The 100 known most prolific inventors based on worldwide utility patents are shown in the following table. While in many cases this is the number of utility patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, it may include utility patents granted by other countries, as noted by the source references for an inventor.
Inventor | Pats | Fams | Fam % | Pat Yrs | Yrs | Pat /Yr | Inv /Pat | Pat Residence | Majority Assignment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shunpei Yamazaki | [1] | 6443 | 2848 | 44.2% | 1972—2024 | 52.6 | 122 | 3.6 | Japan | Semiconductor Energy Laboratory |
Kia Silverbrook | [2] | 4747 | 1311 | 27.6% | 1994—2014 | 20 | 237 | 1.6 | Australia | Silverbrook Research |
Tao Luo | [3] | 3566 | 2996 | 84.0% | 2006—2024 | 18.5 | 193 | 5.6 | USA | Qualcomm |
Kangguo Cheng | [4] | 2758 | 1514 | 54.9% | 2004—2024 | 20 | 138 | 3.9 | USA | IBM |
Frederick E. Shelton IV | [5] | 2430 | 1137 | 46.8% | 2005—2024 | 19.4 | 125 | 4.5 | USA | Ethicon |
Junyi Li | [6] | 2286 | 1935 | 84.6% | 2002—2024 | 22 | 104 | 5.2 | USA | Qualcomm |
Peter Gaal | [7] | 2229 | 1713 | 76.9% | 2002—2024 | 22.3 | 100 | 5.9 | USA | Qualcomm |
Wanshi Chen | [8] | 2088 | 1613 | 77.3% | 2009—2024 | 15.6 | 134 | 5.7 | USA | Qualcomm |
Lowell L. Wood, Jr. | [9] | 1996 | 1325 | 66.4% | 1971—2024 | 52.5 | 38 | 8.8 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Roderick A. Hyde | [10] | 1891 | 1252 | 66.2% | 2001—2023 | 22.4 | 84 | 8.7 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Chen-Hua Yu | [11] | 1765 | 947 | 53.7% | 1996—2024 | 28.5 | 62 | 4.9 | Taiwan | TSMC |
Xiaoxia Zhang | [12] | 1709 | 1477 | 86.4% | 2009—2024 | 15.9 | 107 | 5.5 | USA | Qualcomm |
Hanbyul Seo | [13] | 1678 | 1236 | 73.7% | 2012—2024 | 12.6 | 133 | 3.8 | South Korea | LG |
Esmael H. Dinan | [14] | 1629 | 684 | 42.0% | 2006—2024 | 18.4 | 89 | 3.6 | USA | Ofinno |
Jun Koyama | [15] | 1494 | 618 | 41.4% | 1991—2022 | 30.8 | 49 | 3.1 | Japan | Semiconductor Energy Laboratory |
Gurtej Singh Sandhu | [16] | 1427 | 584 | 40.9% | 1991—2024 | 32.5 | 44 | 2.5 | USA | Micron |
Jing Sun | [17] | 1426 | 1205 | 84.5% | 2012—2024 | 11.9 | 120 | 5.9 | USA | Qualcomm |
Sarbajit K. Rakshit | [18] | 1333 | 1112 | 83.4% | 2013—2024 | 11.9 | 112 | 3.4 | India | IBM |
Shou-Shan Fan | [19] | 1307 | 1093 | 83.6% | 2006—2024 | 18.5 | 71 | 4.2 | China | Hon Hai |
Paul Lapstun | [20] | 1305 | 246 | 18.9% | 2000—2022 | 21.4 | 61 | 2.5 | Australia | Silverbrook Research |
Alexander Reznicek | [21] | 1253 | 751 | 59.9% | 2006—2024 | 18.6 | 67 | 3.9 | USA | IBM |
