Version v5.3

Mike: Found a new candidate for Q6g.

A. Longest

  • L1a1. No. of claims       : 8,962 (US Patent App. No. 20030173072)
  • L1a2. No. of claims       : 17,517 (US Patent App. No. 20050183728 , but 17,419 of the 17,517 claims were cancelled)
  • L1g. No. of claims       : 868  (US Patent No. 5,095,054)
  • L2a. No. of pages        : 7,273 (WO04030615A2)
  • L2g. No. of pages        : 15,648 (WO2011060920A2
  • L3g. No. of words        : >1,000,000 (US5,146,591)
  • L4a. No. of characters   : ?
  • L4g. No. of characters   : >20,000,000 (US5,146,591)
  • L5a. No. of figures      : 6,881 sheets (US20070224201A1)
  • L5g. No. of figures      : ?
  • L6g. No. of years (P2G#1) : 67 (US6,097,812)
  • L7a. Exemplary claim     : 49,444 chars / 4,734 words (WO 2008/116165, claim 17)
  • L7g. Exemplary claim     : 7,799 chars / 1,228 words (US5,408,417)
  • L8a. Fwd Cit. (Pat.)     : ?
  • L8g. Fwd Cit. (Pat.)     :  3,327 (US4683202) 
  • L9a. Bkwd Cit. (Pat.)    : ?
  • L9g. Bkwd Cit. (Pat.)    : 1,719 (US7,344,507)
  • L10a. Bkwd Cit. (Lit.)   : ?
  • L10g. Bkwd Cit. (Lit.)   : 380 (US7,905,900)
  • L11a. Bkwd Cit. (both)   : ?
  • L11g. Bkwd Cit. (both)   : 1,100 (US6,991,045)
  • L12a. Title (word)       : 362 characters (US20100058715, source: STN)
  • L12g. Title (word)       : ?
  • L13a. IPC8               : 62 (US20020046776A1)
  • L13g. IPC8               :* 117 (US5,385,764)
  • L14a. ECLA               : 25 (US20020046776A1)
  • L14g. ECLA               : 64 (US5,385,764)
  • L15a. UPC                : ?
  • L15g. UPC                : ?
  • L16a. Most valuable ($)  : ?
  • L16g. Most valuable, amount award by the court ($): $1.52 Billion (US5,341,457 and RE39,080 in Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft case)
  • L17a. Family members     : ?
  • L17g. Family members     : 5402 (US20030060406): source: STN. 
  • L18. Inventorship longevity (#5): 55.75 years (Inventor: Robert D. Kodis)
  • L19a. Inventor's name : 44 characters (JP2009005706 ; Inventor: Osterhaus Albertus Dominicus Marcellinus Erasmus)
  • L19g. Inventor's name : 44 characters (US7,531,342 ; Inventor: Osterhaus Albertus Dominicus Marcellinus Erasmus)
  • L20a. Num. of Prophetics :  778,674 (US2008004323)
  • L20g. Num. of Prophetics :  ?
  • L21a. Most number of cancelled claims: 17,419 cancelled claims (US Patent App. No. 20050183728), 99.4% cancellation
  • Q22. Most litigated patent (#): 150, US7030781, title "Notification system and method that informs a party of vehicle delay". Reference:
  • Q22. Most litigious non-NPE (#): 414 by Exxon Mobil. Reference:
  • Q22. Most litigious non-NPE (# defendants): ?
  • Q22. Most litigious NPE (# cases): 190 by Acacia Technologies. Reference:
  • Q22. Most litigious NPE (# defendants): 1295 by Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing. Reference:
  • Q22. Most litigious inventor: ? cases (Gilbert Hyatt)

