Wednesday, September 14, 2022

Meet Katie Lee: Our New Customer Success Manager

We’re pleased to introduce Katlyn (Katie) Lee as our new Customer Success Manager!

After 10+ years working inside law firms, Katie knows how important technology is to the operations of a modern law practice. She’s even personally implemented software inside firms to increase productivity and customer satisfaction.

Katie joins Patent Bots after five years as Facilities Operations Manager at intellectual property law firm Edell, Shapio & Finnan. She previously served as a paralegal with Houlon, Berman, Finci & Levenstein and as a legal assistant with non-profit organization House of Ruth Maryland.

Katie looks forward to connecting with all of our current and future customers.

Welcome to the team, Katie! We're glad to have you onboard. 



Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Art Unit Prediction: Get the Right Examiner for Your Patent

USPTO Art Unit assignment can make or break your patent. Patent Bots founder Jeff O'Neill recently sat down with four top patent attorneys to discuss how they steer patents toward the right art units for their applications.

In this recorded one-hour discussion, our panelists share their experiences with art unit prediction software. 

  • Tips for getting the most from art unit prediction tools.
  • How to blend art unit prediction technology and strategy.
  • Client relations and expectation management.
  • And much much more.

Watch the recording below! 

Art Unit Predictor Webinar from Patent Bots on Vimeo.


Big thanks to our panelists for contributing to a lively and thoughtful discussion!

- Jordan Lewis, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Neil Kardos, Harrity & Harrity, LLP
- Thara Russell, Capital One
- Raymond W. Zenkert, III, GTC Law Group PC & Affiliates

Ready to get started with art unit prediction? Try Patent Bots Art Unit Predictor free now!



Thursday, May 5, 2022

New Feature! Simplify Review of Prior Art with Office Action Explorer

One of the most tedious aspects of Office Action response is juggling documents while reviewing prior art of 102/103 rejections. 

Our new Office Action Explorer simplifies this workflow by displaying an application’s most recent office action, pending claims, and cited prior art side-by-side-by-side in a three-column interface. 

Office Action Explorer is available today at no additional charge with your existing Patent Bots Prep & Pros Pro subscription. 


Office Action Explorer: How It Works.

Simply enter your patent application number and Patent Bots will show the most recent office action and pending claims automatically in the first two columns.

Your patent application must be public. We expect to expand the feature to non-public applications soon. 

Now for the best part… Patent prior art references are hyperlinked in the Office Action column. When you click on a prior art reference, Patent Bots will show the prior art in the Prior Art column. Even better, citations to paragraphs and column/line numbers are also hyperlinked. When you click on a citation, we'll automatically scroll the third column to that specific citation. 

This enables you to easily understand the basis for the rejection and prepare your office action response. 

See the NEW Office Action Explorer in action in the short video below. Then, use Office Action Explorer for your next office action response! 

Friday, April 22, 2022

2022 Patent Bots Quality Rankings: Top 10 Firms in Each USPTO Tech Center

Patent Bots recently announced its third annual Patent Quality Rankings of top patent law firms. Last month, we unveiled the Top 50 Patent Firms

Today, we'll announce the Top 10 firms in each USPTO Tech Center. 

We used our advanced machine learning software to review every patent issued – over 300,000! – by the USPTO in the past year. 

We then ranked patent firms in each Tech Center based on the average number of numbering, antecedent basis, and word support errors detected in their patents. Our rankings are based only on the above errors and do not address many other important aspects of patent quality.

Nearly 95% of patents contained at least one detectable error. That's why Patent Bots created the world's fastest and most accurate patent drafting and proofreading solution. Try Patent Bots FREE for 14 days.

Now, on to the rankings! 

2022 Patent Quality Rankings: Top 10 Firms by USPTO Tech Center.

Keep scrolling to view the Top 10 Firms in every USPTO Tech Center. Or, select a Tech Center of interest from the list to jump to that section. 


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 1600.

Technology Center 1600 covers patent applications in the fields of Biotechnology and Organic fields. Congratulations to Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 1600 for 2022!


RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino LLP5099.9
2K&L Gates LLP12497.7
3W&C IP10296.7
4Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.19895.2
5Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.13892.6
6Riverside Law LLP7891.9
7Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP10987.2
8Stinson LLP6285.8
9Dentons US LLP46785.2
10Nixon & Vanderhye P.C.12984.4


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 1700.

