Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The “Patent Assassins” ad was a 2009 marketing campaign promoting patent reexamination as a way for companies to challenge patents and gain leverage in licensing disputes or litigation. A U.S. Senate report later cited the campaign as an example of how procedural features might be exploited, but the record does not establish that the firm’s conduct was illegal or that every reexamination challenge was abusive.
What was the Patent Assassins ad?
On April 22, 2009, EE Times listed Rick Merritt’s article “’Patent Assassins’ ad stirs reform debate,” describing an “in-your-face advertising campaign” for a website called Patent Assassins. The campaign drew attention to the legal process for challenging patents in the United States. EE Times, April 22, 2009
The campaign was associated with a San Fernando Valley law firm that used the name “Patent Assassins.” A report by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary for the 111th Congress said the firm promoted reexamination as a way to “effectively, inexpensively and quickly reduce certain corporate risks.” The report described the firm’s typical clients as companies with between $10 million and $2 billion in revenue. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary report
How did the firm say reexamination could help a challenger?
The Senate report reproduced the firm’s “traffic jam” idea: a lengthy reexamination could create uncertainty around a disputed patent. The firm’s marketing suggested that uncertainty could be used in two ways:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors#1 Best Overall
- In licensing talks: A challenger could press for delayed or reduced royalty payments while the patent’s status remained in question.
- In litigation: A challenger could seek to have a court case paused while the patent office considered the reexamination.
The report also reproduced claims from the firm’s website about using covert tactics to preserve a challenger’s anonymity and using one set of prior art during reexamination while holding back another for later litigation. These were descriptions of the firm’s own marketing, not findings that every such tactic was unlawful. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary report
Why did the campaign become part of the reform debate?
The Senate report used the campaign to illustrate a concern about procedural “wrinkles”: expanding opportunities to challenge patents after they were granted, without adequate safeguards, could make it easier to use review proceedings strategically. The report also recorded worries from senior Patent and Trademark Office staff and advisory groups that a proposed post-grant review system could be difficult to administer, strain agency resources and produce a large backlog. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary report
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
A 2013 article in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review placed the episode in a wider debate about the integrity of reexamination. It quoted Representative Tom Reed expressing concern that firms specializing in reexamination challenges could target legitimate patents and that this might amount to frivolous action. The article also described practitioner concerns about serial filings and requests without merit. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 2013
The same article quoted former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul R. Michel saying reexamination procedures were being abused “not in every case, but in many cases.” Those statements formed part of a contested policy debate; they are not a finding that all challengers or all reexaminations were abusive. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 2013
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →What was the counterargument?
Critics saw the campaign as evidence that patent review could be used to impose delay and pressure patent owners. Defenders argued that using procedures Congress or the patent office had created was legitimate. The Senate report quoted an attorney saying, “If there are wrinkles in the rules created by Congress or the patent office, we have every right to use them.” It also quoted an observer who said the firm was doing what many other law firms did, though more openly. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary report
The policy tension was not simply whether patent challenges should be allowed. Administrative review can give challengers a route to contest a patent, but weak or repeated challenges may burden patent owners and the patent office. The Senate report’s concerns focused in part on safeguards and administrative capacity, while the 2013 discussion included concerns about serial or non-meritorious requests. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary report Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 2013
Rank #4
Did Patent Assassins’ conduct break the law?
The cited sources do not establish a blanket illegality finding. They document the firm’s marketing, criticism of the strategies it described, and arguments about the risks of reexamination policy. That is different from a court or regulator finding that the campaign—or every tactic mentioned in it—was unlawful.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What can be said about Patent Assassins today?
The available account establishes a controversy reported in 2009 and analyzed in 2013. It does not establish who funds a current campaign, whether the original website is active, or what Congress has done on this issue in 2026. The historical campaign should not be treated as evidence of a current organization or current legislative position.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