B. Shortest

  • S1ag. No. of claims        : 1 (Numerous examples)
  • S2ag. No. of pages         : 2 (Numerous examples)
  • S3a. No. of words#2        : 78 (US20040005535)
  • S3g. No. of words#2        : ?
  • S4a. No. of characters#2   : 524 (US20040005535)
  • S4g. No. of characters#2   : ?
  • S5ag. No. of figure        : 0 (Numerous examples)
  • S6g. No. of months (A2G)   : 5 (US5,841,114)
  • S7a. Exemplary claim       : 2 words / 11 chars (US 2003/0152183)
  • S7g. Exemplary claim       : 2 words / 10 chars (US3,156,523 and US3,161,462)
  • S8ag. B&F Citation (Patent): 0 (Numerous examples)
  • S9ag. B&F Citation (Lit.)  : 0 (Numerous examples)
  • S10a. Title (word)         : 1 word / 3 chars (US20100061967)
  • S10g. Title (word)         : 1 word / 2 chars (US2,053,882)
  • S11a. Least valuable ($)   : ?
  • S11g. Least valuable ($)   : ?
  • S12a. Family member        : 0 (Numerous examples)
  • S12g. Family member        : 0 (Numerous examples)
  • S13a. Inventor Name : 3 characters (DE60115065 ; Inventor: MA W)
  • S13g. Inventor Name : 3 characters (US4301507A , Inventor: LI H)

C. Qualitative #3

  • Q1. Most cryptic           : US20020174863A1 , titled "Unknown"
  • Q2. Most repetitive        : ?
  • Q3. Worse grammatical      : ?
  • Q4a. Worse translated      : EP1064848A1 , title "Apparatus for cutting off the arse of slaughtered poultry"
  • Q4g. Worse translated      : EP0921916B1, title "Apparatus For Machining Vertical Panels"; German and French claims ("panel" translated in the sense of "committee", "plane" as "airplane", "mount" as "mountain", etc.)
  • Q5. Most weird title      : US20050053626 , title "Grace process biotechnology patent the cure to the herpes virus"
  • Q6a. Strangest claim       : US20050053626, title "Grace process biotechnology patent the cure to the herpes virus"

  • Q6g. Strangest claim       : US8609158, title "Diane's manna"

  • Q7. Most incomprehensible : US20040005535 , title "Process of reincarnation"
  • Q8. "World-changing" #4   :Proposed: DE235421 , "... fertilizer generated from the ammonia is responsible for sustaining one-third of the Earth's population" #6
  • Q9. Most debatable claim  : US6,025,810 , title "Hyper-light-speed antenna"
  • Q10. Most complex drawing : ?
  • Q11. Simplest drawing     : Tooth-pick (US448,647); Highly resilient polybutadiene ball (US3,241,834)
  • Q12. Most Silly Patent    : DE202005004419 , title "Head-cover helmet sewn together from a series of meat panels including sausage meat of any suitable edible animal species"
  • Q13. Most Verbose Patent  : WO2008148105A1 (Section 56)
  • Q14. Worse Claim          : CA2621058 (Claim: "We start off this invention with a James Bond movie. Part of the charm of James Bond movies..."
  • Q15. Most Weird Prosecutorial Case: US2005224388A1 -US20020174863A1
  • Q16. Most Oxymoronic Title: Dry water (US4,008,170)
  • Q17. Most valuable (Aerospace): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Biotechnology): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Business Model): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Chemical): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Computing): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Biotechnology): ? 
  • Q17. Most valuable (Electrical): US223898, title "Electric Lamp" by T. Edison, Priority Date 4 Nov 1879, 
  • Q17. Most valuable (Electronics): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Food Tech): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Healthcare): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Material Science): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Manufacturing): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Mechanical): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Nanotechnology): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Optics): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Pharmaceutical): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Physics): ?
  • Q17. Most valuable (Semiconductor): ?



Contributors: Andy Gillanders, Rex, Michael White (3x), Dave Morrison, Ron Kaminecki (2x), Guido Moradei (3x) , Mike Langdon, Milan Bhattacharyya, Victor Green, Bill Reding, Jason White, Sara Davis, Todd Ware, Alan Print, David England (3x), Janet Larsen, Eric Giannella, Robin Le Goff, Philip Eagle, Edlyn Simmons, Michael Engel, Peter Atzmueller (4x), Herman Umans, Thierry Depireux, Kristine Atkinson (11x), Scott Kamholz, Mark Ashworth (4x), Aleksandr Belinskiy, Paul Peter, Erik Jansen (3x), Frank Langlotz (4x), Xavier Gregori, Mike Lloyd (2x), Frank Langlotz (4x), ...

Contributions from the PIUG Community since Feb 2006, source: /[the link to the PIUG-L archives is in process of being reactivated–T. E. Wolff] (working cache here:


  1. Fellow colleagues,

    Now that we have wiki to facilitate collaborative contributions, feel free to add or update new entries directly here. Would be more efficient than the older method of via my mailbox.