Technology Center 1700 covers patent applications in the fields of Chemical and Materials Engineering fields. Congratulations to Amin, Turocy & Watson for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 1700 for 2022! 


RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP8197.6
2ScienBiziP, P.C.7696.9
3Lee IP Law, P.C.7296.5
4Burr & Brown, PLLC12596.1
5McDermott Will & Emery LLP19595.4
6McGarry Bair PC7794.4
7Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.30491.5
8Thorpe North & Western14691.2
9Baker Botts L.L.P.9790.8
10Servilla Whitney LLC5490.7


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 2100.

Technology Center 2100 covers patent applications in the fields of Computer Architecture Software and Information Security. Congratulations to Holland & Hart for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Rankings in Tech Center 2100 for 2022!


RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Holland & Hart LLP13299.6
2Keller Jolley Preece6298.5
3Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C.7998.3
4Patent Law Works LLP5695.5
5Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC10895.5
6Renaissance IP Law Group LLP6293.8
7Artegis Law Group, LLP6493.7
8Withrow & Terranova, PLLC6593.6
9Compass IP Law PC9393.6
10Zilka-Kotab, P.C.13793.1


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 2400.

Technology Center 2400 covers patent applications in the fields of Computer Networks, Multiplex, Cable and Cryptography/Security. Congratulations to Harrity & Harrity for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 2400 for 2022!



RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Harrity & Harrity, LLP15299.7
2Edell, Shapiro & Finnan, LLC15699.6
3Holland & Hart LLP31299.3
4Compass IP Law PC5799.1
5Zilka-Kotab, P.C.5398.7
6Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP21394.4
7Guntin & Gust, PLC21693.8
8Lee & Hayes, P.C.29891.7
9Behmke Innovation Group LLC9991.3
10Qualcomm Incorporated23490.8


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 2600.

Technology Center 2600 covers patent applications in the fields of Communications. Congratulations to Harrity & Harrity for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 2600 for 2022!



RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Harrity & Harrity, LLP6299.8
2Guntin & Gust, PLC9299.0
3Pierce Atwood LLP11198.6
4Holland & Hart LLP10798.3
5Keller Jolley Preece7097.7
6Alleman Hall Creasman & Tuttle LLP11297.6
7Cha & Reiter, LLC14296.1
8Keating & Bennett, LLP5893.7
9Kile Park Reed & Houtteman PLLC6793.7
10Chip Law Group33893.5


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 2800.

Technology Center 2800 covers patent applications in the fields of Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components. Congratulations to GTC Law Group for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 2800 for 2022!



RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1GTC Law Group PC & Affiliates7299.9
2Patent Capital Group11399.3
3Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office8898.2
4The Marbury Law Group PLLC17797.2
5Vierra Magen Marcus LLP10797.1
6Holland & Hart LLP23496.9
7Thompson Hine LLP8196.3
8Chip Law Group22296.1
9Green, Howard & Mughal LLP10295.2
10Arch & Lake LLP8993.5


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 3600.

Technology Center 3600 covers patent applications in the fields of Transportation, Electronic Commerce, Construction, Agriculture, Licensing and Review. Congratulations to Harrity & Harrity for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 3600 for 2022!


RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Harrity & Harrity, LLP11699.6
2Alleman Hall Creasman & Tuttle LLP8899.0
3Chip Law Group5598.9
4The Small Patent Law Group LLC9998.3
5Darrow Mustafa PC8197.9
6Posz Law Group, PLC7095.4
7Botos Churchill IP Law LLP7894.9
8Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC16094.7
9Keating & Bennett, LLP6894.7
10Oliff PLC47094.3


Top 10 Patent Firms in Tech Center 3700.

Technology Center 3700 covers patent applications in the fields of Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing and Products. Congratulations to Posz Law Group for earning the top Patent Bots Quality Ranking in Tech Center 3700 for 2022!


RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Posz Law Group, PLC14999.5
2McCoy Russell LLP30699.3
3JCIPRNET16599.3
4Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP5397.0
5Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.10496.4
6Alleman Hall Creasman & Tuttle LLP11296.4
7Mayer & Williams PC8796.3
8Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP17896.2
9KED & Associates LLP11495.4
10McGarry Bair PC11895.0

Patent Quality Rankings Methodology. 

The Patent Quality Rankings are based only on average errors in issued patents and don't address other important aspects of patent quality. 

