Editing Patent (section)

==History==
{{Main|History of patent law}}
[[File:Venetian Patent Statute 1474.png|thumb|right|220px|The [[Venetian Patent Statute]], issued by the Senate of Venice in 1474, and one of the earliest statutory patent systems in the world.]]
Although there is evidence that some form of patent rights was recognized in [[Ancient Greece]] in the city of [[Sybaris]],<ref name="Anthon">[[Charles Anthon]], ''A Classical Dictionary: Containing An Account of the Principal Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors, And Intended To Elucidate All The Important Points Connected With The Geography, History, Biography, Mythology, And Fine Arts Of The Greeks And Romans Together With An Account Of Coins, Weights, And Measures, With Tabular Values Of The Same'', Harper & Bros, 1841, p. 1273.</ref><ref>Phylarchus of Naucratis, "The Deipnosophists, or, Banquet of the Learned of Athenæus", Translated from Ancient Greek by H.Bohn 12:20, p. 835</ref> the first statutory patent system is generally regarded to be the [[Venetian Patent Statute]] of 1474. However, recent historical research has suggested that the 1474 Statute was inspired by laws in the [[Kingdom of Jerusalem]] that granted [[Monopoly|monopolies]] to developers of novel silk-making techniques.<ref>Robert Patrick Merges. ''Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials''. 7th ed., Chapter 1.{{ISBN?}}</ref> Patents were systematically granted in [[Venice]] as of 1474, where they issued a [[decree]] by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the [[Republic of Venice|Republic]] in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. The period of protection was 10 years.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.wolfgang-pfaller.de/venedig.htm | title=Wolfgang-Pfaller.de: Patentgesetz von Venedig | language=de, it | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630055924/http://www.wolfgang-pfaller.de/venedig.htm | archive-date=2007-06-30 }}</ref> As Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes. This led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries.<ref name="Frumkin">M. Frumkin, "The Origin of Patents", ''Journal of the Patent Office Society'', March 1945, Vol. XXVII, No. 3, pp. 143 et seq.</ref>

The English patent system evolved from its early [[Middle Ages|medieval]] origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property<!-- Non-neutral term; see talk --> in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the [[Industrial Revolution]] could emerge and flourish.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Leaffer|first1=Marshall A.|title=Book Review. Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660–1800|journal=Articles by Maurer Faculty|date=1990|issue=666|url=http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1663&context=facpub|postscript=none|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151004133535/http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1663&context=facpub|archive-date=2015-10-04}}; {{cite book|last1=MacLeod|first1=Christine|title=Inventing the Industrial Revolution : The English patent system, 1660–1800|date=1988|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521893992|url=http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/british-history-after-1450/inventing-industrial-revolution-english-patent-system-16601800|postscript=none|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151004144302/http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/british-history-after-1450/inventing-industrial-revolution-english-patent-system-16601800|archive-date=2015-10-04}}</ref> By the 16th century, the English [[The Crown|Crown]] would habitually abuse the granting of letters patent for [[Monopoly|monopolies]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm |title=Blackstone's Commentaries |quote=THE king's grants are alſo matter of public record. For, as St. Germyn ſays, the king's excellency is ſo high in the law, that no freehold may be given to the king, nor derived from him, but by matter of record. And to this end a variety of offices are erected, communicating in a regular ſubordination one with another, through which all the king's grants muſt paſs, and be tranſcribed, and enrolled; that the ſame may by narrowly inſpected by his officers, who will inform him if any thing contained therein is improper, or unlawful to be granted. Theſe grants, whether of lands, honours, liberties, franchiſes, or ought beſides, are contained in charters, or letters patent, that is, open letters, literae patentes: ſo called becauſe they are not ſealed up, but expoſed to open view, with the great ſeal pendant at the bottom; and are uſually directed or addreſſed by the king to all his ſubjects at large. And therein they differ from certain other letters of the king, ſealed alſo with his great ſeal, but directed to particular perſons, and for particular purpoſes: which therefore, not being proper for public inſpection, are cloſed up and ſealed on the outſide, and are thereupon called writs cloſe, literae clauſae; and are recorded in the cloſe-rolls, in the ſame manner as the others are in the patent-rolls... |access-date=2008-02-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080224171053/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm |archive-date=2008-02-24 }}</ref> After public outcry, [[James VI and I|King James I of England]] (VI of [[Scotland]]) was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the [[Statute of Monopolies]] (1624) in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. The Statute became the foundation for later developments in patent law in England and elsewhere.