    Happy contributing (green star)

    Cheers, Rex.

  2. Hi Rex,

    I get 1954 forward references for the bubble jet patent. See:

    Although it is definitely an expired patent. Do expired patents count?

  3. Hi Mark,

    1. I've enjoyed our offline discussions. Thank-you for your contribution and yes, we do treat expired patents with respect, heh.

    2. It is very noteworthy that the no. of forward citation references that you've via IPEXL are more than the forward citation references from USPTO. Thumbs up in your latest free IPEXL patent search engine and keep up the good work. We look forward to more interesting innovation... (smile)

    3. As of today, there are still numerous novel citation indicators/analytics that are available for practical design & implementation. Go for it, and file a few patents along the way if budget permits.

    4. Have a good weekend ahead, all.

  4. Hi Mark & Kris,

    Thank-you for your latest contributions(thumbs up) , they are reflected in our latest v3.10 of the "Global Record Breaking Patents".

    We dedicate the latest contributions to all new (2009) PIUG members!

  5. Hi Rex,

    I would like to make a suggestion, for Q8 'Most World Changing' to be the Haber-Bosch method of producing ammonia from the air. Without this patent/innovation, we wouldn't be eating the food we have today. (unfortunately it also produced a significant amount of gunpowder which was used in World War I).

    Patent of Relevance #1:
    German patent number 235421. Filed: October 13, 1908. Issued: June 8, 1911.

    Patent of Relevance #2:
    Production of Ammonia. BASF. Fritz Haber, Robert Le Rossignol.

    More reading:


    1. Hi Mark,

      Thanks for your proposed candidate. We've added it into the list.

      Please check and modify it accordingly as you see fit.

      Cheers, Rex.

  6. I just discovered an old post from PIUG with an interesting potential for a category.

    'Most Oxymoronic Patent Title'

    Suggested by Victor Green, of Victor Green & Company:


    1. There's definitely an awards category for this one!

  7. Hi Rex,

    I would like to make a suggestion  for L1a:

    [A] Longest

    No. of claims  : 17,517 (US Patent App. No. 20050183728) 

    Or other category (as well): ([C] Qualitative)

    Q2: most repetitive


    - highest number of cancelled claims (new category ?)



  8. Hi Frank,

    Thanks for Q12 contribution, that's a nice one.

    And yes, would like to encourage all of us to contribute directly on the listing.

    Have a good week ahead, all.

  9. Regarding Q12. - this is utility model. Should we make different categories for patents and utility models (petty patents/short term patents/innovation patents, etc)? Because for utility models the registration procedure generally does not examine novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability.

    In addition, is allowed to add links to publication number? Then it's easier for readers to find those great records?

    1. Hi Mikk,

      1. As of now, we have 2 categories for each type, ie. granted patent & pending application. Further sub-categorisation of the two may be a bit overwhelming for most of us + many blanks at this moment. Well, we monitor the incoming contributions and if need to, we can expand to cover the sub-categories.

      2. Hyperlinking the patent is a GREAT idea. Let's do it!


  10. Hi Xavier,

    >I believe that the current entry at point L16g. Most valuable, amount award by
    >the court shoul be removed in view of "Abbott Wins Reversal of J&J’s $1.67 Billion Patent Victory",
    >Thank you. Best regards.
    >Xavier Gregori

    Thank-you for the update. Will replace this entry with the Jan 2009 entry (time flies).

  11. I'm loathe to post this since I really dislike spam, but this document WO2007081519 surely has to qualify for something on this list. The content makes no logical sense and it reads like a 1376 page jumble of advertisements for IP related services.

    1. Hi Beth,

      No spam there.

      Would you like to recommend which Record should we classfied WO2007081519 titled "Genius Adaptive Design"?

      1. I would suggest something under Category C.

        If you consider the document in terms of online/electronic searching, the vast majority of the content is key word spam.  I suppose it could be considered an actual "Genius Adaptive Design" in the field of Advertising or Search Engine Optimization.

  12. Hi Beth,

    Good idea. Let's elect a new Record for this patent under Category C then.

