> Basically, they assume the patent should be granted and then have to kick to the courts to decide if it is valid or not. That's pretty much how the statute w

> Basically, they assume the patent should be granted and then have to kick to the courts to decide if it is valid or not. That's pretty much how the statute works (unfortunately, IMO): The default mode is that you're entitled to a patent unless the USPTO's patent examiner can show that you're not eligible. See 35 USC 102(a): "(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— [list of various disqualifications]" (Emphasis mine.) [0] I've groused here before that this is akin to requiring a dissertation committee to grant a Ph.D. degree unless the advisor can show that the research had already been done before, instead of requiring the candidate to conduct and document a thorough literature survey. Of course, the consequences of an improvidently-granted patent can be far more serious than for an improvidently-granted Ph.D. degree. [0] https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html