners due mostly to the newly introduced Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding adjudicated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The new IPR proceeding provided any third party with a powerful and relatively fast means of challenging the validity of a U.S. patent based on prior art patents or publications. The initial invalidity rates were high, around 80% of instituted claims, and the PTAB was called the “patent death squads” by Judge Rader in 2013.

The most recent major blow to U.S. patents was the so-called Mayo/Alice framework, courtesy of the Supremes via a pair of decisions in 2012 and 2014. This framework has been heavily criticized and used to exclude inventions from the patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. It has been referred to as “the weapon of choice for summary execution” of U.S. patents by Judge Plager in 2018.

Other Supreme Court decisions that generally made life more difficult for patentees included Octane Fitness (2014), Nautilus (2014), Impression Products (2017) and TC Heartland (2017). The carnage created by these legal developments since 2006 has been so significant that the U.S. Patent System fell to the 12th place in the Chamber Global IP Index. The effects included a decrease in new patent litigation proceedings. Docket Navigator reported a fall of nearly 11% between 2012 and 2017. Lex Machina reported a 40% drop in district court cases filed between 2015 and 2018, and so it seems that the pack has lost some faith in the U.S. patent.

Tracking the Pendulum

That said, we know that a good strategy for investing is to not follow the pack. As Warren Buffet said, “be fearful when others are greedy and greedy only when others are fearful.”  In light of the most recent developments, now is the perfect time to be greedy and to obtain/buy U.S. patents. The pendulum is swinging back to re-balance the patent legal process over the next 3-5 years. When this happens, the value of a U.S. patent will increase while its cost will stay relatively low. Why such optimism?

First, the new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu has proposed to clarify and simplify the Mayo/Alice framework in a way that generally favors patent applicants and owners involved in USPTO proceedings that raise questions of patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. His approach provides more clarity about the categories of inventions that fall within the judicially created exceptions to patentability. He also went back to an old criterion, used during the 1990s and the heydays of subject matter eligibility, when software inventions were generally found to be patentable as long as they were claimed as a practical application. In addition, the USPTO has latched on to a few positive decisions from the CAFC in this context, such as Core Wireless v. LG Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the court found a specific graphical user interface to be patentable; and Berkheimer v. H.P. (Fed. Cir. 2018) where the Court held that the second part of the Mayo/Alice framework was a question of fact requiring factual evidence to support the conclusion that an invention is not patentable under the framework.

The Playing Field Levels at the PTAB

Another reason for optimism is that the AIA proceedings are no longer the “patent death squads,” especially in certain technologies. Several factors are at play and no single one is a game changer but, in the aggregate, they will level the playing field for patent owners. For example, in 2018 the PTAB updated its practice guide such that patentees now have, as a matter of right, the “last word” over the petitioner in the filings. Also, the PTAB indicated that it would deny institution of “follow-on” petitions on the same patent where efficiency and the ability “to timely complete proceedings favor denying a petition even though some claims meet the threshold standards for institution.”  Following the SAS v. Iancu Supreme Court decision, the PTAB may deny the entire institution even if the petition has some good grounds. The PTAB now relies on a narrower claim construction standard, consistent with the standard used in district court litigation, as opposed to the broadest reasonable interpretation. The CAFC held that the PTAB must assess proposed substitute claims without placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner. The CAFC has limited the window for filing petitions, for example holding that even withdrawn complaints start the one-year clock. The PTAB seems to be taking a closer look at Real Parties in Interest, thus complicating the life of certain defensive patent groups. Petitioners may not have standing to appeal without demonstrating “injury in fact.”  And finally, we will likely see more estoppel effects against petitioners/accused infringers.

PTAB proceedings will continue to invalidate overly broad claims. But many claims will survive and will come out stronger. Patent applicants and owners understand that a key to surviving an IPR, and more generally to successfully asserting a patent, is to introduce diversity in claim scope, claim terms, categories of claims, and claimed targets. Patent claims that survive PTAB proceedings will have a greater chance of success in litigation.

With respect to the KSR decision noted above, it is now clear that it did not change much and the initial fear that most inventions would be found obvious has dissipated. The Courts and PTAB are still looking for an explicit “reason” why one of ordinary skill would modify the prior art. The CAFC regularly vacates PTAB’s IPR holding of obviousness for failure to “adequately explain” its reasoning. The CAFC and PTAB are strict with respect to establishing a motivation to combine references to show obviousness of challenged claims. Petitioners must clearly show why a person of ordinary skill in the art “would” (not just “could”) combine the references. “Common sense” is not enough to supply a limitation missing from the prior art for most technologies.

