Waymo drops three of four patent claims in its case against Uber

By Steve Brachmann
July 11, 2017

On Friday, June 7th, a joint stipulation and order was entered that dropped three claims of patent infringement raised in the intellectual property case being fought between San Francisco, CA-based transportation company Uber Technologies and Waymo, one of the subsidiaries of Google-owner Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) The order is one of the most recent filings in a case which has seen hundreds of documents filed since the case began this February. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.).

The patents which Waymo are no longer asserting include:

  • U.S. Patent No. 8836922, titled Devices and Methods for a Rotating LIDAR Platform With a Shared Transmit/Receive Path. It claims a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device with a lens mounted to a rotatable housing with light sources emitting light beams and detectors which receive reflections of the emitted beams.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9285464, same title as the ‘922 patent. It discloses a LIDAR device where the paths for transmitting light beams and receiving their reflections at least partially overlap.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9086273, entitled Microrod Compression of Laser Beam in Combination With Transmit Lens. It protects a LIDAR device with laser diodes emitting uncollimated, or unaligned, laser beams which diverge in two directions, a cylindrical lens that partially collimates the divergent beams and an objective lens that takes the partially collimated beams and collimates them further before directing them towards detectors.

Most of the claims have been dismissed with prejudice. However, claims related to the “abandoned Spider design,” a reference to a LIDAR device developed by Anthony Levandowski, the former Waymo employee at the center of the legal squabble, have been dismissed without prejudice. If the Uber ever returns to developing the Spider, it’s likely that Waymo will reassert the claims it has dismissed without prejudice.

The order dismissing these patents from the case comes two months after the federal judge adjudicating the case entered a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the three patents which Waymo just dismissed. In that motion, the N.D. Cal. judge noted that the patents claim a LIDAR device requiring a single, common lens for both transmitting and receiving light. Uber’s Fuji LIDAR design, however, contains two optical cavities, not a single lens. Uber’s Spider device, which relied on a single, common lens, was abandoned in October 2016 “because of the complexities of the design, the anticipated difficulty of scaling the manufacturing of the design, and its large size, heavy weight, and high power requirement,” the motion reads. “As Uber never built all of the components needed for a functional prototype, much less a complete LiDAR device, Spider was never made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported… Uber cannot infringe by merely designing a device that does not and has never existed. Waymo cannot show an act of infringement, and summary judgment should therefore be granted.”

As other media reporting on the case between Waymo and Uber have noted, the order to dismiss patent claims dismissed three of the four patents asserted against Uber and it’s not clear from the recent order that the fourth patent has been dismissed. That would be U.S. Patent No. 9368936, titled Laser Diode Firing System. It claims an apparatus with a capacitor that charges its voltage level in response to a signal that a transistor is off and then discharging voltage to produce a pulse of light in response to a signal that the transistor is on. The resulting laser diode firing circuit helps a LIDAR device estimate a three-dimensional of a reflective object relative to the LIDAR device.

As of this writing, the most recent of the 843 documents filed in the case is an administrative motion to file under seal by Otto Trucking, the self-driving truck start-up created by Levandowski after leaving Waymo; Uber bought Otto in August 2016 in a deal that may have reached $680 million according to a report from Reuters. In the motion to file under seal, Otto is requesting the court to allow it to file a declaration with redactions of information with Waymo has designated as being highly confidential and for attorney’s eyes only. Otto’s filing also notes that the redactions involve confidential information on the company’s business agreements and corporate structure that could help competitors if it was made publicly available.

The Author

Steve Brachmann

Steve Brachmann is a writer located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He has become a regular contributor to IPWatchdog.com, writing about technology, innovation and is the primary author of the Companies We Follow series. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com 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 and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 132 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Tesia Thomas July 11, 2017 11:05 am

    Uber should have bought Otto with indemnification.

    The patent stuff is ironic coming from SV ‘execute to dominate, ideas don’t matter.’ But, hopefully we’ll see those in PTAB.
    I want to hear about the trade secret part.

  2. Night Writer July 11, 2017 12:48 pm

    >>‘execute to dominate, ideas don’t matter.’

    That is like harvest and don’t plant. Works for a limited amount of time.

  3. Anon July 11, 2017 3:03 pm

    Tesia,

    One thing that you may not be aware of is that patent attorneys are attorneys first.

    This means that they have studied – and passed – the State general bar exam and far more easily than most other professions morph into attorneys of different aspects of law. In fact, most patent attorneys I know are already keenly interested in the other IP protection realms including (especially)Trade Secrets –

    Pros and cons to the TS route (just so that you know).

  4. Tesia Thomas July 11, 2017 3:14 pm

    @Anon:

    I understand but with trade secrets I don’t need to pay thousands in patent fees.

    If an attorney charges $500 per hour and needs 30 hours to identify trade secrets and draft contracts to protect them then I’m still paying way less than with patents.

    It’s going to contribute to the already worsening career outlook for attorneys.
    Because the majority of the innovators costs will shift from attorneys to security.

  5. Anon July 11, 2017 7:38 pm

    Your concern for attorney futures is touching – but vastly misplaced.

  6. Tesia Thomas July 11, 2017 8:24 pm

    @Anon,

    I always thought attorney jobs were heavily dependent on the economy except injury and criminal lawyers. When big companies have to eliminate jobs, R&D is typically the first to go. So, that translates into patents not being filed, right?

    And when the patent system goes up in flames what happens to patent examiners?

    No, I think many will be unemployed.

  7. Night Writer July 11, 2017 11:03 pm

    @6

    The word is that large corporations are starting to cut back on patent prosecution budgets feeling that patents are less valuable. If you normalize patent filings and take out foreign filings, then US patent filings are down.

  8. Brian July 12, 2017 3:11 am

    Hopefully someone at IPwatchdog can write about the news article on How google is using is paying professors $20K to write academic articles and in almost all case the professors dont disclose that the point is view is funded by Google .

    Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286

  9. Anon July 12, 2017 7:00 am

    Brian,

    Reminds me of the savings and loan debacle and how many of the top Ivy League professors were caught up in the shenanigans.

