So there is a good chance I picked a misspelling because, again, we are pretty terrible at making sure the roster is accurate.Everything you need to need to know about the largest NYC startup funding rounds of May 2022 broken down by industry, stage, investors, and more + a special offer for our readers ($499 value)…įiled Under: #NYCTech, AlleyTalk, Funding, RFC-AW, Startups Tagged With: Julien Chaumond, Praveen Kumar, 645 Ventures, A. Note: During disambiguation I just took one name at random. Lookup your firm/business and if I am significantly off, let me know. As a percentage of registered practitioners, they would almost certainly be more prevalent at small firms. I am guessing this is not actually the case but is an artifact of the fact that many (probably a vast majority) big firm practitioners are not doing prosecution (they are doing litigation, FTO, Due Diligence, and myriad other things) whereas at the smaller firms most are probably focused on prosecution.Īlso these numbers cannot account for “technical specialists” (i.e., people doing prep and pros that have not bothered to take the patent bar exam). It might be tempting to look at the numbers and thing small firms average many more applications per registered practitioner than big firms. Registered Practitioner Patent Prosecutors I think it is very safe to say that less than 20% of firms/business prosecute 80% of applications. This is likely an under counting due, for example, to the fact that I just used the currently firm/business associated with the application in PAIR but, again, I don’t think it can be off by that much. A small fraction of firms/business prosecute the vast majority of applicationsģ06,000 of the 387,000 disposed applications where handled by the firms with 7 or more registered practitioners, which my numbers is about 7% of the firms/business.
#David reiss westrock linkedin registration#
I will perhaps re-run the numbers excluding the “solos” and/or with a breakdown by registration number range as a proxy for age. Probably(?) a large percentage of the inactive practitioners fall into the 1 grouping. Update: Note that this is all registered practitioners. Its likely there are good number in there that fell through the cracks of my fuzzy matching algorithm, but numbers of practitioners I came up with for the 25 biggest firms largely matches a PatentlyO post from last year, so I am pretty sure I am within 20%, which would mean at least 73% work in the 1 – 6 bucket. The fact that 93% (10,875 of 11,681) were at firms/business with 6 or fewer practitioners was surprising.
A large majority of registered practitioners are at firms/businesses with 6 or fewer registered practitioners Just kidding, we don’t need no stinking rankings. I chose the groupings based on what achieved a roughly equal number of disposed applications in 2016: Firm size (registered practitioners) I then counted practitioners and came up with the following: Registered Practitioners I arrived at 11,681 of them for the 47,257 registered practitioners (as of June when I ran these numbers). For 2, I used various fuzzy matching algorithms to try and suss out unique firm/business names. colloquial names, etc.įor this initial pass I didn’t attempt to account for 1.
Even ignoring stale information, the business/firm name field is still very noisy due to variations in spellings, flat-out mispellings, use of official names vs.
0 kommentar(er)