[[File:Puckle gun advertisement.jpg|thumb|left|[[James Puckle]]'s 1718 [[Puckle gun|early autocannon]] was one of the first inventions required to provide a specification for a patent.]]
Important developments in patent law emerged during the 18th century through a slow process of judicial interpretation of the law. During the reign of [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]], patent applications were required to supply a complete specification of the principles of operation of the invention for public access.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-18century.htm|title=The 18th century|publisher=Intellectual Property Office|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140422075818/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-18century.htm|archive-date=2014-04-22}}</ref> Legal battles around the 1796 patent taken out by [[James Watt]] for his [[steam engine]], established the principles that patents could be issued for improvements of an already existing machine and that ideas or principles without specific practical application could also legally be patented.<ref>{{cite web |title=History of Copyright |publisher=[[UK Intellectual Property Office]] |year=2006 |url=http://www.patent.gov.uk/about-history-copy.htm |access-date=2007-08-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090202/http://www.patent.gov.uk/about-history-copy.htm |archive-date=2007-09-29 }}</ref>

The English legal system became the foundation for patent law in countries with a [[common law]] heritage, including the United States, [[New Zealand]] and [[Australia]]. In the [[Thirteen Colonies]], inventors could obtain patents through petition to a given colony's legislature. In 1641, [[Samuel Winslow (patentee)|Samuel Winslow]] was granted the first patent in North America by the [[Massachusetts General Court]] for a new process for making salt.<ref>James W. Cortada, "Rise of the knowledge worker, Volume 8 of Resources for the knowledge-based economy", Knowledge Reader Series, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998, p. 141, {{ISBN|978-0750670586}}.</ref>

The modern French patent system was created during the [[French Revolution|Revolution]] in 1791.<ref>Gabriel Galvez-Behar,"La République des inventeurs. Propriété et organisation de l'invention en France, 1791–1922", Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2008, {{ISBN|978-2753506954}}.</ref> Patents were granted without examination since inventor's right was considered as a natural one. Patent costs were very high (from 500 to 1,500 francs). Importation patents protected new devices coming from foreign countries. The patent law was revised in 1844{{Snd}}patent cost was lowered and importation patents were abolished.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Galvez-Behar|first=Gabriel|date=2019-05-27|title=The Patent System during the French Industrial Revolution: Institutional Change and Economic Effects|url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00544730/file/GGB-FRENCH-PATENT-SYSTEM-PRE-PRINT.pdf|journal=Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte / Economic History Yearbook|language=en|volume=60|issue=1|pages=31–56|doi=10.1515/jbwg-2019-0003|s2cid=195789899|issn=2196-6842|access-date=2021-08-26}}</ref>

The first Patent Act of the [[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]] was passed on April 10, 1790, titled "An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts".<ref>Online at Library of Congress: "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875": First Congress, Session II, chapter VII, 1790: [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=232 "An Act to Promote the Progress of Useful Arts"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160118130913/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001%2Fllsl001.db&recNum=232 |date=2016-01-18 }}.</ref> The first patent under the Act was granted on July 31, 1790, to [[Samuel Hopkins (inventor)|Samuel Hopkins]] of [[Vermont]] for a method of producing [[potash]] (potassium carbonate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/features/anniversary-first-patent|title=Anniversary of the First Patent Issued in the United States|website=GovInfo|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=1 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230601095051/https://www.govinfo.gov/features/anniversary-first-patent|url-status=live}}</ref> A revised patent law was passed in 1793, and in 1836 a major revision was passed. The 1836 law instituted a significantly more rigorous application process, including the establishment of an examination system. Between 1790 and 1836 about ten thousand patents were granted. By the [[American Civil War]] about 80,000 patents had been granted.<ref>Joseph M. Gabriel, ''Medical Monopoly: Intellectual Property Rights and the Origins of the Modern Pharmaceutical Industry''. University of Chicago Press (2014){{ISBN?}}{{page?|date=June 2023}}</ref>