Clarence T. Tegreene | [22] | 1248 | 903 | 72.4% | 2000—2024 | 23.5 | 53 | 10.1 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Shan Liu | [23] | 1243 | 819 | 65.9% | 2013—2024 | 11.2 | 111 | 3.4 | USA | Tencent |
Satoshi Seo | [24] | 1193 | 565 | 47.4% | 2002—2024 | 22 | 54 | 4.1 | Japan | Semiconductor Energy Laboratory |
Suckchel Yang | [25] | 1186 | 764 | 64.4% | 2013—2024 | 11.4 | 104 | 4.7 | South Korea | LG |
Kijun Kim | [26] | 1151 | 800 | 69.5% | 2013—2024 | 11 | 105 | 4.6 | South Korea | LG |
Joonkui Ahn | [27] | 1122 | 728 | 64.9% | 2013—2024 | 11.3 | 99 | 4.7 | South Korea | LG |
Edward K. Y. Jung | [28] | 1111 | 794 | 71.5% | 1996—2022 | 26.1 | 43 | 8.0 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Juan Montojo | [29] | 1110 | 907 | 81.7% | 2004—2024 | 20.7 | 54 | 6.9 | USA | Qualcomm |
Leonard Forbes | [30] | 1109 | 411 | 37.1% | 1975—2019 | 43.3 | 26 | 2.6 | USA | Micron |
Thomas Edison | [31] | 1084 | NA | NA | 1869—1933 | 63.9 | 17 | 1.0 | USA | Thomas Edison |
Marta Karczewicz | [32] | 1068 | 878 | 82.2% | 2000—2024 | 23.9 | 45 | 4.0 | USA | Qualcomm |
Rick Allen Hamilton II | [33] | 1063 | 714 | 67.2% | 1999—2024 | 25 | 43 | 4.2 | USA | IBM |
Jason L. Harris | [34] | 1055 | 614 | 58.2% | 2011—2024 | 13.8 | 76 | 6.0 | USA | Ethicon |
Ruilong Xie | [35] | 1037 | 774 | 74.6% | 2013—2024 | 11.8 | 88 | 4.2 | USA | IBM |
Takahiro Nishi | [36] | 1027 | 362 | 35.2% | 2001—2024 | 23.3 | 44 | 6.3 | Japan | Panasonic |
Tingfang Ji | [37] | 1015 | 754 | 74.3% | 2006—2024 | 18.3 | 55 | 6.9 | USA | Qualcomm |
Jason K. Resch | [38] | 1013 | 507 | 50.0% | 2009—2024 | 15.2 | 67 | 4.2 | USA | IBM |
Donald E. Weder | [39] | 1000 | 395 | 39.5% | 1978—2015 | 37.1 | 27 | 1.1 | USA | Weder Family Trust |
Michael J. Sullivan | [40] | 994 | 534 | 53.7% | 1989—2024 | 34.5 | 29 | 3.8 | USA | Acushnet Holdings |
George Albert Lyon | [41] | 993 | NA | NA | 1901—1965 | 64.5 | 15 | 1.0 | Canada | Lyon George Albert |
Jordin T. Kare | [42] | 989 | 640 | 64.7% | 1992—2023 | 30.5 | 32 | 9.1 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Yunjung Yi | [43] | 985 | 695 | 70.6% | 2015—2024 | 8.9 | 111 | 3.3 | South Korea | LG |
Jay S. Walker | [44] | 979 | 422 | 43.1% | 1998—2024 | 26.3 | 37 | 5.2 | USA | Walker Digital |
Ahmadreza Rofougaran | [45] | 962 | 467 | 48.5% | 2002—2024 | 22.4 | 43 | 6.4 | USA | Broadcom |
Seungmin Lee | [46] | 959 | 708 | 73.8% | 2014—2024 | 10.1 | 95 | 3.5 | South Korea | LG |
John F. O'Connor | [47] | 949 | NA | NA | 1901—1935 | 33.9 | 28 | NA | USA | William H. Miner |