    Can consider going along the lines of Most words for biz ads purposes, Mostly Spam content, Most Key Words Spam, Most Spam, etc. Will let you decide what you think is most interesting...

  13. Fellow colleagues,

    1. I've taken the liberty to rebrand our "Global Record Breaking Patents" (GP) to "The Unofficial Guinness Book of Records - Patents" (TR).

    2. I think GP has served it's purpose between 2006 to March 2011. The proposed TR is for a higher purpose, with a vision of seeing (on Earth or up there) part of our contributions into the official Guinness Book of Records in decades/centuries to come.

    3. Will monitor this forum over the next 90 days and if the number of objections for TR is less than or equals to the number of support for the TR rebranding exercise, then we shall continue to use TR.

    Cheers, Rex.

  14. Any new and interesting entry?

  15. I added some citation records 4,089 US4683202; 3,354 US4683195; 2,609 US4816567. Information based on but number of citations is according to the data in Espacenet.

  16. Hi Mikk,

    Thanks for your contributions. A few points to note

    1. We only need to list the max in the Record, rather than a few entries. Naturally, with a blog, we can always leave several other records
    2. Regarding your top choice for US4,683,202, I saw in Espacenet that the 4105 (as of  today) is only an approximation. It is unfortunately that Espacenet is only able to show the first 500 records. Therefore, for forward citation, this record CANNOT be verify via Espacenet.
    3. I attempted to verify the record via Delphion and Orbit and the best I got from Orbit for US4,893,202 is 3327. Therefore, am updating this as the verified number.
    4. Would appreciate if someone who have access to Thomson Innovation or Patbase help us verify the records
    1. Mikk, Rex,

      On Patbase I have counted 4758 citations for US4,683,202, Thomson Innovation gives 4171.

      Who offers more?


  17. Thanks for your correction, Rex.

  18. Thanks for your correction, Rex.

  19. Hi Guido,

    Patbase numbers look good. Are you able to export the 4758 patents - just need (a) Patent number, (b) Date (can be priority/filing/published), and (c) Assignee. If this can't be done for Patbase, TI export is the next best for verification.

    The big difference in citation numbers from Patbase to TI to Orbit is rather disturbing.

    1. Hi Rex,

      Patbase groups results in families ("only" 3019). If there is not an option - I do not know - to switch to single documents, I'll send you privately the whole list of 4758 references (PN only), if may suit.

      It would be interesting to examine how different databases works, in depth (time needed!).


  20. Hi Guido,

    Yes, if you can send me exports from PatBase and TI... I'll combined that with Orbit results and try to see identify missing links and issues as far as forward citation among the 3 major patent databases are concerned.


  21. A fascinating problem in the perils of patent citations (hmmm, a nice title for an article I might write some day...)

    There are myriad reasons for different numbers of citations in different databases, e.g.,

    • The databases may extract citations from a different set of patents - different countries, different time ranges.
    • The databases may collect patents into families or have a separate record for each publication.
    • The databases do have different definitions of a family, e.g., A and B publications from the same application, patents with exactly the same priorities, patents with overlapping priorities.
    • If publications are listed individually, there will be multiple counts of a document cited in both A and B publications of the same application, even though a single patent examiner has cited the patent one time.
    • Patent office citations refer to a single document.  In a database with family records, citations may be listed as individual patents, or a asfamily that may include more than one cited document.

    With all those variables, it's no wonder that different databases have different citation counts.

    1. I would add couple of more reasons:

      • The patent numbers and patent application numbers in prior art description or in examiners search reports are in different formats (e.g. US1,234,567; US1234567; with or without kindcodes; with or without spaces between country/region code and serial number and/or between serial number and kindcode; with or without slashes; the year number in some patent application formats might be four digits or two digits (for example "2007" or "07"), etc), so it depends on algorithm, how it recognizes the citations;
      • Regarding US patent documents, all prior art citations are not in prior art description, but added later in IDS. It's not clear how the how databases count citations - only the citations mentioned in prior art description or both;
      • Does the databases count only US or US, EP, WO citations or all possible patent citations or all possible patent and non-patent citations.
  22. We had a look ourselves for the most cited patent back in March 2011, based a review of 70 million raw data records obtained from the EPO, and agree with your selection of US4683202 as the most cited patent (at least back then) followed by US4723129 and US4683195.  We are now updating our data, and check the top three cited patents when we can.

