E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter

About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Become a Fan

« Plaintiffs Respond to Myriad's "Suggestion" of Mootness or, Alternatively, Motion for Remand in AMP v. USPTO | Main | BIO International Convention 2012 Preview - Part II »

June 11, 2012


Thanks for this nice piece of detective work, Don.

Please post what you think is a "bio/pharma" patent as to put Monsanto first and DuPont so low is, well, very strange considering they hold mostly patents of the same type.


The third paragraph of the post lists the classes that were searched and the last paragraph lists a few limitations of our search. Please note that it is our goal to improve the search criteria in order to yield a better picture of bio/pharma patenting.

Thanks for the comment.


I would object to the entire idea that the USPTO classification system is sufficient for doing this type of analysis and a keyword search, as done by IPO is much more appropriate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30