For purpose of computing quality scores, we used only numbering errors, antecedent basis errors, and word support errors (words that don't appear in the detailed description).

Although we may over- or under-count errors in an individual patent, the average number of errors across all of a firm's patents is a good indicator of the overall quality of the firm's work. 

Learn more about our methodology.




Monday, April 18, 2022

2022 Patent Bots Quality Rankings: The Top 50 Patent Law Firms

Patent Bots is pleased to announce its third annual Patent Quality Rankings of top patent law firms. 

We used our advanced machine learning software to review every patent issued  over 300,000!  by the USPTO in the past year. We then ranked the 736 most active patent law firms based on the average number of numbering, antecedent basis, and word support errors detected in their patents.

Our rankings are based only on the above errors and do not address many other important aspects of patent quality. 

Patent Accuracy: By the Numbers.

Before we unveil the top 50 patent law firms, let's take a look at the state of patent accuracy.
  • 322,000 patents processed by the Patent Bots AI
  • 16,434 patents achieved a perfect Patent Bots Quality Score
  • 11.2 average errors per patent
  • 7 median errors per patent
More than 305,000 patents issued in 2021 contained at least one numbering, antecedent basis, or word support error. There is clearly room for improved accuracy in the industry. 

That is why Patent Bots created the world's fastest and most accurate patent drafting and proofreading solution. Try Patent Bots FREE for 14 days.

Now, on to the rankings!

2022 Patent Quality Rankings: Top 10 Large Firms.

We've segmented America's most active patent firms (those with at least 500 patents issued in 2021) into a Large Firms list to recognize their prolific patent practices. 

For the full Top 50 ranking of patent firms, keep scrolling! 

After placing second among large firms in 2021, Harrity & Harrity jumped to the top of the rankings this year. Congratulations to Harrity & Harrity and the rest of these large firms for doing amazing work over the last year! 


Rank of Large FirmsOverall RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
15Harrity & Harrity, LLP53697.8
220Chip Law Group87791.8
327Holland & Hart LLP88290.6
439Keating & Bennett, LLP65288.1
5 Studebaker & Brackett PC1246 
6 Lee, Hong, Degerman, Kang & Waimey596 
7 McDermott Will & Emery LLP1458 
8 Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP1225 
9 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC822 
10 Lee & Hayes, P.C.1045


2022 Patent Quality Rankings: Top 50 Firms Overall. 

Large firms don't have a monopoly on patent accuracy. Smaller firms with between 50 and 500 patents granted are doing excellent work as well. 

(If you don't see your firm on the list below, review our full list inside our PatentVerse. You'll need to log in to see your firm's ranking as we don't want to publicly identify firms with lower scores.)



RankLaw FirmNo. of Issued PatentsQuality Score
1Lindauer Law, PLLC5599.2
2Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm5799.2
3Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.5598.7
4Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office13198.0
5Harrity & Harrity, LLP53697.8
6Rowand LLP8397.8
7Keller Jolley Preece20697.3
8Strategic Patents, P.C.5797.1
9Hartman & Citrin LLC6996.7
10Patent Capital Group25495.0
11Dascenzo Gates Intellectual Property Law, P.C.6694.6
12GTC Law Group PC & Affiliates15894.6
13Posz Law Group, PLC44294.4
14McGarry Bair PC27393.9
15Compass IP Law PC21593.9
16Allen & Overy LLP6893.4
17Guntin & Gust, PLC43693.3
18Konrad Raynes Davda & Victor LLP23793.3
19Parker Justiss, P.C.6092.5
20Chip Law Group87791.8
21Qualcomm Incorporated48891.8
22Volentine, Whitt & Francos, PLLC18391.6
23Darrow Mustafa PC18991.3
24Adam R. Stephenson, Ltd.7291.1
25FIG. 1 Patents25590.8
26Behmke Innovation Group LLC14190.6
27Holland & Hart LLP88290.6
28Mori & Ward, LLP12290.5
29Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, LLC11190.4
30Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC6690.4
31Kenja IP Law PC17890.0
32Duft & Bornsen, PC16489.9
33Dierker & Kavanaugh PC6689.4
34The Small Patent Law Group LLC29389.0
35Global IP Counselors, LLP47989.0
36Alleman Hall Creasman & Tuttle LLP47688.6
37Neustel Law Offices6988.4
38Lawrence Youst PLLC6188.3
39Keating & Bennett, LLP65288.1
40Cha & Reiter, LLC28587.8
41Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC12287.5
42IP Business Solutions, LLC5187.4
43MLO, a professional corp.8186.9
44Green, Howard & Mughal LLP15985.9
45Treyz Law Group, P.C.23585.8
46Pierce Atwood LLP17485.4
47KED & Associates LLP30085.3
48Arch & Lake LLP21184.6
49Carrier Blackman & Associates, P.C.17584.5
50Chamberlain Hrdlicka6284.4


Patent Quality Rankings Methodology. 