  10. Anon July 12, 2017 7:04 am

    I will add my feelings on this: academia is one of the largest cess-pools in American culture, where the lack of meritocracy has long ago been replaced with a “reward those who best parrot back the desired ideology.”

    The first victim of that ideological mantra was the teaching of the ability to actually apply critical thinking. Academia (and its ideological structure) will not teach a tool that shows how corrupt that beast is.

  11. Anon July 12, 2017 7:12 am

    NightWriter @ 7,

    I can vouch for several large firms having slashed patent budgets in the last few years from personal knowledge.

    But as to normalizing by US only firms, I do not see the rationale there. The US system is built to be agnostic as to who is taking part in the system, so the “normalizing” factor you mention seems arbitrary. IS there a shift? Sure, perhaps. But that shift does not say what I think you think it says.

    Tesia,

    Again with the FUD. Please tell me what the levels of the sum total of filings have been over the last decade or two.

    Here, let me help you: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

  12. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 10:03 am

    Lol Anon don’t be ridiculous.

    If you actually read my comment you’d see that I was asking a question and speaking about the future.

    Who cares about the total sum filings of the past?
    I’m saying that I think the US patent system is going into the dumps because of the laws.

    Just how can we keep up the trend with 101 and Alice and PTAB taking away many software, pharma patents and lowering resolve to even try for a patent?

    But what you said to Night Writer actually affirms my comment. Lol.
    Please read carefully.

  13. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 10:08 am

    I say there’s always a calm before the storm when people hold on to hope.
    And there’s still ignorance that the laws have changed so much.

    Some inventors don’t know about PTAB or Alice. Not everyone follows this blog and keeps up to date on the fickle legislation.
    As time goes on, the word will spread.

    We’ll see…

  14. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 10:35 am

    @Anon, 10:
    It’s also the place where grad advisors steal the concepts of their students and hold the purse strings. It’s just an arena of total lack of integrity and courage. No one speaks up due to fear and everyone is blind to the bad.

    One of my attorneys told me a story about his law professor taking a paper he’d written and signing his name on it, saying that if his name goes on the paper then it’ll be more well received.
    The anecdotes from my grad student friends make my head spin. Truth is stranger than fiction.

    Rampant ageism, grant fraud, and abuse of rights.

    It’s no wonder the military requires degrees for researchers and there’s so much fraud, waste and abuse.

    Look where the researchers are coming from!

  15. Anon July 12, 2017 12:04 pm

    In other words Tesia, current facts do not support your gloom and doom future projections.

    Is that a true statement?

  16. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 12:26 pm

    @Anon,

    You’re wrong. If you look at the data, patent filings have, since AIA, been increasing at a much slower rate than before.

    Pre-AIA, everything filings year over year were jumping 10k-20k.
    Now, a what? 3K increase year after year?

    The real trend is that which is present with foreign filings. It used to be (see the first chart data for 1963 or something) that US filings dwarfed foreign filings. Now they’re rearing ahead.

    So, the rate of US app filings has decreased from 10k-20k filings to 3k-5k filings increase year over year.
    And foreign filings are overtaking US filings.

    As far as the rate decreasing, trenda typically level out (the rate of increase falls to zero) before a decline.

    If we map the data based on that trend we can predict that the difference between foreign filings and US filings will grow with foreign filings ahead

    And the rate of decline in US filings will continue to grow.

    And that is your stats lesson for the day!

  17. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 12:32 pm

    And the rate of decline in US filings will continue to grow…

    Until it’s not increasing at all.*

  18. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 1:17 pm

    Oh and you see the same thing happened in 2008 and it picked back up in 2010. But that was a decline.
    I say that’s because companies didn’t have the money to file. Now, they have the money to file and are just scared.

    Yay stats.

    If you don’t see what’s happening then you just don’t want to and I can’t help you to see.

  19. Anon July 12, 2017 1:41 pm

    Tesia,
    Please don’t let facts get in the way of your rants.

    And the rate of decline in US filings will continue to grow…

    There is no such rate of decline.

    INCREASING at a slower rate is still increasing.

  20. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 5:17 pm

    No Anon.

    Things are slowing down.
    The rate of acceleration is decreasing.
    The rate of patent filings per year over year is on the decline.

    Explain 2008-2010 then?

    Things are merely slowing down now because people are becoming choosy about what to file. It’s not a money issue as during the recession where people just didn’t file as much at all.

    It’s akin to going 9m/s^2 and then going to 3m/s^2. What caused that?
    Someone’s pressing the breaks.

  21. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 5:23 pm

    2
    1
    0
    -1
    -2

    You have to slow down before you’re outright decreasing if you start out increasing.

  22. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 5:37 pm

    Recession in USA from 2001-2003 shows the same thing in US patent files.
    Same with 1990-1992 USA recession.

    Patent filings went from going up by 10-20k to only going up by 2-5k.

    Explain those too.

    https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

    t’s all there in the chart you cited from USPTO.

    Of course, whether both of us are right or wrong is just arguing correlation really unless we identify every company that could’ve filed but didn’t and ask their reasoning.

    It could be that people just weren’t as innovation in 1990-1992, 200-2004, 2007-2010, and now.

    Screaming “It’s still increasing!” is not looking at the whole picture.

  23. Anon July 12, 2017 8:03 pm

    No one is “screaming” such.

    On the other hand, pretending an increase is not an increase is simply asinine.

    I never said that the rate of increase is dropping or not.

    But in all of your “tales of woe,” the factor that matters is present workload, and THAT is still increasing.

    You seem oblivious to how this affects your FUD.

  24. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 8:05 pm

    Do you see the number in 2014 that is lower than the number in 2013?

  25. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 8:16 pm

    Why did filings decline right after AIA was active, Anon?
    Would you have said this in 2015 before 2015 data was shown?

    The data is telling you that the increasing trend or decreasing trend is being led by something and to dig deeper.

    Increasing is not just an increase if there are also decreases.

    Why did filings decline right after AIA was active, Anon?
    And have filings only increased about 2,000 from 2013 on?