    I loved your most questionable claim:

    1. A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves comprising: 
    generating opposing magnetic fields each having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the respective magnetic field; 
    generating heat from a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; 
    generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an electromagnetic injection point; and 
    generating a communication signal into the electromagnetic injection point, thereby sending and receiving the communication signal at a speed faster than a known speed of light.

    How that ever got the examiner is beyond me. In Australia, we would say that it lack utility because nothing can be faster than the speed of light, and therefore the invention cannot work as claimed, and so not useful.

    Yes, citation count depends on the assumptions you make.

    1. Duplicate comments [Delete]

    2. Hi Mike,

      I've a looked at our past PIUG archive and found that the acknowledgment goes to Ron's for his contribution back in Jul 2008.source:

      How time flies...

  23. Am adding a few new Qualitative categories, feel free to contribute.

    • Most litigated patent (#)
    • Most litigious non-NPE (#)
    • Most litigious non-NPE (# defendants)
    • Most litigious NPE (# cases)
    • Most litigious NPE (# defendants)
    • Most litigious inventor
    • Most valuable (based on technology class)
  24. Hi Rex,

    For L17g. Family members : US20030060406 would be a new candidate with 5402 Family members

  25. Hi Erik,

    Would you have a reference for that?

  26. Secreted and transmembrane polypeptides and nucleic acids encoding the same

    INPADOC Family (5402)

  27. Hi Erik,

    Am trying to verify that... sorry, do you have the link or perhaps a screen snapshot?

    I found that the existing L17g for 5,095,054 may be incorrect.

    1. Hi Rex,

       2975 priorities, 4129 applications, 5410 publications  (997 EPO simple

  28. Ah, from the good STN. Thanks, Erik.

    We are now v5.1 for the list.

  29. Rex, Mike,

    Regarding the patent that claims to go faster than the speed of light, I would like to submit it for one of the top patents for a specious specification because the claim to go faster than the speed of light finds support there.  It does state that in order to go faster than light, a hole must be made in another dimension where FTL travel is allowed.  And, to top it off, the invention also promotes the growth of plants.  Note that such statements are found in many published applications, but this is a granted patent.


  30. Hi Erik,

    Could you help us check the no. of family members for US5,095,054, if it's more than 327, pls post the results like what you did for L17a, ie. "L1    ANSWER 1 OF 1       INPAFAMDB COPYRIGHT 2014 EPO/FIZ KA on STN..." Thanks.

    1. Hi Rex, for US5,095,054 :


       29 priorities, 258 applications, 390 publications  (29 EPO simple families)

  31. Hi Erik, what would it be for INPADOC Family?

  32. Remind me again of the rules for determining patent family size. We have a category for published applications, L17a, and another for granted patents, L17g.  Published applications are in the same family as granted patents.

    If US20030060406 has 5402 Family members, making it the published application with the largest family, why wouldn't it share the honor with the other published applications in the family?  And since the family of US20030060406 contains lots of granted patents, why wouldn't those patents be members of the largest family instead of US5095054, which Erik says has only 390 publications in its family?  Would there still be any granted patents with a larger family that doesn't contain a corresponding published application?



  33. Thanks Edlyn... we should reserved L17a for those that are applications only.

  34. Ron - you are completely right. Granted US patent 6025810 includes in its specification: 

    The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light.

     Imagine litigating this one in court. More seriously, this does suggest a QC issue back in the year 2000 at the USPTO.

    On the other hand, it should receive full marks for being novel and inventive.



    Speaking of unexpected patents, one of my favourites is this one:

    Which claims the use of waste coffee grounds as a raw material to a supercapacitor. I just find the conjunction of waste coffee grounds and super-capacitors totally unexpected. But I can't find a category in Rex's list for this.



    Rex - Feldman and Ewing published a paper in 2013 on the most litigated patents and patent owners:

    As for the most litigious inventor, I think Gilbert Hyatt is a contender, at least against the USPO, see: and





  35. Hi Mike,

    1. WO2010020007, "Nanoporous Carbon Electrodes And Supercapacitors Formed Therefrom" may be a new Qualitative category by itself, any suggestion?