The Patent Quality Rankings are based only on average errors in issued patents and don't address other important aspects of patent quality. 

For purpose of computing quality scores, we used only numbering errors, antecedent basis errors, and word support errors (words that don't appear in the detailed description).

Although we may over- or under-count errors in an individual patent, the average number of errors across all of a firm's patents is a good indicator of the overall quality of the firm's work. 

Learn more about our methodology.



Tuesday, March 22, 2022

New Feature! Stop Juggling Documents in Office Actions

Juggling documents – application, office action, prior art, etc. – is one of the most tedious parts of Office Action responses.

To reduce that burden, Patent Bots proofreading results now display the text of the most recent Office Action from the USPTO. Here’s how it looks on your screen:

How do we do it? By extracting the application number from your response, we’re able to access the text of the Office Action from the USPTO.

Your patent application must be public … and the USPTO’s website must not be crashing. 🤣

This new feature is just the beginning. Soon, our NEW Office Action Response tool will also display the text of your application and the text of cited prior art – all in one convenient user interface.

Stay tuned!

Thursday, March 17, 2022

Is the USPTO Automating Art Unit Assignment? Here’s the Evidence.

When a patent application is filed with the USPTO, it’s assigned to an art unit and a patent examiner in that art unit based on the technology involved. 

The USPTO “classifies” an application by assigning it codes to indicate the technological subject matter of the patent. Then an art unit and examiner are selected based on the codes. Only then does the examiner leverage their subject matter expertise to review the application, do a prior art search, and determine whether to grant a patent.

In the past, the assignment process was manual. One group of USPTO employees reviewed applications and assigned codes and another group assigned the application to an art unit and examiner based on the codes.

More recently, we believe that the USPTO has begun automating the assignment process using machine learning. 

How do we know the USPTO is automating this process? We’ve verified it using our proprietary Art Unit Predictor.

USPTO Automation? The Proof is in the Predictions.

The Art Unit Predictor by Patent Bots reviews patent applications and predicts the art units to which they will be assigned. As patent practitioners, we can use this tool to revise our applications and steer them toward favorable art units.

Over the last two years, we’ve seen the Art Unit Predictor’s accuracy rate improve dramatically. 

When the process was fully manual, human inconsistency impacted the assignment process. Two different USPTO employees could classify the same patent with two different codes. Even the same USPTO employee could classify the same patent differently depending on the day.

By contrast, machines are incredibly consistent. When machines classify applications, the outcome will always be the same. Machines are capable of learning even complex decision-making processes as long as the process is consistent.

The increasing consistency in USPTO art unit assignment – and increasing alignment with Patent Bots predictions – indicates greater use of automation in the process over the last two years. 

The following graph illustrates this increasing alignment between (presumably automated) USPTO assignments and Patent Bots predictions over the last two years:

How Automation Benefits All Patent System Stakeholders.

The Art Unit Predictor predicts which of five art units an application will be assigned to. As the chart illustrates, our prediction accuracy has steadily increased from 80% in the first half of 2020 to over 82% in the second half of 2021. 

During this period, the implementation of our Art Unit Predictor has not changed. The only change is the USPTO data used to train and test the Art Unit Predictor. 

The USPTO has stated publicly that it is introducing more automation into the patent assignment process. 

Our increased accuracy indicates that the USPTO has become more predictable. It provides third-party validation that, yes, the USPTO is replacing manual human processes with automation.

We expect our accuracy to continue increasing as the USPTO automates more of the process. When the process becomes fully automated, we may even see 100% accuracy from our Art Unit Predictor. 

Predictability through automation is good for the patent system! Automation lowers the USPTO’s costs and speeds up processing. It leads similar applications to the same art units and those art units will have (or develop) relevant expertise in those technology areas. 

And, most importantly, automation promotes greater consistency and thus fairer outcomes for patent applicants.