Melvin De Groote | [48] | 925 | NA | NA | 1924—1966 | 41.8 | 22 | NA | USA | Petrolite |
David R. Hall | [49] | 918 | 760 | 82.8% | 1985—2024 | 39.4 | 23 | 3.8 | USA | Hall Labs |
Hao Xu | [50] | 916 | 654 | 71.4% | 2005—2024 | 19.6 | 47 | 4.7 | China | Qualcomm |
Nathan Myhrvold | [51] | 905 | 613 | 67.7% | 1994—2024 | 29.7 | 30 | 11.1 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
William H. Eby | [52] | 899 | 895 | 99.6% | 1994—2024 | 30.2 | 30 | 1.2 | USA | Monsanto |
Francis H. Richards | [53] | 894 | NA | NA | 1899—1930 | 30.8 | 29 | NA | USA | Francis H. Richards |
Hajime Kimura | [54] | 893 | 283 | 31.7% | 2002—2024 | 22 | 41 | 2.6 | Japan | Semiconductor Energy Laboratory |
Mark Malamud | [55] | 886 | 690 | 77.9% | 1997—2022 | 25.1 | 35 | 7.5 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Hongyuan Zhang | [56] | 872 | 477 | 54.7% | 2009—2024 | 15.5 | 56 | 3.9 | USA | Marvell |
Robert W. Lord | [57] | 867 | 682 | 78.7% | 2003—2024 | 20.4 | 42 | 7.6 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Royce A. Levien | [58] | 855 | 666 | 77.9% | 1997—2020 | 23.4 | 37 | 6.8 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Chih-Chao Yang | [59] | 840 | 524 | 62.4% | 2003—2024 | 20.9 | 40 | 3.4 | USA | IBM |
Muriel Y. Ishikawa | [60] | 839 | 560 | 66.7% | 2002—2023 | 21.2 | 40 | 11.1 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Lee D. Whetsel | [61] | 838 | 128 | 15.3% | 1991—2017 | 26.4 | 32 | 1.1 | USA | Texas Instruments |
Michael K. Gschwind | [62] | 836 | 442 | 52.9% | 2001—2021 | 20.6 | 41 | 2.6 | USA | IBM |
Clifford A. Pickover | [63] | 836 | 548 | 65.6% | 1992—2024 | 32.2 | 26 | 3.9 | USA | IBM |
Yan Zhou | [64] | 815 | 727 | 89.2% | 2012—2024 | 12.2 | 67 | 4.4 | USA | Qualcomm |
Devendra K. Sadana | [65] | 814 | 458 | 56.3% | 1983—2024 | 41.7 | 20 | 4.3 | USA | IBM |
Stuart C. Salter | [66] | 799 | 751 | 94.0% | 2009—2024 | 14.9 | 54 | 4.8 | USA | Ford |
Youngdae Lee | [67] | 796 | 626 | 78.6% | 2014—2024 | 10.6 | 75 | 3.1 | South Korea | LG |
SungDuck Chun | [68] | 795 | 486 | 61.1% | 2007—2024 | 17 | 47 | 3.8 | South Korea | LG |
Salman Akram | [69] | 784 | 291 | 37.1% | 1995—2024 | 29.4 | 27 | 2.9 | USA | Micron |
Hsien-Wei Chen | [70] | 781 | 380 | 48.7% | 2005—2024 | 19.5 | 40 | 3.5 | Taiwan | TSMC |
Warren M. Farnworth | [71] | 774 | 289 | 37.3% | 1990—2020 | 24.4 | 32 | 2.8 | USA | Micron |
Justin T. Mason | [72] | 774 | 770 | 99.5% | 2008—2024 | 16 | 48 | 1.0 | USA | MS Technologies |
James A. Jorasch | [73] | 771 | 309 | 40.1% | 1994—2023 | 29 | 27 | 3.9 | USA | Walker Digital |