The Sky Has Not Fallen

With respect to the eBay v. MercExchange decision noted above, its impact has evolved over time. Statistics in this area can be misleading because the absolute numbers are small and do not take into account relative negotiation positions during settlements. While the rate of obtaining injunctions likely dipped after the decision, our experience and informal research suggests the rate has stabilized and is relatively high for practicing entities who can show loss of market share (irreparable harm), and for patent claims directed to overall products, or major component thereof, as opposed to being directed to a minor sub-components of multi-component products. Recent decisions favor injunctions by being less demanding to patentees, such as Genband v. Metaswitch (Fed. Cir. 2017) where the Court stated that “causal nexus and consumer demand may be apparent from the simple fact of infringing sales … when the infringing product contains no other feature relevant to consumers’ purchasing decisions other than what the patent claims.”

Other recent developments point toward better days for patent owners. In the area of damages, hope is pinned on the 2018 WesternGeco v. Ion Supreme Court decision. The Court held that patent owners can recover lost foreign sales when they prove infringement under 35 USC 271(f) by exportation of components of a patented system. But perhaps the most interesting part of the decision was the Court’s reasoning, which was based on basic notions of tort law and could be applied more broadly to other types of infringement. In particular, the Court’s reasoning enables the patent owner to recover damages from foreign sales resulting from domestic infringement. Still in the area of damage, the AIA introduced virtual marking as a more convenient means to protect past damages, as compared to conventional marking. The provision was held to apply to both utility and design patents. Initially, few companies adopted the new marking procedure, but today we see more and more products being virtually marked with companies looking for increased dividends from their patents.

It is also worth mentioning two other Supreme Court decisions, although less recent: the 2016 Halo v. Pulse decision that resulted in higher success rates for findings of willful infringement and enhanced damages. Additionally, the 2017 SCA Hygiene Prod. v. First Quality Baby Prod. enabling patentees to “wait and see” how a market develops before filing suit, without facing a laches defense. Finally, while TC Heartland represented a sea change in how the venue laws limit venue against U.S. defendants in patent infringement actions, there is no corresponding limitation with respect to foreign defendants.

2018 seems to have been a turning point away from the negative trend that started in 2006, which had followed a long period of pro patent developments. Of course, this optimistic view about the resurgence of U.S. patent rights is somewhat speculative and others will still see the glass half empty. More work is needed, probably legislative in nature, to formally re-establish patent rights to where they should be, but based on these initial positive developments, one can be bullish about the future value of U.S. patents.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 139121110
Copyright: masuti 


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Join the Discussion

4 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Jason Lee]
    Jason Lee
    February 11, 2019 11:32 am

    This all sounds nice, but until I start seeing major penalties enforced and granted to a patent holder, the patent market for patent holders will be dead. European and Asian companies will (and they should) be able to exploit Americas weakness if America does not get their act together. The big companies like Apple and Google can afford to drain out a small investors as they are already doing.

  • [Avatar for PTO-Indentured]
    February 9, 2019 01:04 pm

    The courts, at all levels, have proven themselves to be poor judges of the economics of innovation. Apparently enamored with oligarch-proportioned corporations, and having yielded repeated rulings shown to favor such — at the cost of nearly devastating an entire U.S. inventor-profession — we now find the likes of an Apple losing a stockmarket-record one-half trillion dollars in a single day. Why? Because the rule making (of the courts, of congress, of the PTO) made it so easy for such companies to merely coast along, absent of new innovation, absent The Next Big Thing, for years.

    Now industry leaders like Apple, Google and Samsung — who once supplanted Palm and Blackberry handheld devices with their disruptive Smartphones, now feel the sting of, and can no longer compete with the disruptive prcing China-made Samrtphones (and SamrtTVs) available at a fraction of the cost.

    The courts / congress did not see this (absence-of-innovation-caused) result coming, and their ruling-out, to the point of near-extinction of the U.S. individual inventor, is a big part of the equation, that facilitated these companies shooting themelves in their own foot.

    Think that Apple alone innovated the iPhone, iPad and iTunes digital media distribution platforms, in a vacuum? Think again, it took the foresight of Steve Jobs first being presented the iPod concept and recognizing, when it was brought to Apple by then individual inventor Tony Fadell, that it warranted immediate investment and Apple’s full support. In hindsight we can now see it was the iPod’s (handheld) fluid random accessing of digital media which by logical extension beget the iPhone, which beget the iPad, and how each amassing voluminous randomly accessible digital media, then beget iTunes in its full-blown glory. But alas Apple (and a patent-rule facilitated lost half-trillion dollars) where is your Next Big Thing now? Where wherein your innovation-welcoming decision-makers now?