=== Gender gap in patents ===
[[File:Participation of women inventors in PCT Applications 2009-2023.png|thumb|Share of women amongst listed inventors in [[Patent Cooperation Treaty|PCT]] applications from 2009 till 2023. In 2023, 17.7% of inventors were women.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Organization |first=World Intellectual Property |title=PCT Yearly Review 2024 |url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-901-2024-en-patent-cooperation-treaty-yearly-review-2024.pdf |access-date=2024-06-25 |website=www.wipo.int |language=en}}</ref> ]]
In the US, married women were historically precluded from obtaining patents. While section 1 of the [[Patent Act of 1790]] did refer to "she",<ref>{{Cite web|last=Patent Act of 1790|first=Chapter 7, 1 Stat. 109–112|date=April 10, 1790|title=The First United States Patent Statute|url=https://ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/Patent_Act_of_1790.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122005813/https://ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/Patent_Act_of_1790.pdf|access-date=26 February 2021|archive-date=22 January 2021}}</ref> married women were unable to own property in their own name and were also prohibited from rights to their own income, including income from anything they invented.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Khan|first=Zorina B.|date=1996|title=Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790–1895|url=http://www.laits.utexas.edu/~mbs31415/Khan_MarriedWomenPropertyRights.pdf|journal=The Journal of Economic History|volume=56|issue=2|pages=356–388|doi=10.1017/S002205070001648X|s2cid=154441953|access-date=2021-03-05|archive-date=2021-04-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210428232330/http://www.laits.utexas.edu/~mbs31415/Khan_MarriedWomenPropertyRights.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> This historical gender gap has lessened over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, however, disparity is still prevalent.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Marcowitz-Bitton|first1=Miriam|last2=Kaplan|first2=Yotam |last3=Michiko Morris |first3=Emily|date=2020|title=Unregistered Patents & Gender Equality|url=https://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2020/04/HLG102_crop.pdf|journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Gender|volume=43|page=47|access-date=2021-02-26|archive-date=2021-06-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623193520/https://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2020/04/HLG102_crop.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In the UK, for example, only 8% of inventors were female as of 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Intellectual Property Offiece|date=March 2016|title=Gender Profiles in UK Patenting An analysis of female inventorship|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514320/Gender-profiles-in-UK-patenting-An-analysis-of-female-inventorship.pdf|access-date=February 26, 2021|archive-date=June 23, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623193518/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514320/Gender-profiles-in-UK-patenting-An-analysis-of-female-inventorship.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> This can partly be attributed to historical barriers for women to obtain patents,<ref name=":0" /> as well as to the fact that women are underrepresented in traditionally "patent-intensive" sectors, particularly [[Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics|STEM]] sectors.<ref name=":1" /> Marcowitz-Bitton et al. argue that the gender gap in patents is also a result of internal bias within the patent system.<ref name=":1" />

=== Innovation decline ===

The number of patent applications filed each year has been growing for most countries although not smoothly, and jumps in activity are often observed due to changes in local laws. The high number of [[patent families]] for Spain in the 1800s is related to the superior preservation and cataloguing of the data by [[Spanish Patent and Trademark Office]] compared to other countries (see [[1836 U.S. Patent Office fire]]). The US was the World's leader in terms of patent families filed between 1900 and 1966, when Japan took over. Since 2007 [[PR China]] leads.

[[File:Number of patent families published by different authorities vs. earliest priority date.png|thumb|Number of patent families published by different authorities vs. earliest priority date]]