  26. Anon July 13, 2017 8:17 am

    Do you see the number in 2014 that is lower than the number in 2013?

    Not the total number – merely the US number. You make multiple mistakes by looking only at a the US origin numbers. Several of my multi-national clients will be categorized under both categories depending on the inventor list, and as such, the “origin” data is misleading at best.

    The total numbers did NOT decline right after the AIA – notwithstanding the known bubble effect that many clients accelerated their filings in order to be covered under the pre-AIA legal regime, leaving a modest lull afterwards in the development pipelines.

    Again, you confuse a lowered (or lowering) growth rate with an actual drop in total number of filings.

    Your entire premise of your FUD position is without foundation. Your desire to sow “fear for patent attorneys that won’t have jobs” is a mindless distraction.

    Enough with that (attempted) distraction.

  27. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:00 am

    Anon:

    So you’re saying that they responded to the legislation by hurriedly filing before AIA?

    Well that’s why I say there’s a negative response to AIA. And that’s the reason US filings are declining.

    You could be cutting out the small player inventors who would previously have only filed US patents.

    Your clients are not the entirety of inventors.

  28. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:21 am

    Both US and PCT filings were growing rapidly. Now only foreign sources are.

    If US FILINGS BECOME ZERO and foreign sources become 2 BILLION will you still just say “well overall the workload is growing”???

  29. Anon July 13, 2017 9:52 am

    Plain fact: US filings have not declined.

    Until you come to grips with that, your posturing is for naught.

  30. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 10:32 am

    Well the Chamber of Commerce agrees with me. Oh and WIPO:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/07/time-to-stop-americas-innovation-decline/

    Oh and attorneys of this blog. Gene relates this time to the near crash of 1960s-1970s:

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/26/top-3-reasons-u-s-patent-system-decline/

    You’re the one with the FUD.
    Or cite some sources and not opinions.
    If US innovation goes down then attorneys and the economy goes with it.

    When you’re only making $10k to nurse a foreign applicants PCT through and they’re not paying you for much on office actions because EU, China, and Japan have already been through the patent, then do you have to cut back on staff?
    I think so.

    Running the show is different from merely partaking in it. And soon foreign countries will run the show in my opinion and based on the data that you’re unwilling to see.

  31. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 11:16 am

    I think patent filing in the US is going to switch with China:

    PreAIA
    US: We need to file here. It’s where the innovation is happening.
    China: Well, we have the money to spend on hope and long legal battles.

    Now switched. Haha

  32. Anon July 13, 2017 1:05 pm

    Tesia,

    You may have thought that you have made a point with your latest point, but you have not.

    Patent filings in the US are agnostic as to the designation of the applicant’s country of origin. All such remain patent filings in the US.

  33. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 2:52 pm

    But with less money going to attorneys and the US economy.

    WIPO said most filings came from China which means US patent attorneys aren’t getting paid to draft those Chinese foreign apps.
    That’s a pretty large chunk of revenue gone since you no longer dominate the process.
    And, attorneys usually recycle arguments from different countries’ prosecution.
    So if the Chinese client files and prosecutes first in China then they’ll likely tell you to use the same arguments that their Chinese attorney used which means it should take you less time to draft the response, and thus less pay.
    All prior art should be pretty similar.

    With 20%+ revenues gone from not drafting patent applications then are you laying off 20% of staff?
    Handling office actions/prosecution is just a part of the patent process.

  34. Anon July 13, 2017 3:51 pm

    Your last response is a non sequitur and has nothing at all to do with the point that I am trying to get you to accept.

    Your continued attempts at FUD, when you are being shown to be wrong time and time again are now making you appear to be desperately foolish.

    Please realize that I am fully aware that you have zero idea of what you are talking about, and that you are trying ANYTHING at this point to throw some “scare” out there.

    It is not working.

    Please stop embarrassing yourself.

  35. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 8:28 pm

    Ok Anon. I assure you I’m not embarrassing myself.
    You’ve started attacking me because your arguments have failed.

    You should read the article from the Daily Caller. You have not moved from a first glance look at the data.
    The former Secretary of State agrees with me:
    Patent applications in China surged 45% in 2016, while in the US they declined .9%. CBS News has reported that in 2015, “China accounted for more than one in three of the total 2.9 million patent applications in 2015, followed by the U.S. and Japan with about a half-million each.”

    Instead of attacking me show some support for your claims.

  36. Anon July 13, 2017 8:41 pm

    My arguments are the plain facts.

    As such, they speak for themselves.

    It has been you all along seeking to attack (impliedly with FUD).

    Enough.

  37. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 8:52 pm

    You wrote a whole comment of attacking me.

    Cite some sources @Anon.

    I get being contrarian but even then you have to cite sources.
    One source isn’t good enough.

    Wipo, former legislators, other attorneys see that the system is in decline.
    That’s partially the current rhetoric of this whole blog.

    No one is focusing on the workload increasing because that is not what the data is saying.

    Your opinion is that what I’m saying is FUD. However, you cannot disprove my argument by just stating it’s FUD or citing the same uspto data source.

    You have to bring more to your argument.

  38. Anon July 13, 2017 9:04 pm

    The numbers I present speak for themselves.

    You continue to have problems with basic concepts.

    I need not cite any sources for that.

  39. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:12 pm

    No. Numbers never speak.
    We give numbers their meaning.
    Data must be analyzed.
    One must check for false correlation, outliers, and variances.

    You always need sources.

  40. Anon July 14, 2017 8:03 am

    Tesia,

    Your attempts to “give numbers their meanings” is the source of your problems.

    You want to draw wild conclusions while ignoring the plain numbers themselves.

    My friend Samuel Clemens had a phrase about people like you.

  41. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:42 am

    No Anon

    There’s a phrase about people like you…
    You can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink

  42. Anon July 14, 2017 10:12 am

    That’s not water that you think that you are leading me to…

  43. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 10:27 am

    Yeah it is.

    More sources: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3021831/data-center/us-patent-numbers-decline-ibm-retains-top-spot-in-ifi-ranking.html

    Us patent numbers decline.