Satoshi Nagata | [74] | 770 | 733 | 95.2% | 2011—2024 | 13.1 | 59 | 4.0 | Japan | NTT |
Bruce B. Doris | [75] | 763 | 433 | 56.7% | 1995—2023 | 28.6 | 27 | 4.2 | USA | IBM |
Kyungmin Park | [76] | 762 | 394 | 51.7% | 2014—2024 | 10.6 | 72 | 5.2 | USA | Ofinno |
Jeyhan Karaoguz | [77] | 757 | 371 | 49.0% | 1996—2020 | 23.8 | 32 | 4.6 | USA | Broadcom |
Carleton Ellis | [78] | 753 | NA | NA | 1902—1946 | 43.1 | 17 | NA | USA | Ellis Foster Co |
Xue Dong | [79] | 752 | 731 | 97.2% | 2010—2024 | 13.9 | 54 | 7.4 | China | BOE |
Ali Khakifirooz | [80] | 751 | 407 | 54.2% | 2011—2024 | 12.9 | 58 | 4.2 | USA | IBM |
John M. Santosuosso | [81] | 738 | 466 | 63.1% | 2001—2022 | 20.7 | 36 | 3.9 | USA | IBM |
Hideo Ando | [82] | 733 | 123 | 16.8% | 1983—2020 | 36.7 | 20 | 3.1 | Japan | Toshiba |
Frederick A. Ware | [83] | 731 | 227 | 31.1% | 1981—2024 | 42.8 | 17 | 2.8 | USA | Rambus |
Shougo Sato | [84] | 730 | 282 | 38.6% | 1992—2024 | 32.1 | 23 | 1.8 | Japan | Brother |
Jean-Philippe M. Vasseur | [85] | 729 | 592 | 81.2% | 2006—2024 | 18.6 | 39 | 2.6 | France | Cisco Systems |
George Spector | [86] | 723 | 723 | 100% | 1974—1998 | 24.6 | 29 | 2.1 | USA | George Spector |
Austin L. Gurney | [87] | 718 | 182 | 25.3% | 1999—2021 | 21.6 | 33 | 2.9 | USA | Genentech |
Lisa Seacat DeLuca | [88] | 712 | 516 | 72.5% | 2009—2024 | 15.7 | 45 | 2.7 | USA | IBM |
Gregory J. Boss | [89] | 710 | 487 | 68.6% | 2008—2024 | 16.6 | 43 | 4.2 | USA | IBM |
Chung-Shi Liu | [90] | 703 | 380 | 54.1% | 2000—2024 | 24.9 | 28 | 6.1 | Taiwan | TSMC |
Tetsujiro Kondo | [91] | 700 | 528 | 75.4% | 1987—2021 | 34 | 21 | 3.8 | Japan | Sony |
Elihu Thomson | [92] | 696 | NA | NA | 1899—1935 | 35.9 | 19 | NA | USA | GE |
Hua Zhou | [93] | 688 | 393 | 57.1% | 2012—2024 | 12.8 | 54 | 5.5 | USA | Ofinno |
Irwin Gerszberg | [94] | 682 | 312 | 45.7% | 1994—2023 | 29.2 | 23 | 6.8 | USA | AT&T |
Eric C. Leuthardt | [95] | 680 | 459 | 67.5% | 2006—2024 | 17.8 | 38 | 9.1 | USA | Intellectual Ventures |
Woosuk Ko | [96] | 673 | 272 | 40.4% | 2015—2024 | 9.6 | 70 | 3.4 | South Korea | LG |
Xiaochuan Chen | [97] | 663 | 644 | 97.1% | 2014—2024 | 10.4 | 64 | 7.0 | China | BOE |
Toshiyasu Sugio | [98] | 660 | 240 | 36.4% | 2009—2024 | 15.2 | 43 | 4.9 | Japan | Panasonic |
Aleksandar Damnjanovic | [99] | 658 | 483 | 73.4% | 2003—2024 | 21.2 | 31 | 4.4 | USA | Qualcomm |
Paul S. Henry | [100] | 657 | 301 | 45.8% | 1978—2023 | 44.9 | 15 | 6.3 | USA | AT&T |
This table is usually updated every Tuesday, and is current as of December 3,2024 [update] .
