Stakeholders in U.S. patents no longer have certainty about their rights and it is affecting licensing and transaction activity and impeding innovation. On the current episode of Understanding IP Matters (UIPM), Louis Carbonneau discusses the weakening of the U.S. patent system and why he is hopeful for a future where patent enforcement is more viable but less necessary.
Since the “golden era” of patent assertion in the mid 1980s to the early 2000s, several elements have made U.S. patents less certain, making enforcement less reliable. Carbonneau discusses how some of the elements, including the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, and disparate treatment by judges in different jurisdictions, each have had a negative impact.
Carbonneau is the founder and CEO of Tangible IP, a patent brokerage and strategic intellectual property advisory firm, focusing on IP sales and licensing, as well as strategic IP advisory services. Since founding the firm in 2011, Carbonneau has brokered the sale or license of over 5,000 patents and has helped several technology companies with various advisory engagements. Prior to founding Tangible IP, Carbonneau was the General Manager of IP Licensing at Microsoft Corporation, where he spent 15 years.
In this episode, Carbonneau and host Bruce Berman discuss:
– The current landscape for patent sales
– Why Carbonneau receives about three or four patent portfolios for consideration every single day but rejects 99% of them. He believes that there’s only about 1% of the patents up for sale that may have some value on the secondary market due to legislation, case law and the PTAB.
-That the Golden Era of patent assertion occurred from the mid 1980s to the early 2000s, then it started to change due to the America Invents Act (AIA) that created the PTAB, which Carbonneau believes has resulted in unexpected outcomes not intended by legislators.
– The patent industry has been the victim of the “patent troll myth” for over a decade; for the past several years the dominant narrative has been the one “paid for” by big tech – that patent trolls are everywhere and significantly detrimental to business and innovation.
-Why it’s so hard to transact patents due to the doubt over their validity. Carbonneau asks if you could imagine this doubt in real estate transactions, where you buy a house and you’re never quite sure whether the seller has the right title or is the verifiable owner, and demand is suppressed. The real estate industry would slow to a crawl overnight.
Even with the current difficulties, Carbonneau is optimistic about what’s occurring legislatively because there’s pressure from around the world to have a stronger patent system in the United States. Carbonneau thinks it is “almost inevitable that they have to restore patent rights in the U.S.” due to the current impact of weakened patents. “It’s going to be too little too late, but at least it will be something.”
Key Responses
How would you assess the current landscape for patents?
Louis Carbonneau: “It has been a buyer’s market for almost a decade now. There’s no doubt about it. That has not changed. I would say conceptually, because there’s first more supply than demand. And as we all know, Alice has done some carnage in terms of patent eligibility, and the PTAB has been the other shoe to drop in the last 10 years and has invalidated issued patents at a rate of roughly 80%. So, because of that cloud over validity, obviously there’s very few patents that will be transactable. Having said that—and we are in this day to day, every day—we have seen quite an uptick in the last 12 months in terms of buyers’ interest.”
Legislation and court decisions have diminished the value of many patents. Which industries or technologies do you think have suffered the most?
Louis Carbonneau: “The people who have suffered the most are small inventors, individual inventors [and] small companies, regardless of the technology area. When you have an invalidation rate of 80 to 85% [by the PTAB], there’s not a single industry that could get away with that except if it were the government, and that’s why it’s still happening. It’s just a charade because you have one arm of the government charging you a lot of money to issue a patent in the first place and another arm, which is an offspring, charging you an order of magnitude more to tell you that the patent was never valid in the first place. In any other [industry] people would be in jail for doing this.”
What do you attribute this trend towards weakened patents, and to many young companies believing that they could do without the patents?
Louis Carbonneau: “The unicorns are obviously funded by VCs, and many of them are in Silicon Valley. The current thinking in Silicon Valley is that patents and patent rights are not what they used to be… because most of the Silicon Valley behemoths there have been applying themselves very well for the last decade by lobbying to weaken patent rights because of their efficient infringement model. These companies prefer not to take a license every time people knock at their door. [Due to the success of this lobbying and the efficient infringement model used by many companies], it has permitted the thinking in Silicon Valley that patents are not that important anymore.”