  44. Anon July 14, 2017 8:16 pm

    Samuel Clemens and I invite you to play in the sandbox with the report at:

    http://www.patentdocs.org/2017/07/rws-inovia-releases-2017-report-on-global-patent-trends.html

    (btw, an increase is still an increase, even if that increase is accompanied with a hugely negative growth rate). That’s an example of a mathematical fact that needs no citable source.

  45. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:24 pm

    HAHA!
    From your source:
    “With respect to filing expectations, 56.8% of respondents said they filed as many patent applications as they expected to file in 2016 (down from 79.2% in last year’s report), 10.2% filed more than they expected (up from 8.3%), and 32.9% filed less than they expected (up from 12.5%). The 2017 report indicates that 36.8% of survey respondents filed between four and nineteen patents in 2016, 18.4% filed more than 100 patents, 16.1% filed 1-3 patents, 12.6% filed 20-49 patents, 10.3% filed no patents, and 5.8% filed 50-99 patents. The report also notes that respondents filed more patents last year as compared with two years ago.

    In addition, more than 41% respondents filed their patent families internationally in 2016, up from 34.3% last year, but still lower than the 49% and 52% of respondents that filed internationally in 2014 and 2013, respectively.

    With respect to IP budgets, 33.8% of survey respondents experienced IP budget cuts in 2016 (of which 19.1% of respondents were experiencing budget cuts for the first time in recent years), which compared with 41.4% of respondents who experienced budget cuts in last year’s report. For respondents who had reduced foreign patenting costs in 2016, cost savings were achieved by filing in fewer countries (43.6%), bringing steps in-house (33.9%), consolidating foreign counsel (29.0%), negotiating with foreign counsel (22.6%), reducing costs on patent translations (21.0%), negotiating with U.S. or European counsel (19.8%), consolidating foreign counsel (19.4%), using non-law firm providers (16.1%), and consolidating local counsel (14.5%).”

    Seems as though they’re saying 2017 is a decline. 🙂
    And they’re playing ‘hard ball’ with attorneys (last paragraph cited.)

    Nope looks like everything validates my analysis of the data. Even your own source.

  46. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:25 pm

    Also, this is survey data. And, they surveyed mostly US firms.
    ” More specifically, 42.6% of survey respondents are based in the United States, 35.6% of respondents are based in Europe, and the remainder (21.8%) are based in Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Taiwan, Egypt, Turkey, India, China, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Australia.”

  47. Anon July 14, 2017 8:27 pm

    Tesia at 43 – you do realize that you are giving oranges to the discussion of apples with your post at 43, right?

    That article is discussing patent grants – not applications (and is FULLY present in the LINK that I provided to you at post 11 (which, I remind you, remains true and accurate).

  48. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:29 pm

    well then even your source in 11 contradicts what you say because the heading of the chart is, “Year of Application or Grant”

    Application OR Grant.

    Are you really this incompetent?
    I’m sorry. But, you’re grasping at air here.

  49. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:33 pm

    and headings “Utility patent grants All origin total”
    is a

    DECLINE

    from 300K in 2014 to 298K in 2015.

    so is “Total Patent Grants”
    from 326K in 2014 to 325K in 2015

  50. Anon July 14, 2017 8:33 pm

    Do you really accuse me of being incompetent when you seem incapable of understanding how to read a compound table?

    Please, please, please, do more than base your view on a (main) heading and disregard the individual column headings.

    Basics, Tesia, please master the basics first.

  51. Anon July 14, 2017 8:35 pm

    you repeated this at 45:

    The report also notes that respondents filed more patents last year as compared with two years ago.

    Aside from that, I notice that you are attempting to switch to the oranges of patent grants from the apples discussion of patent applications.

    I do hope you know the difference (and why one is out of control of the applicants).

  52. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:43 pm

    And US filings are increasing at a much slower rate than before as I said.

    And budget cuts and foreign filings are not helping US attorneys.

    This is bad news for attorneys: “For respondents who had reduced foreign patenting costs in 2016, cost savings were achieved by filing in fewer countries (43.6%), bringing steps in-house (33.9%), consolidating foreign counsel (29.0%), negotiating with foreign counsel (22.6%), reducing costs on patent translations (21.0%), negotiating with U.S. or European counsel (19.8%), consolidating foreign counsel (19.4%), using non-law firm providers (16.1%), and consolidating local counsel (14.5%).”

    U.S. attorneys are writing less apps and their clients are negotiating hard or consolidating.
    Are you saying negotiating lower prices for attorney time and consolidating counsel (lay offs) is not bad for attorneys?

    Really when is getting paid less or laid off a good thing?

    Clients are just working without attorneys.Which means a bad omen for attorneys in the US.

  53. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:44 pm

    Just because people are filing apps doesn’t mean that they’re handing plentiful work to US attorneys.

    Agree or disagree?

    Because nearly 20% consolidating counsel means attorneys are being fired.
    Or what does that mean Anon?

  54. Anon July 14, 2017 8:48 pm

    Here is the straight up apples-to-apples data on patent applications:

    First column: Year of Application or Grant
    Second column: Total Patent Applications
    Third column: Change from Previous Year