The columns are defined as follows:
This table is a sortable list of the most prolific inventors as measured by utility patents granted. It does not include other types of invention, such as inventions that were never applied for nor granted, for which there is no known source. Nor does the table attempt to measure the significance of an inventor and their inventions. The significance of inventions is often not apparent until many decades after the invention has been made. For recent inventors, it is not yet possible to determine their place in history.
Rankings of prolific inventors have been published at various times. However, until the patent records were digitized, these lists were very tedious to prepare, as many thousands of patent records had to be checked manually. Even after digitization, it is still not a simple process. While the USPTO keeps statistics for annual rankings of inventions assigned to companies, it no longer publishes rankings of individual inventors. The last such list was published by the USPTO in 1998. [Info 1] Also, patents predating 1976 have not yet been digitized in the USPTO records. This means that patents before 1976 will not be included in a USPTO search by inventor name, and the number of patents granted before 1976 must be added to current searches.
A more extensive list of prolific inventors with additional information and ability to filter on country, gender, time period, patent type, and Nobel laureate title can be found at idiyas
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia.
Yoshiro Nakamatsu, also known as Dr. NakaMats, is a Japanese inventor. He regularly appears on Japanese talk shows demonstrating his inventions.
Prior art is a concept in patent law used to determine the patentability of an invention, in particular whether an invention meets the novelty and the inventive step or non-obviousness criteria for patentability. In most systems of patent law, prior art is generally defined as anything that is made available, or disclosed, to the public that might be relevant to a patent's claim before the effective filing date of a patent application for an invention. However, notable differences exist in how prior art is specifically defined under different national, regional, and international patent systems.
A patent examiner is an employee, usually a civil servant with a scientific or engineering background, working at a patent office.
In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.
Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.
Under United States patent law, a continuing patent application is a patent application that follows, and claims priority to, an earlier-filed patent application. A continuing patent application may be one of three types: a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part. Although continuation and continuation-in-part applications are generally available in the U.S. only, divisional patent applications are also available in other countries, as such availability is required under Article 4G of the Paris Convention.
Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.
Patent prosecution is the interaction between applicants and a patent office with regard to a patent application or a patent.
Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.
In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.
A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for an invention described in the patent specification and a set of one or more claims stated in a formal document, including necessary official forms and related correspondence. It is the combination of the document and its processing within the administrative and legal framework of the patent office.
This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.
Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections, in Title 35.
Mark I. Gardner is one of the most prolific patent holders in the world. Forbes magazine and USA Today have cited Gardner's achievements. His past and current inventions are focused upon consumer electronics, energy, computers, semiconductors, integrated circuits, physics and educational devices.
The history of United States patent law started even before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, with some state-specific patent laws. The history spans over more than three centuries.
A patent application or patent may contain drawings, also called patent drawings, illustrating the invention, some of its embodiments, or the prior art. The drawings may be required by the law to be in a particular form, and the requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction.
Donald Weder of Highland, Illinois is an American inventor and businessman. Weder holds 984 utility patents and 413 design patents for a total of 1397 US patents.
Kia Silverbrook is an Australian independent inventor and scientist. He is one of the most prolific inventors in the world, and has been granted 4,747 US utility patents as of 14 February 2022. Internationally, he has 9,874 patents or patent applications registered at the international patent document database (INPADOC). Silverbrook has founded companies and developed products in a wide range of disciplines, including computer graphics, video and audio production, scientific computing, factory automation, digital printing, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), molecular electronics, internet software, content management, genetic analysis, MEMS devices, security inks, photovoltaic solar cells, and interactive paper.
The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.