I’m pretty skeptical: 1) Granting a patent doesn’t necessarily mean that the examiner is more lenient or that the applicant got something good. There are good

I’m pretty skeptical: 1) Granting a patent doesn’t necessarily mean that the examiner is more lenient or that the applicant got something good. There are good patents and bad ones, strong ones and weak ones. A high allowance rate may be an indication of very narrow patents which pad corporate quarterly numbers, but don’t have very much significance as patents. 2) This high volume, low value patent prosecution strategy is often seen in large corporate files, the same ones who hire patent attorneys. 3)Examiners deal with an attorney who is usually employed by some independent law firm. The underlying client is often not in direct contact with the patent office at all. 4) those large corporate filers are often in a technology niche. Particular pharma drugs, certain high tech niches like display tech or semiconductor fab, etc. The point is, these are small worlds, and if someone has the background to examine that kind of patent, they are probably in a very small group of people qualified to work on that technology. If they then get a law degree and go into private practice, there’s a good chance they cross paths with an entity that they examined patents of. In some of these tech areas there may be only a few dozen people in total (notionwide) who are qualified in the tech and are in the patent law field, it’s a small world. 5) All the same goes for law firms, there just aren’t that many people in this business, it’s not unlikely to cross paths. 6) bad patents aren’t good. Let me explain. If you’re a patent prosecutor worth your salt, you want a thorough examination. The last thing you want is to have a portfolio of patents which fall apart in IPR. It makes you look really really bad to your clients. hypothetically bribing an examiner is a fools errand, not just in a moral sense, but it’s literally a bad position to be in to get a bunch of bogus patents. Nobody wants that, it’s actually bad. 7) measuring patent quality in terms of citation is a red herring. First, some patents may have a different ‘lifespan’ to when they’re relevant. Some may be immediately cited a bunch, others may linger for a few years before being suddenly relevant due to some other development. But most of all, remember that patents cited on the front page of a patent are largely from the applicant themselves, cited in an IDS. So if a large portfolio starts citing a certain document, it might get cited in 10’s or 100’s of other cases that are somewhat related. And if you’re going to use it as a measure of low quality, that just bolsters my original argument that these would mostly be very narrow patents, a type of low quality but not the type that the public should care about. Shareholders, yes, as it’s a waste of corporate resources. Not anyone else.