    2015 – 629,647 – 14,404
    2014 – 615,243 – 6,191
    2013 – 609,052 – 32,289
    2012 – 576,763 – 41,575
    2011 – 535,188 – 14,911
    2010 – 520,277 – 37,406
    2009 – 482,871 – -2,441 – This is a decrease
    2008 – 485,312 – 357
    2007 – 484,955 – 32,322
    2006 – 452,633 – 35,125
    2005 – 417,508 – 35,369
    2004 – 382,139 – 16,096
    2003 – 366,043 – 9,550
    2002 – 356,493 – 10,761
    2001 – 345,732 – 30,717
    2000 – 315,015 – 26,204
    1999 – 288,811 – 27,922
    1998 – 260,889 – 28,465
    1997 – 232,424 – 21,411
    1996 – 211,013 – -17,225 This is a decrease
    1995 – 228,238 – 22,148
    1994 – 206,090 – 17,351
    1993 – 188,739 – 2,232
    1992 – 186,507 – 8,677
    1991 – 177,830 – 1,566
    1990 – 176,264 – 10,516
    1989 – 165,748 – 14,257
    1988 – 151,491 – 12,036
    1987 – 139,455 – 6,790
    1986 – 132,665 – 5,877
    1985 – 126,788 – 6,512
    1984 – 120,276 – 8,236
    1983 – 112,040 – -5,947
    1982 – 117,987 – 4,021
    1981 – 113,966 – 1,587
    1980 – 112,379 – 4,170
    1979 – 108,209 – -439
    1978 – 108,648 – 271
    1977 – 108,377 – -1,203
    1976 – 109,580 – 2,124
    1975 – 107,456 – -555
    1974 – 108,011 – -1,611
    1973 – 109,622 – 4,322
    1972 – 105,300 – -5,795
    1971 – 111,095 – 1,736
    1970 – 109,359 – 5,002
    1969 – 104,357 – 5,620
    1968 – 98,737 – 8,193
    1967 – 90,544 – -2,938
    1966 – 93,482 – -6,668
    1965 – 100,150 – 7,179
    1964 – 92,971 – 1,989
    1963 – 90,982 – not calculated.

    Samuel Clemens and I remain chuckling at your efforts.

  55. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:59 pm

    So you’re saying the job market is booming? Or stagnant? Or growing?

  56. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:59 pm

    Declining* not growing

  57. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:02 pm

    You appear to be saying that the number of patent apps is increasing so the job market for attorneys is great.
    Is that right?

    But you’re not taking into consideration that US attorneys aren’t writing those foreign origin applications and that their budgets are decreasing and they’re consolidating counsel.

  58. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:07 pm

    Actually for the PCT, US firms could be having anyone write the app- foreign or domestic. So using foreign filing data is not valid.

    A multinational company can pay an EU attorney to write their PCT if that attorney has the right price.

    Correct or not?:
    PCT filings can originate from anywhere. No matter where the entity is headquartered.

  59. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:08 pm

    And again that means less money to US attorneys. Because you’re only handling prosecution and not filing and drafting.

    Losing patent drafting cases won’t hurt you Anon?

  60. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:18 pm

    Actually drafting can be done by anyone.
    I could draft an app with the lowest bidder. Then send it out to each country’s patent attorney for filing only.

    Your link says people are negotiating so this is highly possible.
    Drafting goes to lowest bidder.

  61. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:27 pm

    Anon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

    Overall increasing patent apps DOES NOT mean patent attorney field doing well.
    Especially not when clients’ budgets are declining and they are consolidating counsel.

  62. Anon July 15, 2017 12:19 am

    Clearly, you are not paying attention to what I have actually stated.

    Start paying better attention.

  63. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:23 am

    Are you saying that…
    Patent application increases = Patent work for US attorneys is increasing/decreasing/fine?

    Because that’d not what declining budgets and consolidating counsel means.

    What are you saying?

  64. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:27 am

    Stop attacking me and answer the questions.

    Are you saying that…
    Patent application increases = Patent work for US attorneys is fine?

  65. Anon July 15, 2017 8:40 am

    Why do you think my reiterating of facts is “attacking you?”

    Maybe pay attention to what I say and stop expending sooo much energy trying to twist what I say into something that i just did not say.

  66. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 9:19 am

    What is your argument @Anon?
    We are debating whether the current laws bode well or negatively for US IP attorneys.

  67. Anon July 15, 2017 10:23 am

    You try too hard to make me have some overarching argument or position, Tesia.

    I need not have any such thing – as the purpose of my posts serve to dispel your FUD, and for that purpose, I merely need to “shoot down” your mis-statements and overstatements and the like.

    Yes, mine is the infinitely easier role in our little exchanges.

    So what?

    As to “Stop attacking me and answer the questions” – you STILL do not seem to understand what the exchanges are about. I am not attacking “YOU” as I am attacking the FUD that you seek to advance.

    (ps, your FUD is not taking hold – think about that for your next response).

  68. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 10:57 am

    Lol no Anon. You can’t argue without a position.

    You think patent app growth constitutes good job market for attorneys which is just not true.

    You’re attacking me by calling my words FUD and that I’m not reading carefully. Let’s stick to the topic.
    Don’t attack me
    Attack my claims with better arguments than “you’re saying FUD.”

    What is your argument if not that?

  69. Anon July 15, 2017 12:04 pm

    Lol no Anon. You can’t argue without a position.

    You STILL do not get it Tesia.

    The topic IS that you are trying to use FUD with your propositions that patent attorneys are doomed.

    You do this with several fallacies – and it it those fallacies that I have attacked.

    Stop whining that I am attacking YOU.
    Start paying attention to what is actually being stated, and stop jumping to conclusions NOT stated.

  70. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:11 pm

    My supposed FUD is present in the sources you cited.

  71. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:14 pm

    Even Night Writer confirms the Inovia article you cited in 7.
    Cutting back on patent budgets and consolidating does say what I think it says.

    People don’t want to pay attorneys a lot and so they’re cutting costs.

  72. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:26 pm

    If attorneys are slashing patent budgets then it doesn’t matter how much they’re filing. They’re paying less and using less attorneys for the work.

    They’re cutting attorneys out.

    Getting paid $10k to draft, prosecute and file an app is not the same as getting paid $25k.
    Agree or disagree?

    If a company has less money budgeted then it’s overall giving out less money.
    You affirmed Night Writers view on this but you insist that less budgets for attorneys doesnt mean bad things for attorneys.

    You’re not making the same amount of money overall.
    So if your costs stay the same then you’re making less profit.

  73. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:27 pm

    Meant to say
    “If companies are slashing patent budgets…”

  74. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:31 pm

    Filing 200k apps before budget cuts mightve given attorneys $25k per app.

    Now with budget cuts, negotiations, and consolidations then filing 200k apps will only give attorneys $20k per app.

    Your workload is the same. But what matters is the money.

    You get the same amount of work but paid less then.
    That means theres less demand for your services because the price people are willing to pay is declining.