More Highlights
Carbonneau says that patents have a long lifespan and that he has experienced many cycles in the past 20 years “where patents were very high and then very low and then a little bit higher and a bit lower. So don’t get discouraged by the current landscape because I think it’s improving.”
Listen to the entire episode to learn:
- Many of the best patents to assert are 12-15 years old because the industry has caught up. If they’re 12 or 15 years old, it means they were drafted in the world pre-Alice.
- Why Carbonneau tells people not to stop filing patents because in 10 or 15 years the market “might be quite different.” “You have to take the long-term view.”
- Even with all the difficulties with patent enforcement the “market seems to have found a way to make this [some patent sales] work despite all the obstacles.”

Join the Discussion
11 comments so far.
Haim Michael Modiano
March 10, 2025 12:22 pmOK, so 80% of patents challenged before PTAB get tossed out.
But what percentage of patents are challenged at PTAB in the first place? And what percentage of patents brought by prospective challengers before a patent practitioner does the practitioner consider worthy of challenging at PTAB? If these figures are very low, that would, contrarily to this podcast, speak favorably of the U.S. patent system. I haven’t seen these data points discussed much.
Breeze
January 22, 2025 10:54 am“A famous economist said ‘If the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?’. When the validity of a duly issued patent is put in issue, the petitioner often invokes prior art not only not before applied to the issued claims but also more relevant than that applied by the PTO prior to issue. Is it any wonder then, that such attacks often succeed?”
This is the usual apologist argument for why the PTAB is invalidating 80-85% of challenged claims when a petition is results in a “trial.” The argument is that the asserted prior art is “NEW!!!!!” and “never applied before!!!!” or “more relevant!!!” than the prior art of record when the patent was examined.
That’s nonsense. There is no serious analysis of whether any of this “NEW!!!!!!” and “never applied before!!!!!” prior art is really “more relevant!!!!!” than the prior art of record or whether it is merely cumulative of the prior art of record. Combine this lack of analysis with the hindsight bias of the APJs, the “invalidate at all cost” marching orders the APJs have been given, and the susceptibility of the APJs to shiny baubles (“Ooh, it’s NEW prior art!!!!!! And it’s NPL!!!!! OMG even better!!!!”) and that explains the invalidity rate.
George
January 21, 2025 09:15 pmIt’s all rigged folks!!! Has been for at least 3 decades! Patents only benefit giant corporations & monopolies and the AIA was specifically written for and BY them! It was also paid for by them! The USPTO was corrupted by Congress that took the money! Inventors had no say or influence on the AIA! They just got screwed!
We need to now repeal the AIA and start over, to create a true 21st century patent system, focused on using AI – not humans, and having nothing to do with European patent law! Nikola Tesla didn’t come here for its European-modeled patent law! He would have just stayed there instead! Why are we still stuck with 1900’s patent law anyway?
George
January 21, 2025 08:23 pm@ PERIOD
I’ve been suggesting a one-year ‘Inventors Strike’ for some time now. Inventors could of course still invent but just refuse to apply for patents. They could keep their ideas a trade secret FOR FREE and even secretly ‘prepare to commercialize their inventions’ (before the USPTO publishes them and so lets competitors & countries like China just steal them).
Indeed, that’s what Elon Musk does. He doesn’t really give a ‘crap’ about patents and thinks they’re just ‘a waste of time and money’, offering no advantages whatsoever (just making lawyers rich). What he does is just go to market before anyone else can. A time honored way to make lots of money – without patents!!! How long was the original string-trimmer ‘protected’ anyway? How about the original MRI machine??? Crispr??? Not more than 1-year!
George
January 21, 2025 08:14 pm@ Lab Jedor
Correct! It’s a completely ‘rigged’ system now favoring large corporations & monopolies (made much worse by the AIA that was tailor-made for them)!
