US patenting surged 21% in 2006, fueling policy debate

After a two-year slowdown, the US government granted a record 173,772 corporate patents in 2006 – a statistic likely to add more fuel to a political fire over whether Washington is granting too many, or too broad, patents.

According to IFI Claims, a patent-research unit of Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted 20.8 per cent more corporate patents last year than in 2005. That followed drops of 12 per cent in 2004 and 2.7 per cent in 2003.

Among the most active were Japanese companies, with nine in the top 20 US patentees in 2006 – including Canon and Matsushita in third and fourth places, respectively. IBM topped the list for the 14^th year in a row, with a record 3,651 patents granted, and Korea’s Samsung climbed into second place. By sector, IFI said, electronics again dominated the top-25 list, but pharmaceutical and biotech patents surged 22 per cent and 29 per cent, respectively.

The numbers will add to a mounting debate, in Congress and in the courts, over whether the USPTO is being too lax in awarding patents. Except for the dip a few years ago, the patent office has generally been pumping out an ever-rising number of patents for the past two decades – reflecting more applications, but also, critics say, overly-loose criteria on what kinds of inventions meet the legal tests for patentability.

Some of the new activity arose after a US Supreme Court decision in 1980 opened the door to patenting genetically engineered organisms. A surge in software patents has also swelled the USPTO’s pipeline. But the biggest controversies have been over a string of very broad patents granted – such as some University of Wisconsin patents covering a broad swathe of embryonic stem-cell research. As a result, a spate of lawsuits have been filed in recent years to challenge patents, and a small industry of intellectual-property lobbyists and lawyers have swung into action.

As a result, a spate of lawsuits have been filed in recent years to challenge patents, and a small industry of intellectual-property lobbyists and lawyers have swung into action. For instance, the US Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a much-watched case that could help define what’s “obvious” and unpatentable. The case involves a dispute between two companies, auto-parts companies, Teleflex and KSR, over a gas pedal with an electronic sensor that automatically adusts to the driver’s height. Teleflex was supplying the pedal to Ford, and KSR was supplying GM. Teleflex was awarded a patent, but KSR called the product an “obvious” use of existing sensor technology and refused to pay royalties. The companies – with a host of high-tech multinationals weighing in with amicus curiae briefs – argued the case before the Surpeme Court in December and a decision is pending.

Of course, this dispute also has its lighter side. One patent-search service has taken to promoting itself by publishing a regular list of particularly eccentric grants – such as “Method for excercising a cat” (US Patent 5443036.) The invention entails waving a laser beam around on a wall to attract the cat’s attention.

IFI CLAIMS list of top corporate patent-winners in 2006