    Just basic econ Anon.

    ___

    Your affirmations that
    1. Workload is same
    2. Budget cuts

    =
    Same work, less pay.

    That’s not good for attorney business.

    Remember you affirmed those things.

  75. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:35 pm

    You can’t support the same amount of attorneys in budget cuts unless they all take lower salaries.

    Or

    You have to lay people off to maintain the level of salary of some attorneys.

    If the incoming money changes then these are the ways workforces react regardless of workload.

    It’s working for a sinking ship.
    Boss lays off 10 ppl and gives 1 remaining person all of their duties.

    Again basic econ.

  76. Anon July 15, 2017 2:43 pm

    A gurge of FUD…

    Oh how fun.

    Tell me this: if I GROW at a lower growth rate, have I still GROWN?

  77. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:07 pm

    Anon doesn’t matter when you’re growing at a low growth rate because companies are reducing budgets.

    Either way your two affirmations prove your point wrong.
    Growth doesn’t help attorneys when people are paying less.

    How do you see the growth and less budget and consolidation Anon?

  78. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:09 pm

    Your affirmations that
    1. Growing workload
    2. Budget cuts

    =
    More work, less pay.

    That’s not good for attorney business.

    Is it Anon?
    You said these things were true.

  79. Anon July 15, 2017 4:45 pm

    Anon doesn’t matter when you’re growing at a low growth rate because companies are reducing budgets.

    Does not answer the question.

    It is really a simple question.

    Do you need me to ask you again?

  80. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:49 pm

    I’ll ask you again…we’re talking about whether attorneys have a bad outlook.
    I say the decreasing growth rate means bad news.
    You say “who cares its still growing!”

    Your affirmations that
    1. Growing workload
    2. Budget cuts

    =
    More work, less pay.

    That’s not good for attorney business.

    Is it Anon?

  81. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 5:46 pm

    I appeal to Gene again because he’s SME and corroborates my opinions: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/26/top-3-reasons-u-s-patent-system-decline/id=82571/

    If one attorney is worrying about the future because of recent laws then I’m correct.

  82. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 5:52 pm

    You can be correct too, Anon. But, my whole premise was that the laws should give attorneys cause to worry about the job market and USPTO outlook.
    And at least one attorney is.

    Oh, and it’s a valid form of “appeal to authority”, not fallacious.

    Tell Gene he’s wrong. I’m tired of talking to you.

  83. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 5:55 pm

    Actually, you affirmed that too!

    “In context of my prior post at 5) above, I would posit that the top three reasons the U.S. patent system is in decline are as follows:…”

    You said the system is in decline. Not growing. Lol.
    You’re silly Anon.

  84. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 6:00 pm

    In Gene’s article, he wrote the US patent system is near complete collapse and that we’ve seen it before.

    You never disagreed with that. Your comments affirmed it giving more reasons.

    How is USPTO collapse good for IP attorney jobs?

  85. Anon July 15, 2017 6:10 pm

    Anon doesn’t matter when you’re growing at a low growth rate because companies are reducing budgets.

    Does not answer the question.

    Still.

    It is really a simple question.

    Obviously, you needed me to ask you again.

  86. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 6:12 pm

    You already affirmed my statements in agreeing with Gene.

  87. Anon July 15, 2017 8:06 pm

    You already affirmed my statements in agreeing with Gene.

    Does not answer the question.

    Still.

    It is really a simple question.

    Try to give the direct answer.

  88. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 8:08 pm

    You already affirmed my statements in agreeing with Gene.

    You contradict yourself.

  89. Anon July 15, 2017 11:59 pm

    You keep on doing anything but answering the very simple question.

    Why is that?

    (as to “affirming” and “agreeing,” you still have not shown that you understand the context of those comments).

  90. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:00 am

    You could answer my question

  91. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:02 am

    How is USPTO collapse good for IP attorney jobs?
    More work, budget cuts. How is that good for attorney jobs?

    There I restated myself.

  92. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:33 am

    “When I say that patent filings are increasing in other countries and not in the U.S. that is a fact, not anecdotal. ”

    Gene doesn’t think filings are growing in the US either.

    Do you disagree?

    I get that I’m a lowly non attorney who may not understand but Gene says the same thing I said from the beginning.

    To answer your question, no.
    less growth rate does not mean growth.

  93. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:36 am

    “Tell me this: if I GROW at a lower growth rate, have I still GROWN?”

    You’re not growing if your growth rate is declining.
    You’re declining. Tapering off. No matter the sum. It’s shrinking when the decline continues.

  94. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:14 am

    You’re saying less growth (deceleration) is growth overall (of speed.) Because if you add up the deceleration plus the previous speed its more.

    Any speed + any speed will always be a larger sum than the speeds alone. Unless you could travel backwards.
    That’s the nature of addition.
    you always get More if you add two positive numbers.
    And there’s no way to have a negative number of patent filings…

    When you start breaking while driving yes you’re still moving forward but you’re coming to a stop.

  95. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:21 am

    Braking* while driving.

    And if people are slashing budgets to maintain filings then that’s not good for attorneys.

    More work, less pay.

    Since I answered your question answe mine. Don’t back pedal.

    How do you reconcile increasing work and budget cuts as being good for ip attorney jobs?

  96. Anon July 16, 2017 9:30 am

    Tesia,

    The more you type, the more you show that you just don’t get the concepts involved.

    Any speed + any speed will always be a larger sum than the speeds alone. Unless you could travel backwards.
    That’s the nature of addition.

    We are NOT talking the addition of the amount of one year’s items to the amount of a next year’s items. Your “nature of addition” comment is a non sequitur.

    year X = Y items.
    year X+1 = [1.(a)] * year X; where (a) is a positive number (note – this is regardless of any trends in the change of (a)).

    ergo, the number of items in year X+1 must be greater than the number of item Y.

    This is not just the “nature of addition.” We are NOT adding the prior year items to the current year items and saying that the addition of multiple years is greater than any single year. We are comparing (not adding) one year’s item level to another year’s item level.