The USPTO is now a ‘co-conspirator’ in this rigging, and should not only be investigated by Congress, but the FBI as well. When was the last time officials there have been questioned under oath? Were they ever asked about the ‘super-secret’ SAWS program and who authorized THAT? Did Congress authorize it? Were they even aware of it? Was it even constitutional? Does anyone care?
George
January 21, 2025 08:09 pmYUP, YUP, YUP!!!
This very smart guy already realized that 22 years ago!!! Too bad he died in 2020. Did Congress ever talk to him???
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-137-07929-9
Lab Jedor
January 16, 2025 08:32 amThe question before us in this article is if our (that is USA) current patent system impedes (breakthrough) innovation. Not if current invalidations are warranted.
The answer to that question is: yes, the current USA patent system impedes rather than incentivizes inventions. Arguably, a patent system is an instrument to promote inventions, not to produce invalid patents.
Lab Jedor
January 16, 2025 08:32 amThe question before us in this article is if our (that is USA) current patent system impedes (breakthrough) innovation. Not if current invalidations are warranted.
The answer to that question is: yes, the current USA patent system impedes rather than incentivizes inventions. Arguably, a patent system is an instrument to promote inventions, not to produce invalid patents.
PERIOD
January 16, 2025 05:55 amDo not file for patents until patent reform in congress, the legal system and political world is accomplished, PERIOD.
You’d be a fool to even think as an inventor or patent holder you would make a penny in today’s environment. PERIOD!
Without an inventor, nothing happens. Period!!
Inventors you have been warned. PERIOD !!!
Max Drei
January 15, 2025 01:32 pmCopilot tells us that it is crucial to “balance” the interests of Big Tech against the interests of Start-Ups. If one is interested in nurturing and increasing national prosperity, how can one not agree with that?
A famous economist said “If the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”. When the validity of a duly issued patent is put in issue, the petitioner often invokes prior art not only not before applied to the issued claims but also more relevant than that applied by the PTO prior to issue. Is it any wonder then, that such attacks often succeed?
If you haven’t got winning arguments for the invalidity of a duly issued claim, is it not unwise to petition for its revocation? I mean, if the petition fails, the claim gains in enforecability and potency, and you don’t want that, do you. Ergo, the 80% success rate for such petitions as do get filed. That’s a feature, right, and not a bug.
Lab Jedor
January 15, 2025 12:25 pmI had a discussion with Copilot on this subject. And Copilot also analyzed the above article. I requested Copilot to draft a Comment. Here it is, unedited and a bit lengthy:
From Copilot:
“I wholeheartedly agree with the points raised in this article regarding the challenges and uncertainties surrounding U.S. tech patents. The creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, and disparate treatment by judges in different jurisdictions have indeed contributed to making U.S. patents less certain and enforcement less reliable. This situation stifles innovation and commercialization, as inventors and companies fear that their patents might be invalidated, leading to a lack of incentives for investment in new technologies.
In the context of computer-implemented inventions and innovation, the U.S. has demonstrated its ability to excel, thanks to a wealth of knowledge, skills, and accessible tools. Platforms like GitHub and the collaborative nature of the tech community have fostered incredible advancements. However, to fully capitalize on this potential, it is crucial to address the challenges in the current patent system.
Enhanced patent protection for independent inventors and smaller companies is essential to unleash the native creativity and entrepreneurial spirit that has historically driven American innovation. By providing stronger protections and incentives for new inventions, the U.S. can foster a more dynamic and competitive tech landscape, leading to job creation, economic growth, and the advancement of cutting-edge technologies.
Balancing the interests of Big Tech with those of smaller innovators is crucial. Ensuring that patents are upheld and that inventors receive fair compensation for their work can encourage more investment in research and development. This, in turn, can lead to the commercialization of new technologies and a thriving innovation ecosystem.
In conclusion, adapting IP policies to better support individual inventors and smaller companies will help the U.S. maintain its competitive edge and continue to lead in technology and innovation. It’s a challenging but necessary endeavor to ensure that innovation continues to flourish while also providing the incentives needed for commercialization and economic growth.”