Competitors don’t patent more than the US – their data is cooked
Alex Moss, 24 - the executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, previously at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a patent litigator at Sullivan & Cromwell. Letter to Senators Durbin, Coons, Tillis, and Representatives Issa and Lofgren on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, signed by American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Generation Patient, Public Citizen, Public Interest Patent Law Institute, and the R Street Institute. 1/30, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60e5457fb89be21d705fa914/t/65b9687cbb120871dd820938/1706649724600/Public+Interest+Letter+re+PERA+-+01.30.24.pdf //DH
• Patent eligibility law does not systematically result in the rejection of patent applications in the U.S. that are granted in Europe and China.
A 2017 essay by Kevin Madigan and Adam Mossoff,34 which purported to report study results supporting this claim has been resoundingly debunked.
According to a detailed study of a random sample of Madigan and Mossoff’s data that was conducted by Abby Rives, nearly a quarter—24%—of the applications in their dataset had never received even a single eligibility-related rejection.35 Another 61% had pending rejections under Sections 102, 103, or 112 at the time they were abandoned, making it inappropriate to attribute the abandonment solely to a rejection under Section 101.36 Stunningly, only 15% of the applications identified by Madigan and Mossoff had received a sole eligibility-related rejection when they were abandoned.37 Of those, almost a quarter (22%) are the basis for still-pending applications to the same invention disclosed in the abandoned application.38 This means that, in many of these cases, the underlying applications were not rejected, and patents may well issue from those that remain pending.