    I am not sure that you have “answered” anything as you STILL appear to not appreciate this simply fact that you now have “greater than Y.” and you STILL want to somehow confuse the time derivative (trending of (a)) with the notion of having a decreased amount.

    You are STILL trying to “argue” an end result without recognizing the necessary logical step to “get there” and still not realizing that I NEED NOT be supplying a “full argument as to some other end result” to point out your error (and it remains an error, even as you attempt to come to terms with it) on what it means in a year to year comparison (not addition) with a growth rate that is a positive number (no matter if that positive number is a lower positive number than a previous growth rate).

    There is NO back pedaling from me because my point is a much simpler point.

  97. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:28 am

    “When I say that patent filings are increasing in other countries and not in the U.S. that is a fact, not anecdotal. ”

  98. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:38 am

    You added foreign and us filings.

    Answer me. I answered you with no. Less growth means decline no matter about growth overall. It’s called tapering off.

    How do you reconcile increasing work and budget cuts as being good for ip attorney jobs?

  99. Anon July 16, 2017 11:13 am

    You added foreign and us filings.

    I am comparing apples to apples.

    less growth simply – logically – and mathematically – does NOT mean what you are trying to make it mean.

    Read – and follow – my post at 96. You are STILL trying to conflate a changing rate of (a) with the straight up view of level of items Y between (not additive) one year and another year.

    You “want an answer from me” while you STILL do not admit that my point is correct.

    You saying my point is not correct is NOT an answer. It is a clear error.

  100. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:20 am

    Answer my question.

  101. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:23 am

    Look we are arguing about whether the patent system means bad news for attorneys. Budgets cuts and consolidation.

    Your point is focusing on minutae.
    But I gave an answer.

    No I don’t think that the filings are growing in the US. Gene doesn’t think so either.

    Now please answer my question.

  102. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:26 am

    Whether the filings increase or not doesn’t matter.

    How do you reconcile increased or decreased filings with budget cuts and consolidations?
    This is the big picture question.

    Just because patents are filed doesn’t mean they’re helping us attorneys. The attorneys are fewer or are making lesa money on the filings.

  103. Anon July 16, 2017 11:42 am

    Your point is focusing on minutae.

    Not so.

    My point deconstructs your far-too-broad accusations.

    You seek to dismiss as “minutae” your own lack of grasp of fundamentals.

    You NOW (one again) seek to move the goal posts and force me to argue a position that I have told you repeatedly that I do not have to take.

    No I don’t think that the filings are growing in the US. Gene doesn’t think so either.

    Your error is a plain math error – why should I proceed when you refuse to acknowledge a plain math error?

    How can I hold your hand any more directly than my post at 96?

    The statement of “No I don’t think that the filings are growing in the US…” shortens to: “No I don’t think.”

    It is beyond hilarious that you find yourself unable (unwilling) to admit to a simple math error, and yet want to move such that you want me to argue some “end result” position that I have already told you that such is not needed by me.

    You want me to move miles when you won’t move a (proper) inch.

  104. Anon July 16, 2017 11:43 am

    The attorneys are fewer or are making lesa money on the filings.

    Those are your conclusions.

    Do you have any actual data on such?

  105. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:51 am

    Data = your link at comment 44
    where it says companies are cutting back on counsel and budgets.

    Well I guess Gene and I have a math error but I’m sure neither of us think so.

    If you disagree with me then you disagree with Gene so you can’t say I’m just a non-attorney who doesn’t understand things.

    ___

    So, with patent filings increasing/decreasing and companies cutting back on counsel and budgets, does this mean good news for attorneys?

  106. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:55 am

    also, you’re a source
    “NightWriter @ 7,

    I can vouch for several large firms having slashed patent budgets in the last few years from personal knowledge.”

    You said it yourself!

    So answer my question!

    _____

    I’ll ask you again…we’re talking about whether attorneys have a bad outlook.
    I say the decreasing growth rate means bad news.
    You say “who cares its still growing!”

    Your affirmations that
    1. Growing workload
    2. Budget cuts

    =
    More work, less pay.

    That’s not good for attorney business.

    Is it Anon?

  107. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:00 pm

    More sources:
    http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/ropes-gray-splitting-with-around-100-lawyers-and-staffers/

    “The “certain trends” driving this is not really the creation of the PTAB proceedings. The IPR proceedings have really wrecked the profits in patent litigation (suing others with issued patents), but R&G is keeping its patent litigation group. It is spinning off its patent prosecution group. The IPR proceedings have perhaps reduced demand for prosecution (getting patents in the first place) by cooling the patent arms race. But that is rather indirect I think.
    The “certain trends” that are driving this is the fact that tech companies have been more and more willing to pay solo practitioners and low cost patent prosecution boutiques to prosecute their patents. I understand this was the case before the recession, but it no doubt sped up then. As a result, patent prosecution is becoming a commodity (the firms are using this terminology), and the pricing for this commodity simply does not support the profit margins necessary for BigLaw. For instance, the price for responding to an office action (one very commoditized part of the patent prosecution process) has already pushed below $2,500 and is perhaps even down to $2,000 even for marquee clients. This means that a mid-level associate might only have 4 to 5 hours to work on this, whereas it should really take 6 to 10 hours on many of these cases. Firms have worked hard to get associate hours down to this level per office action (e.g., just being faster, have paralegals do more and more of the work, having lower cost technical specialists do the work instead of associates, etc.), but they are hitting a limit. So if associates cannot spend less time, and clients are demanding static or even lower pricing, then the firms certainly cannot raise rates in the foreseeable future… and well now they are paying associates $20K more a year. And hence patent prosecution becomes increasingly out of place in BigLaw, thus the move to a smaller firm with lower overhead (I am assuming) and ultimately lower rates and probably lower associate salaries / partner profits (I am also assuming).”

    Says exactly what I say.
    So, answer the question so I can win this debate and move on.

  108. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:08 pm

    Oh look, reputable Law360 agrees with me too!
    https://www.law360.com/articles/814729/why-law-firms-should-be-eyeing-attorney-layoffs

    Bye Anon. No matter your frivolous patent filings growing, you can’t argue that those ‘increased filings’ benefit attorneys.

