PATLY.AIWhere it stands
How J.A. LINDEMAN & CO., PLLC compares with other law firms
Every one with thirty or more decided applications, from the lowest allowance rate to the highest; the dashed line is this firm. Switch the measure.
Applications prosecuted29 20 allowed, 9 abandoned, 0 pending
Active in the record2007 to 2018
3-year grant rate
62%
−10 pts vs the USPTO allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
69%
−6 pts vs the USPTO range 51% to 83%
Rejections before allowance
1.7
level with the USPTO
Months to first action
12.4 mo
−6.2 vs the USPTO
Patents won
20
9 abandoned
Still pending
0
0% of the applications
Needed an RCE
24%
−3 pts vs the USPTO
Months to a decision
27.6 mo
−2.9 vs the USPTO from filing to allowance or abandonment
In plain words
For J.A. LINDEMAN & CO., PLLC, 62% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 72% for the USPTO. An allowance took 1.7 rejections on average, against 1.6 for the USPTO. The first action takes 12.4 months on average.
Timeline
Applications by filing year: drag across the years to study a period
Allowed in green, abandoned in red, pending in grey. The figures above and every chart that can be recomputed by filing year follow the span you pick; the rest are marked all years.
Ask the record
Questions practitioners ask, answered from 29 applications
Grant rate from the first action
Share allowed, by months after the first office action
The gold line is this record and the blue line is the USPTO. The marker is the three-year grant rate.
Outcome simulator
Where you are, what you do next, and the odds that follow
A model of this record’s own transitions: each examiner action, the response to it, and what came next. Thin data borrows from the USPTO.
Prosecution paths
How prosecution actually unfolds
Every application’s sequence of examiner actions, from the first action to the outcome. Hover a band for the count.
Compared with the office
Against every applicant before the USPTO
The same figures for this record and for the whole office.
Allowance over time
How fast applications are allowed, or abandoned
Share allowed (gold) and abandoned (red) by month since filing, with pending cases counted only while they are pending.
Rejection fingerprint
What gets rejected, by statute
Share of office actions raising each ground; blue is the USPTO.
After a response
Which grounds are withdrawn after a response
How often each ground is gone from the next action once it has been answered.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against the USPTO.
Interviews
Does an interview help?
Allowance with and without an examiner interview, and how often interviews happen.
Odds by round
Chance the next action is an allowance
After the first, second and later rejections.
Response clock
Days from a response to the next action
How long the office takes to act once a response is in.
Quarter-end timing
When allowances land in the fiscal quarter
Allowances by week of the USPTO fiscal quarter. An even spread would put 15% in the last two weeks.
Cited art
References cited most against these applications
From the rejections in the most recently decided applications.
Trend
Allowance rate by filing year
Is it getting easier or harder? Gold is this record, blue is the USPTO.
Appeals
What happens on appeal
Appeals filed, briefs, examiner’s answers, and how the Board decided.
Domains
Where the applications fall
The technology domains and the art units with the most of these applications.
CPC subclasses
Art units
Art unit 17625 apps
Art unit 16264 apps
Art unit 16224 apps
Art unit 16193 apps
Art unit 17642 apps
Art unit 16712 apps
Examiners met
The examiners seen most, and how it went with each
The allowance rate of this firm’s decided applications with each examiner.
Examiner 160 apps63%
Examiner 251 apps80%
Examiner 343 apps56%
Examiner 434 apps74%
Examiner 526 apps52%
Examiner 617 apps71%
Bars show the share of decided applications that were allowed.
Who they file for
Clients with the most applications
How often each client’s applications with this firm were allowed.
Client 160 apps63%
Client 251 apps80%
Client 343 apps56%
Client 434 apps74%
Client 526 apps52%
Client 617 apps71%
Bars show the share of decided applications that were allowed.
The practice
Who the firm files for, where its work lands and what is pending
Filed and granted
29 applications filed and 20 patents granted, year by year
Filed by the year of filing, granted by the year the patent issued; the best year for grants was 2013 with 4.
Where it is examined
By tech center and art unit
How many applications each tech center and art unit took, and how they fared there against what the unit usually allows.
Tech centers
Tech center 1600400 apps55%
Tech center 2100340 apps60%
Tech center 2600280 apps65%
Tech center 3100220 apps70%
Tech center 3600160 apps75%
Art units
Art unit 2121180 apps50%
Art unit 2134162 apps56%
Art unit 2147144 apps62%
Art unit 2160126 apps68%
Art unit 2173108 apps74%
Art unit 218690 apps80%
Bars show the share of decided applications allowed in each; the white mark is what that unit allows across every applicant.
Client mix
Who this firm files for
The firm’s applications by the kind of client behind them, with how often each kind’s decided applications were allowed.
Large companiesa thousand applications or more9 clients800 apps, 81% allowed46%
Established companiesevery other company60 clients520 apps, 71% allowed30%
Start-upsfirst filed in 2018 or later, with a small portfolio40 clients210 apps, 64% allowed12%
Universitiesand their technology transfer arms6 clients140 apps, 64% allowed8%
Individual inventorsno assignee recorded60 apps, 46% allowed3%
New clients
Clients by the year of their first filing with the firm
Each client is counted once, in the year its first application with this firm was filed.