    2. Gilbert reminds me of the persevering Robert Kearns. For Most Litigious Inventor, let's try to locate for the number of cases.

  36. The Gilbert vs Kearns comparison may take some homework.

    As for your first question, how about 'Most surprising combination of integers in a serious patent?'

  37. Mike, 2-3 words would be great.

  38. "Most left-field patent"?

  39. Surprised to see that none of the infamous A.P. Pedrick's patents has shown up here yet. "PHOTON PUSH-PULL RADIATION DETECTOR FOR USE IN CHROMATICALLY SELECTIVE CAT FLAP CONTROL AND 1000 MEGATON EARTH-ORBITAL PEACE-KEEPING BOMB" surely has to be deserving of some kind of record, particularly his reliance on Ginger the cat as evidence of the advantageous nature of his invention:

    "By such a control unit it ought to be possible, since the fur of a black cat, as shown in Figure 7, will not reflect much radiation from its back up tube 18, to exclude the black cat from next door, while "Ginger" will have access to the kitchen if he stands on plate 11. 

    In this way considerable feline rivalry may be avoided. 

    When I showed Ginger my drawings for the "chromatically selective cat flap control unit" he was very impressed. 

    "Purr-purr" said Ginger, thats quite clever . . . I shall be able to get in to eat my food, without worrying about "Blackie" from next door. But said Ginger, there is a much better use for your Sensitive radiation detector device . . think about this. 

    Your politicians keep on talking about the "World Energy Crisis", when all the time you have vast stocks of it stored up in the H bomb war heads of your rocket missile warheads in the form of deuterium and tritium. As you know according to the equation E = mc2, doodled out by young Albert Einstein, way back in 1905 in the Swiss Patent Office, you only have to destroy a tiny amount of mass to get a hell of a lot of energy, so what your politicians really mean is that there is an oil fuel and electricity shortage, not an energy shortage. 

    But, of course, went on Ginger, because you won't believe what Jesus Christ told you about "loving each other", you also don't trust each other, or, if you like, your governments don't, which is perhaps understandable with two murderous World Wars since 1900. 

    But, of course, if all your nuclear energy was used for peaceful purposes, instead of a large part of it being stored up for blowing each other to bits with H bombs and the like, you could all save a hell of a lot of money, which would help to stop World Inflation and might even bring down the price of tinned cat food."

     Quite what Pedrick's motives were in his filings was never fully clear - he was an ex-UK patent office examiner so some thought he was trying to show up the patent office, but his writings reflect a somewhat, umm, alternative world-view so it may be that he was just a simple crank. 

    Potential categories: 1) Most dubious evidence (for reliance on testimony of Ginger the cat), 2) Most prolific crank, 3) ? 

    1. The A.P. Pedrick applications were clever and had a certain circular logic to them.  The orbital bomb application used a nuclear bomb to deter anyone from using a nuclear bomb.  And, if that did not work, Mr. Pedrick applied for a patent on a method of making a bomb shelter by exploding bombs underground (GB 1339414) which included a place for refreshments.  He focused on the nuclear and radiation and field energy arts, including a microscope that used gravity waves instead of light waves, though a favorite is an application using deuterium-dipped bullets that are fired from a number of rifles pointing at each other in which the impact of each projectile into a mass would be charged with a laser, thus starting a fusion reaction.  Don't know if he ever tried this circular shooting gallery.

      Outside of these famous classic applications, a more recent one by William T. Carpenter outlines the, "Method of Modifying the Axis of Rotation of the Earth," (US 2010/0158618), for which we should be thankful that the USPTO does not require a working demonstration.

      Ron Kaminecki


  40. Note that I have just updated Q6 for the "Qualitative" section, for strangest claim, so that it is for granted US patents. Anyone can have a strange claim in a patent application - but to get a strange claim granted by the USPTO -  now that is a much higher benchmark and should be acknowledged as such. 

    1. For the "Strangest claim" category, we can have both patent application and granted patent as Q6a & Q6g respectively.

      Interesting find you have there. Perhaps Greg Aharonian might comment on this someday.

      Your finding reminded me of a similar patent that I occasionally used in my IP lectures, US5,885,614:

      1. There must be more to pumpkin pie than I realised. 

    • L1g. No. of claims       : 887  (US Patent No. 6,684,189)