The kids are back in school, the days are getting shorter, and the annual avalanche of pumpkin spice flavoring is bearing down upon us once again. To most of us at Juristat, the best part about fall is the opportunity to pull out the flannels and start layering, but football also seems to be rather exciting to many people. With the beginning of football season just a few short weeks away, we thought we'd get into the spirit by finding several important (i.e., amusing) patents related to the sport.

From the actual instrumentalities of the game to must-have fan accessories, we hope you'll take a few of our suggestions below for making football games as enjoyable as possible. Go football! 

In July of this year, the US Department of Justice gave its blessing to AB InBev's proposed acquisition of SABMiller, meaning that the world's largest brewery will be allowed to combine its operations with the world's second largest brewery, rendering AB InBev what we call a "super mega brewery" in the legal world. 

After a long hiatus from pitting major companies against each other to see how they stack up in patent prosecution, we're back, taking a look at two of the largest consumer goods companies in the world: Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Unilever. 

Most of patent prosecution is responding to office actions. It's safe to say that more office actions from an examiner means more work for the attorney and a higher cost for the client. 

In a previous posting, we identified the most difficult examiners at the USPTO based on allowance rate. Due to the intense amount of interest that post generated, we decided that we would take our study a step further by measuring the most difficult art units at the USPTO, also based on allowance rate. Due to the reality that two examiners in the same art unit can have wildly differing allowance rates, this measurement is not as “pure” as measuring allowance rates at the individual examiner level. However, an art unit’s average allowance rate does give practitioners at least some idea of how difficult getting an allowance in that art unit is likely to be. 

For most patent prosecutors, getting to an allowance is usually the one overarching concern of every prosecution. Of course, prosecutors are also concerned about preserving as much of their claim language as possible to get the broadest protection for their clients. But a patent is better than no patent at all, and, for most, an allowance is a win. Thus, a particular examiner’s allowance rate is a critical measurement of the difficultly of patent prosecution in front of that examiner.  

Innovation has always been a cornerstone of American society. With Independence Day looming just around the corner, we wanted to take some time to recognize some of our favorite patriotic patents. Whether you’re hosting a barbeque, headed out for a Fourth of July concert, or anxiously awaiting your hometown’s fireworks display, take a few minutes to join us in saluting the innovative American way by recognizing our six favorite Independence Day patents.

In June of 2015, Juristat published its first white paper studying the effect patent analytics had on our customers’ allowance rates, among other metrics. To do this, we separated all of our customers’ applications into two groups. The first consisted of applications where the prosecuting attorney had purchased and used a Juristat Examiner Report or other analytic ("Juristat applications"). The second group consisted of applications prosecuted at the same time by the same firms, but where the prosecuting attorney did not use a Juristat analytic ("non-Juristat applications"). 

Introduction

If you’re reading this, you’re already familiar with Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank or you’re my mother. Either way, it’s unnecessary to recite all the details of the case or the subsequent aftermath. Suffice it to say that Alice created some serious doubts about the patentability of software claims, particularly as they relate to business methods.

For the third and final entry in our series of studies on appeals data at the USPTO, we will now take a look at the examiner level, studying all examiners at the USPTO to uncover those who were appealed the most and least.