Clients
The clients behind the most work, and how much of each client’s filing the firm handles
The clients behind the most work: what the firm filed for each, how much of the client’s own filing that is, how those applications fared and when the client last filed here.
41
clients with a filing since 2024
74
clients that have not filed here since 2023 or earlier
3,869%
of the firm’s applications come from its three largest clients
| Client | Filed here | Share of its filings | Allowed | First year | Last year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northgate Labs Large company | 420 | 47% | 76% | 2009 | 2026 |
| Helix Works Established company | 374 | 45% | 76% | 2010 | 2025 |
| Corvid Devices Established company | 328 | 43% | 75% | 2011 | 2024 |
| Lumen Field Start-up | 282 | 41% | 75% | 2012 | 2023 |
| Tessera Group University | 236 | 38% | 74% | 2013 | 2026 |
| Aster and Bell Established company | 190 | 35% | 73% | 2014 | 2025 |
| Quarry Lane Start-up | 144 | 30% | 72% | 2015 | 2024 |
| Pinecrest Co Established company | 98 | 24% | 69% | 2016 | 2023 |
Filed here is what this firm filed for the client, from the first year to the last. The share is this firm’s part of everything the client filed in the record, which shows where a client spreads its work across firms; it is known for clients with ten or more applications. A greyed last year marks a client that has not filed here since 2023 or earlier.
Technology mix
What was filed, year by year
Applications by filing year, stacked by technology domain. Click a domain to hide or show it.
Clients
The companies this firm files for, and how each one fares
Applications across, allowance rate up; larger bubbles took longer. Click a bubble to open it.
Inventors
Who invents here most
Named inventors by the number of these applications they are on.
Inventor 139 apps
Inventor 234 apps
Inventor 329 apps
Inventor 424 apps
Inventor 519 apps
Inventor 614 apps
Inventor 79 apps
The cost of this record
What prosecution takes from the first action to the end, priced two ways
What prosecution takes after filing, priced two ways. The same examiner can cost twice what another costs.
2.4
office actions per application
0.42
RCEs per application, at $1,500 of USPTO fees each
31%
of applications interview; 4% appeal
| Actions | Months | At firm rates | With Patly | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This record | 2.4 | 27 | $7,836 | $1,834 |
Averages over 420 decided applications, granted and abandoned alike. Firm rates are assumptions: $2,800 per response, $600 per interview, $7,500 per appeal. The Patly column swaps in its published $299 per office action response and keeps everything else the same. USPTO fees for RCEs are counted in both. Drafting and filing are not included.
Explore the portfolio
Every application, every decision, in view
Hover any mark for the case behind it, click to open it, and download any view as an image or a table.
Every application
Every application, each as a dot
Filed across, months to the decision up; green allowed, red abandoned, blue pending; larger dots drew more rejections. Drag across the years to zoom, click a dot to open the case.
Technology
The fields this firm prosecutes, and how each fares
Sized by applications, colored by allowance rate. Click a field to open it.
The draw
The art units these applications land in
Sized by applications, colored by allowance rate. A red tile is a hard unit; click one to see its examiners.
Decision calendar
When decisions land, month by month
Ten years of allowances, abandonments and first actions. Switch the measure to see each.
Rejections over time
Which grounds these applications draw, year by year
The share of examined applications that drew each ground, by filing year. Click a ground to hide or show it.
Prosecution, case by case
The most recent decisions, event by event
Each row is one application from filing to its end: rejections, responses, interviews, RCEs and the outcome. Hover a mark for the date; click a row to open the case.
Applications
Every application in the record
| Application | Title | Filed | Status | Rejections | RCEs | To 1st action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15921008 | Z-SELECTIVE OLEFIN METATHESIS OF PEPTIDES | 2018-03-14 | Abandoned | 0 | 0 | 8.1 mo |
| 15860906 | FUNCTIONALIZED LINEAR AND CYCLIC POLYOLEFINS | 2018-01-03 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 15.1 mo |
| 15099782 | CATALYST COMPLEX WITH CARBENE LIGAND | 2016-04-15 | Abandoned | 1 | 0 | 17.6 mo |
| 15148506 | Method and apparatus for adaptive signal processing | 2012-01-10 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 12.0 mo |
| 15306557 | Composition and method for controlled release | 2015-02-11 | Abandoned | 4 | 1 | 23.0 mo |
| 15835031 | Distributed ledger transaction verification | 2018-03-12 | Allowed | 3 | 0 | 20.0 mo |
| 15455767 | Thermal management of battery assemblies | 2021-04-13 | Pending | 2 | 1 | 17.0 mo |
| 15442162 | Machine learning model for anomaly detection | 2012-05-14 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 14.0 mo |
| 15808390 | Wireless power transfer coil arrangement | 2015-06-15 | Abandoned | 4 | 1 | 25.0 mo |
| 15245514 | Catalyst for selective hydrogenation | 2018-07-16 | Allowed | 3 | 0 | 22.0 mo |