  109. Anon July 16, 2017 12:37 pm

    You keep on saying “agree with me” when NONE of those agree with your basic error of math that you refuse to own up to.

    You still want me to move miles when you refuse to (properly) move an inch.

  110. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:43 pm

    Lol. You just know you’re wrong.

    I answered your question. I don’t think the table shows increasing patent filings.

    “When I say that patent filings are increasing in other countries and not in the U.S. that is a fact, not anecdotal. ”

    There’s my answer, anon.

    ___

    Answer my question now.
    Whether patent filings are increasing are not a great reason to say patent attorneys are doing great! Especially given the layoffs and less pay.

  111. Anon July 16, 2017 12:44 pm

    …and by the way, my position is not – and never has been – dependent on a “Big Law” perspective.

    That’s just you trying (again) to make me take a larger position that as I have explained to you several times now, I do not need to take.

    (and to add some background, my practice is NOT considered Big Law practice – you really should stop assuming so many things that you are assuming in your attempts at the “big picture” debate that you are having in your mind; and you should start paying attention “to the minutae” that sinks your overbroad statements)

    Start with simple math. It’s an easy step to take (if you are willing to admit your plain math error). Otherwise, you can continue to flail about seeking somehow to justify your simple math error and continue to kick up a mountain of dust (dust, mind you, that does not hide your continued simple math error).

  112. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:44 pm

    If you want to say my and Gene’s math is bad then go ahead.

    But, you can still answer my question.

  113. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:45 pm

    Doesn’t matter. BigLaw employs patent attorneys.
    If they’re laying people off that means the market is bad. Because you don’t lay people off when things are going amazing.

  114. Anon July 16, 2017 12:48 pm

    Lol. You just know you’re wrong.

    I answered your question. I don’t think the table shows increasing patent filings.

    shortens to “I don’t think

    It is STILL no answer to maintain your simple math error.

    It is even more unclear (unless you are still trying to have me take some larger position I need not take) why you “think” “You just know you’re wrong.

    The math is pretty basic. I would expect that if you put your efforts into understanding the basic math instead of your continued flailings, that you would have easily recognized your error by now. Your continued attempts to NOT see your error are only drawing more and more attention to your unwillingness to move that (proper) inch.

  115. Anon July 16, 2017 12:49 pm

    If you want to say my and Gene’s math is bad then go ahead.

    LOL – I do not WANT to continue saying it.

    I WANT you to recognize why your math is bad.

    There is a HUGE difference there.

  116. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:49 pm

    My answer:
    ““When I say that patent filings are increasing in other countries and not in the U.S. that is a fact, not anecdotal. ”

    Now answer my question.

  117. Anon July 16, 2017 12:51 pm

    means the market is bad.

    Yet another of your Far Too Broad statements….

    As to “patent filings are increasing in other countries ” – has ALREADY been refuted with my posting of the actual data FOR THE US and asking you to engage in an apples to apples comparison.

    You are regressing – and badly so.

  118. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:52 pm

    My answer:
    ““When I say that patent filings are increasing in other countries and not in the U.S. that is a fact, not anecdotal. ”

    Now answer my question.

  119. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:56 pm

    Your affirmations that
    1. Growing workload
    2. Budget cuts

    =
    More work, less pay.

    That’s not good for attorney business.

    Is it Anon?

    Are layoffs good for business?
    Are budget cuts good for business?

  120. Anon July 16, 2017 1:04 pm

    Your 118 repeats a question directly answered at 117.

    Your 119 is again overly broad, and thus incorrect. For example, for my firm there are no budget cuts and we are growing. Our bill rates are actually edging upward. Are problems that SOME other firms (including BigLaw) experiencing good for business?

    Most definitely yes.

    Thanks for asking.

    Maybe now you want to return to working on your simple math skills…

  121. Anon July 16, 2017 1:04 pm

    I WANT you to recognize why your math is bad.

    Can you try to focus on that?

  122. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:08 pm

    So you said SOME other firms have problems.
    You prove my point.
    All I said is that filing rates (whether increasing or decreasing) don’t mean happy news for all patent attorneys.

    Bad math is your opinion.
    You just affirmed my argument with a qualification. 🙂

  123. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:14 pm

    You have to look at the rate of change.
    If filings meant ANYTHING then SOME patent attorneys wouldn’t be having problems.
    No patent attorneys would be having problems.

    Thanks for affirming my argument with a qualification.

  124. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:16 pm

    “problems that SOME other firms (including BigLaw) experiencing”

    Yep. Attorney problems. 🙂

  125. Anon July 17, 2017 9:08 am

    Your “affirm…with a qualification” is simply not what you think it is.

    Likewise, “bad math is your opinion” is NOT an accurate statement.

    Bad math is bad math regardless of my (or anyone’s opinion).

    That you think otherwise merely reflects an inability to grasp and properly use logic.

    As to your post 125, once again you miss the point that your overbroad statements are false due in fact to their being overbroad.

  126. Tesia Thomas July 17, 2017 9:39 am

    Nope. You said attorneys have problems due.
    That was my whole entire point

  127. Anon July 18, 2017 7:20 am

    Your “entire point” is a far too overbroad statement.

    Like your “idea” that bad math is something subject to opinion, your “bad logic” is just as damming.

  128. Tesia Thomas July 18, 2017 8:00 am

    You said attorneys have problems.
    You said ‘some attorneys.’
    I just said ‘attorneys.’

  129. Anon July 18, 2017 12:56 pm

    Tesia,

    Do you understand what it means to be incorrect by having an overbroad statement?

    It appears that not only math but basic logic escapes your capabilities.

  130. Tesia Thomas July 18, 2017 1:10 pm

    Attorneys = more than one attorney

    Some attorneys = more than one attorney

    Got it? You affirmed my argument.

  131. Anon July 18, 2017 2:47 pm

    Tesia,

    I affirmed no such thing as you continue to insist on making incorrect overbroad statements.

    Your “argument” simply is not logically sound.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website