    Going all the way back to the iPod’s inception is a long, long time ago. It launched a glorious ride, but where will Apple go now? How has holding onto hundreds of billions of dollars — versus investing in the Next Big Thing invention brought to the company by an individual or small entity inventor — serving the interests of stockholders, society, the USPTO, validating U.S. court jurisprudence (at all levels)?

    Ambiguity in patent rule-making is all that is needed to keep U.S. patents severely compromised. Show us courts, congress and the PTO that you know how and are willing to remove the fog.

    Returning to a point of this article — despite the AIA and PTAB for years going largely unchecked, and flat-out driving investors aborad) what are investors more likely to invest in now: U.S. startups and innovations that are associated with at least some IP? Or startups and innovations having no IP at all?

    Now is the time for the courts (at all levels), and decision makers in congress and at the PTO to finally connect the dots, to concede that economic realties (not complicated) were overlooked, directly attributable to a near genocide of the individual U.S. inventor profession, and a driving away of U.S. investment in U.S. innovation.

    Please do so, before the next half-trillion dollars vanishes in a single day.

  • [Avatar for Jacek]
    February 8, 2019 07:41 pm

    Thank you for your optimism. But PTAB still exist. AIA still is force and yesterday email with my subscription to Thomas industrial Database revealed info about Ford practicing “efficient infringement” on some MIT professors invention. Than browsing internet I stumbled upon page with info about growing number of US companies practicing “Efficient infringement” Interesting that disregard for the lawin US created situation that “white collar” US criminals who for less than half what they are doing in US would land behind Bars in Germany, that their activity is seen more or less as Normal. No shame, no criminal prosecution for anything, only time to time they have to pay fines “share the loot” with Department of Justice and go ahead free to do their deeds undisturbed. It seems more like Mob ruled kleptocracy. I was reading today about and percentage of Infringed products it sells damaging live hood of so many inventors trying to make the American Dream (or rather Nightmare) Not so many reasons for optimism for the average American. Guys you are looking at the word from place far away from reality. I do not blame you remembering times when my income was around 40 times of average citizen in country where I used to live. From certain positions you see nothing like the patent lawyer complaining about inventors not spending enough for their IP protection. Developing invention is expensive enough and the fact that they have no resources is the first reason they are inventing not going to the beach. Than they face the Reality of US patent system and the fact that from their perpective this is one big LIE.

  • [Avatar for Eric Berend]
    Eric Berend
    February 8, 2019 06:50 pm

    Thank you for your perhaps optimistic appraisal of the state of jurisprudence in recent U.S. patent administrative and case law.

    It is difficult, when contemplating the risk of loss of one’s life work as an Inventor now imposed by participation in the U.S. patent system, whether the signs and portents you described are, in fact, seeds of a turn of the tide as you posit; or, the expedient temporary settling of a mere Executive branch basis subject to arbitrary bureaucratic political dictates that can change with each passing U.S. Presidential administration.

    Other articles here at, have amply demonstrated the capricious and inscrutable record of decision making by the ALJs at the PTAB, the Appellate Judges at the CAFC, and the august fellows of the Justices of the SCOTUS, over the past decade and more. Fortunately for patent infringers and IP pirates, the only most consistent aspect has, beyond any reasonable doubt, been the hostility shown towards Inventors’ and patentees’ legitimate intellectual property interests.

    In the face of such uncertainty, it is hardly possible for an Inventor to be well advised in his or her interest, being cast adrift in a sea of largely antagonistic and sometimes treacherous waters, such as is the true state of affairs in this domain.

    With the inherent understanding that there are and have been no assurances even in times of a more balanced regard for the Constitutional patent bargain, can you be so sure of the above thesis as to can provide a bona fide chance of success in bringing forth an original, new invention in a conventionally well known area of art such as electro-mechanical to a successful prosecution as a U.S. patent?

    With all the potential cause for some optimism as you cite above, in the end, someone has to write and prosecute the patent. If you cannot answer the above question in the affirmative, then I would say to you, sir, that your above thesis remains primarily speculative. Without that even modest chance of success, Inventors now left extremely wary of the whole U.S. patent system, cannot have much reason to believe the optimistic thrust of your analysis here.

    I am sure I am not alone in expressing my own wish that the state of affairs in this domain were not so heavily fraught with fear, uncertainty and doubt. But the forces of innovation monopolization in the United States have invested thoroughly for over at least a half a generation towards this exact goal. From my vantage point, and no doubt, that of many other innovators, it is far better to find the best of a sober analysis, however grim, rather than be further misled by this institutionalized and socialized de facto IP theft racket.