However, in most technologically advanced countries (see, for example, France,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/the-end-of-quick-and-dirty-french-patent-system-under-scrutiny/|title=The end of quick and dirty? French patent system under scrutiny|first=Christina|last=Schulze|date=15 March 2019|website=JUVE Patent|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=8 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230608144130/https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/the-end-of-quick-and-dirty-french-patent-system-under-scrutiny/|url-status=live}}</ref> Italy, Japan,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/columns/a01_0352.html|title=Column「Soaring Patent Applications in China」|website=www.rieti.go.jp|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=7 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607021339/https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/columns/a01_0352.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Spain, Sweden, the UK<ref>The changing profile of users of the UK patent system. Supporting the innovation ecosystem: Building the evidence base on the drivers of IP. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009464/The-changing-profile-of-users-of-the-UK-patent-system.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607021336/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009464/The-changing-profile-of-users-of-the-UK-patent-system.pdf |date=2023-06-07 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/facts-and-figures-patent-trade-mark-design-and-hearing-data-2019/facts-and-figures-patent-trade-mark-design-and-hearing-data-2019|title=Facts and figures: patent, trade mark, design and hearing data: 2019|website=GOV.UK|access-date=9 June 2023|archive-date=7 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607153516/https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/facts-and-figures-patent-trade-mark-design-and-hearing-data-2019/facts-and-figures-patent-trade-mark-design-and-hearing-data-2019|url-status=live}}</ref> in the figure on the right, as well as in [[Poland]]<ref>Trends and characteristics of patenting activity in Poland in 1990–2018. 2020. Przegląd Statystyczny. 67/3. J. Kwiatkowski, T. Tomaszewski. {{doi|10.5604/01.3001.0014.7108}}</ref>), the total (i.e. regardless of the priority/inventors' country) number of patent families filed there have been declining in absolute numbers since {{circa|1970s}}–1980s. The decline is even more pronounced when the number of patent applications is normalized by the country's population each year, or when the country of origin rather than country of filing is used.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.globaldata.com/media/disruptor/global-patent-filings-decline-by-14-yoy-in-q2-2022-mainly-led-by-china-reveals-globaldata/|title=Global patent filings decline by 14% YoY in Q2 2022, mainly led by China, reveals GlobalData|work=GlobalData |date=4 August 2022|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=6 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606170911/https://www.globaldata.com/media/disruptor/global-patent-filings-decline-by-14-yoy-in-q2-2022-mainly-led-by-china-reveals-globaldata/|url-status=live}}</ref> For the US, the population-normalized peak in patenting occurred in 1915,<ref name="Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2005">A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation. 2005. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 72/8, 980–986. J. Huebner. {{doi|10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003}}.</ref> and the number of subsequent patents induced per patent has been mostly declining since 1926.<ref>Combinations of technology in US patents, 1926–2009: a weakening base for future innovation? 2018. Econ Innov New Technol. 27/8, 770–785. M.S. Clancy. {{doi|10.1080/10438599.2017.1410007}}.</ref> A study of 4,512  patents obtained by [[Stanford University]] between 1970 and 2020 showed that the university's patenting activity plateaued in the 2010s.<ref>Systematic analysis of 50 years of Stanford University technology transfer and commercialization. 2022. Patterns. 3/9, 9. W.X. Liang, S. Elrod, D.A. Mcfarland, J. Zou. {{doi|10.1016/j.patter.2022.100584}}.</ref> Incidentally, only 20% of Stanford patents in that dataset produced a positive net income for the university, while the rest was a net loss.

Similar declines have been noted not only for the number of patents, but also for other measures of innovation output.<ref>Gold ER. The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science. Research Policy. Jun 2021;50(5):13. 104226. {{doi|10.1016/j.respol.2021.104226}}</ref><ref name="Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2005"/>

Several hypotheses have been proposed as explanations for the observed decline:

