IP-related statistics from the recent past
A selection of key IP facts and figures, as reported by IAM and other sources
Table 1. Stock performance of selected publicly traded IP-centric companies, January-March 2015

Source: Google Finance
Tables 2a and 2b show the entities with the highest volume of in-bound patent assignment transactions (assignee table) and out-bound patent assignment transactions (assignor table), as recorded at the USPTO. These results are calculated by aggregating the number of transactions completed by an assignee/assignor in January and February 2015.
One transaction may include multiple patents, patent families and patent portfolios. Many companies create numerous holding vehicles to house their different IP portfolios; this is why similar company names may appear multiple times in the tables.
Table 2a. Top 30 patent assignees by number of transactions, January-February 2015
# |
Assignee entity |
Number of assignments transacted |
1 |
National Institutes Of Health (NIH), U.S. Dept. Of Health And Human Services (DHHS), U.S. Government |
205 |
2 |
National Science Foundation |
134 |
3 |
eBay Inc. |
124 |
4 |
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha |
77 |
5 |
International Business Machines Corporation |
74 |
6 |
Dow Global Technologies LLC |
61 |
7 |
Intel Corporation |
55 |
8 |
Inventor Holdings, LLC |
53 |
9 |
Sony Corporation |
52 |
10 |
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. |
48 |
11 |
InnerCool Therapies, Inc. |
47 |
12 |
Globus Medical, Inc. |
41 |
13 |
U.S. Department Of Energy |
40 |
14 |
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. |
38 |
15 |
Rovi Guides, Inc. |
38 |
16 |
The Regents Of The University Of California |
37 |
17 |
Qualcomm Incorporated |
35 |
18 |
Google Inc. |
34 |
19 |
Xerox Corporation |
33 |
20 |
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha |
33 |
21 |
Microsoft Corporation |
33 |
22 |
Apple Inc. |
32 |
23 |
IGT |
31 |
24 |
TV Guide, Inc. |
30 |
25 |
CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC |
30 |
26 |
UV Corp. |
29 |
27 |
Sarcos LC |
29 |
28 |
Novartis AG |
29 |
29 |
Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. |
28 |
30 |
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha |
28 |
Source: ktMINE (www.ktmine.com)
Table 2b. Top 30 patent assignors by number of transactions, January-February 2015
# |
Assignor entity |
Number of assignments transacted |
1 |
Searete LLC |
25 |
2 |
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. |
24 |
3 |
Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc. |
22 |
4 |
Marathon Patent Group, Inc. |
19 |
5 |
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. |
18 |
6 |
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. |
17 |
7 |
Meso Scale Technologies, LLC. |
15 |
8 |
Emcore Corporation |
14 |
9 |
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. |
11 |
10 |
Scienbizip Consulting (Shenzhen) Co.,Ltd. |
11 |
11 |
Meso Scale Technologies, LLC |
10 |
12 |
Papa, Steven Paul |
9 |
13 |
Novartis AG |
9 |
14 |
Mishra, Rajesh Kumar |
9 |
15 |
Bank Of America, N.A. |
9 |
16 |
Weiman, Mark |
8 |
17 |
Scheidl, Stefan |
8 |
18 |
Reichenberger, Klaus |
8 |
19 |
Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. |
8 |
20 |
Licht, Nico |
8 |
21 |
Heimann, Archim |
8 |
22 |
Crocker, James P |
8 |
23 |
Brand, Stephan |
8 |
24 |
University Of Utah |
7 |
25 |
Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG |
7 |
26 |
Nokia Corporation |
7 |
27 |
Neumann, Michael |
7 |
28 |
Cox, Isaiah W. |
7 |
29 |
University Of California San Diego |
6 |
30 |
Teggatz, Ross E. |
6 |
One transaction may include multiple patents, patent families and patent portfolios. Many companies create numerous holding vehicles to house their different IP portfolios; this is why similar company names may appear multiple times in the tables.
Source: ktMINE (www.ktmine.com)
Table 3 lists all of the US Supreme Court cases relating to patent matters decided since January 2005 and ranks them according to the number of times they have subsequently been cited in US litigation.
Table 3. US Supreme Court patent-related decisions 2005-2015, ranked by number of citations
# |
Case |
Year |
Issue concerned |
1 |
KSR International Co v Teleflex Inc, 550 US 398 |
2007 |
Obviousness |
2 |
eBay Inc v MercExchange, LLC, 547 US 388 |
2006 |
Injunctive relief |
3 |
MedImmune, Inc v Genentech, Inc, 549 US 118 |
2007 |
Licensee's right to challenge licensed patents |
4 |
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc v SEB SA, 131 S Ct 2060 |
2011 |
Induced infringement |
5 |
Bilski v Kappos, 561 US 593 |
2010 |
Subject-matter eligibility (business methods) |
6 |
Microsoft Corp v i4i Ltd Partnership, 131 S Ct 2238 |
2011 |
Presumption of validity |
7 |
Illinois Tool Works Inc v Independent Ink, Inc, 547 US 28 |
2006 |
'Tying' arrangements in patent licences |
8 |
Quanta Computer, Inc v LG Electronics, Inc, 553 US 617 |
2008 |
Exhaustion |
9 |
Microsoft Corp v AT & T Corp, 550 US 437 |
2007 |
Infringement by export of components |
10 |
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc v Swift-Eckrich, Inc, 546 US 394 |
2006 |
Post-verdict civil procedure requirements |
11 |
Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc, 132 S Ct 1289 |
2012 |
Subject-matter eligibility (diagnostic methods) |
12 |
Carlsbad Technology, Inc v HIF Bio, Inc, 556 US 635 |
2009 |
Appellate jurisdiction |
13 |
Merck KGaA v Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd, 545 US 193 |
2005 |
Research exception to infringement |
14 |
FTC v Actavis, Inc, 133 S Ct 2223 |
2013 |
Reverse payment ('pay-for-delay') settlements |
15 |
Gunn v Minton, 133 S Ct 1059 |
2013 |
Federal jurisdiction over cases relating to, but not directly involving, patents |
16 |
Lexmark Intern, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc, 134 S Ct 1377 |
2014 |
Unfair competition based on false infringement allegations |
17 |
Nautilus, Inc v Biosig Instruments, Inc, 134 S Ct 2120 |
2014 |
Indefiniteness |
18 |
Already, LLC v Nike, Inc, 133 S Ct 721 |
2013 |
Standing after covenant not to sue |
19 |
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, 131 S Ct 2188 |
2011 |
Patent ownership under the Bayh-Dole Act |
20 |
Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc, 133 S Ct 2107 |
2013 |
Subject-matter eligibility (isolated genetic material) |
21 |
Alice Corp Pty Ltd v CLS Bank Intern, 134 S Ct 2347 |
2014 |
Subject-matter eligibility (computer-implemented inventions) |
22 |
Limelight Networks, Inc v Akamai Technologies, Inc, 134 S Ct 2111 |
2014 |
Divided infringement |
23 |
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd v Novo Nordisk A/S, 132 S Ct 1670 |
2012 |
Forcing correction of patented drug 'use codes' in the US Food & Drug Administration's Orange Book |
Source: Patently-O