# increasing cost of doing research, as "lower-hanging fruits have been picked up";<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/564ed694-c832-37e2-910d-d2a26a461693|title=It's not about the low hanging fruit, it's about the ideas|first=Izabella|last=Kaminska|newspaper=Financial Times|date=13 September 2017|access-date=9 June 2023|archive-date=6 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606131453/https://www.ft.com/content/564ed694-c832-37e2-910d-d2a26a461693|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sciencebusiness.net/news/75591/The-rising-cost-of-research|title=The rising cost of research|website=Science&#124;Business|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=7 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607100405/https://sciencebusiness.net/news/75591/The-rising-cost-of-research|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? 2020. Am Econ Rev. 110/4, 1104–1144. N. Bloom, C.I. Jones, J. Van Reenen, M. Webb. {{doi|10.1257/aer.20180338}}.</ref>
# decrease in productivity per researcher;<ref>Bloom, Nicholas, Jones, Charles I., Van Reenen, John, Webb, Michael, 2020. Are Ideas getting harder to find? Am. Econ. Rev. 110 (4), 1104–1144</ref><ref>Are 'Flow of Ideas' and 'Research Productivity' in secular decline? 2022. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 174/16. P. Cauwels, D. Sornette. {{doi|10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121267}}.</ref><ref name="ReferenceA"/> This occurred because factor (1) (higher hanging fruits) overwhelms increased efficiency in computation, automation, big data analysis and communication.
# human civilization is reaching the limits of the human brain rather than technological limits. "For the first time in history people are bombarded with far more information than they can process."<ref>A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation. 2005. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 72/8, 980–986. J. Huebner. {{doi|10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003}}</ref>
# It has also been suggested<ref>How does technology and population progress relate? An empirical study of the last 10,000 years. 2016. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 103/57–70. J.L. Dong, W. Li, Y.H. Cao, J.W. Fang. {{doi|10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.011}}</ref> that the rate of innovation is proportional to the rate of population growth (rather than to the total population), and that the observed decline in research productivity is related to the resource-limited [[Malthusian growth model]].
# increasing fragmentation of patent encumbrance<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/09/13/patent-encumbrances-reduce-market-value/id=101187/|title=Patent Encumbrances Can Reduce Market Value up to 100 Percent|date=13 September 2018|access-date=9 June 2023|archive-date=6 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606131454/https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/09/13/patent-encumbrances-reduce-market-value/id=101187/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="mckinsey.com">{{Cite web|url=https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/every-company-is-a-software-company-six-must-dos-to-succeed|title=Every company is a software company: Six 'must dos' to succeed &#124; McKinsey|website=www.mckinsey.com|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=7 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607222017/https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/every-company-is-a-software-company-six-must-dos-to-succeed|url-status=live}}</ref> and increasing number and cost of patent litigations;<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldipreview.com/news/patent-lawsuits-and-damages-on-the-rise-in-us-21137|title=Patent lawsuits and damages on the rise in US|first=Newton|last=Media|website=World IP Review|accessdate=9 June 2023|archive-date=6 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606131455/https://www.worldipreview.com/news/patent-lawsuits-and-damages-on-the-rise-in-us-21137|url-status=live}}</ref>
# decreasing value of patents in post-industrial economies, as businesses prefer less risky and more profitable investments in software rather than in hardware,<ref>Venture Capital and Cleantech: The wrong model for energy innovation. 2017. Energy Policy. 102/385–395. B.E. Gaddy, V. Sivaram, T.B. Jones, L. Wayman. {{doi|10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.035}}</ref><ref name="mckinsey.com"/> which can be protected more effectively and at a lower cost by using [[copyrights]], [[trade secrets]], [[first mover advantage]], [[download limitations]] (see [[digital economy]]).<ref>Industrial R&D and national innovation policy: an institutional reappraisal of the US national innovation system. 2022. Ind Corp Change. 31/5, 1152–1176. I.A. Shaikh, K. Randhawa. {{doi|10.1093/icc/dtac019}}.</ref> A related decline of manufacturing share in the [[GDP]] of [[post-industrial]] countries has been reported in some studies.<ref>IP Canada Report. 2016. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/sites/default/files/attachments/2022/IP_Canada_Report_2016_en.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607012342/https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/sites/default/files/attachments/2022/IP_Canada_Report_2016_en.pdf |date=2023-06-07 }}</ref>
# a slow-down in patent applications in the US has been attributed to court decisions in [[Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.]](2012), [[Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.]] (2013) and  [[Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International]] (2014) limiting the eligibility of [[business method]] and biological patents.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/09/its-not-just-covid-understanding-the-drop-in-u-s-patent-application-filings/id=145491/|title=It's Not Just COVID: Understanding the Drop in U.S. Patent Application Filings|date=9 February 2022|access-date=9 June 2023|archive-date=7 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607010835/https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/09/its-not-just-covid-understanding-the-drop-in-u-s-patent-application-filings/id=145491/|url-status=live}}</ref> Similar restrictions on software patents have been enacted in other countries.<ref>Patenting software-related inventions in Europe. 2019. Research Handbook on Patent Law and Theory, 2nd Edition. 106–131. S. Schohe, C. Appelt, H. Goddar. {{doi|10.4337/9781785364129.00014}}.</ref>
# the number of patent applications from PR China is expected to go down after 2025, when government subsidies for patent filing are  to expire.<ref>https://www.law360.com/articles/1358644 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607011310/https://www.law360.com/articles/1358644 |date=2023-06-07 }} ; https://www.managingip.com/article/2a7cr03ux3sqhecb3m7sw/data-china-firms-patent-filings-fall-after-gov-cancels-subsidies {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607023155/https://www.managingip.com/article/2a7cr03ux3sqhecb3m7sw/data-china-firms-patent-filings-fall-after-gov-cancels-subsidies |date=2023-06-07 }}</ref>
# patents that are registered but not commercialized, as is the case in around 50% of them, function as a barrier to the registration of similar ideas, effectively creating a growing zone of non-patentability.<ref>Sariel, Aviram, Daniel Mishori, and Joseph Agassi. "The re-inventor's dilemma: a tragedy of the public domain." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 10.10 (2015): 759-766.</ref>