[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-663724-105":59,"doc-detail-663724-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","patent-clutter-introduction","Patent Clutter - Introduction","","Patent claims are intended to be precise, concise, and focused on the invention, but they are widely criticized as vague, hard to understand, and practically impossible to search. This work identifies “clutter” claim language that is not about the invention, estimating that about 25% of claim language relates to non-inventive material. Using empirical analysis of 25,000 patents, it examines how clutter affects searchability, examinability, and comprehensibility, and proposes reforms using doctrinal and algorithmic approaches.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/patent-clutter-introduction/663724/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/patent-clutter-introduction/663724.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Cart","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is “clutter” in patent claims according to the article?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Clutter is claim language that is not about the invention, meaning it does not help readers identify what is claimed as the inventive contribution.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How common is non-inventive (cluttered) claim language?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Based on analysis of approximately 25,000 patents, the article estimates that about 25% of all claim language relates to something other than the invention.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What problems in patent law does cluttered claim language worsen?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The article links clutter to major issues including the searchability, examinability, and comprehensibility of patents.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},663724,1793230675,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},18829141979164,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","PATENT CLUTTER  \nJanet Freilich *  \nPatent claims are supposed to be precise, succinct, and to isolate the invention from descriptive and contextual material so that readers can more easily identify and understand the invention. To this end, claims must be only one sentence long and must distinctly point out the invention. Unfortunately, claims are widely decried as incomprehensible, vague, and practically impossible to search. This Article argues that these problems arise in part because claims are full of “clutter”, language that is not about the invention. The Article assesses the claim language in 25,000 patents and shows that approximately 25% of all claim language relates to something other than the invention. This non-inventive language appears across industries and is associated with a host of problems. In particular, it may exacerbate three of the biggest problems in patent law: the searchability, examinability, and comprehensibility of patents.  \nThis Article is the first to propose and document the problem of cluttered claims. Drawing on the empirical results, the Article offers several reforms, in particular, using the prolix, lack of enablement, and lack of written description rejections to dispose of the worst offenders, and using better algorithms and different litigation rules to adapt to the remaining uses of non-inventive language. The study also generates important theoretical insights for scholars. Claims are often assumed to be entirely synonymous with the invention and all elements of the claim are thought to relate equally strongly to the invention. As this Article demonstrates that the assumption is patently not correct, it concludes that we must reform our thinking about the relationship between claims and the invention and offers a framework for doing so.  \n* Associate Professor, Fordham Law School. I thank Yonathan Arbel, Oren Bar-Gill, Colleen Chien, Nestor Davidson, Jesse Frumkin, John Goldberg, John Golden, Jennifer Gordon, Clare Huntington, Joseph Kupferman, Ethan Leib, Josh Lerner, Oskar Liivak, Alan Marco, Michael Meurer, Kristen Osenga, Mark Patterson, Sarah Pihonak, Nicholson Price, Duane Rudolph, Rachel Sachs, Joshua Sarnoff, Steven Shavell, Holger Spamann, Henry Smith, Haris Tabakovic, Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, Tom Wollmann, Steven Worthington, and Dennis Yao. This Article has also greatly benefited from feedback from patent examiners and members of the Office of the Chief Economist at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and from participants at the New England Junior Scholars Workshop, PatCon 6, the 8th Annual Junior Scholars in Intellectual Property Workshop, and the 2016 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference.  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nIntroduction ............................................................................................. 2  \nI. Patent Claims ....................................................................................... 7  \nA. The Theory of Claims 7  \nB. The Practice and Policy of Claims 12  \n1. Disclosure 13  \n2. Clarity 14  \n3. Searchability 14  \n4. Continuations 16  \n5. Examination 17  \nC. Scholarly Debates 18  \n1. Synonymy of Claim and Invention 19  \n2. The Heart of the Claim 20  \nII. Study Design ..................................................................................... 23  \nA. Methodology 24  \nIII. Results ............................................................................................. 32  \nA. Prevalence 34  \nB. Industry 37  \nC. Application Characteristics 40  \nD. Examination Characteristics 42  \nE. Patent and Claim Characteristics 45  \nIV. Discussion and Implications............................................................ 46  \nA. Practice Revisited 47  \n1. Value to Patentees 47  \n2. Disclosure 50  \n3. Clarity 53  \n4. Searchability 55  \n5. Continuations 56  \n6. Examinability 57  \nB. Theory Revisited 58  \nC. Policy Revisited 62  \n1. Strategies for Removing Non-Inventive Language 63  \n2. Strategies for Adapting to Non-Inven","cbCairOgTNrAaXiT","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairOgTNrAaXiT","pdf",1283538,74,"English","# Introduction\n## Patent Claims\n## Study Design\n## Results\n## Discussion and Implications\n### Practice Revisited\n### Theory Revisited\n### Policy Revisited\n# Appendix A: Summary Statistics by Quartile\n# Appendix C: OLS Regression: Granted Patents","[{\"question\":\"What is “clutter” in patent claims according to the article?\",\"answer\":\"Clutter is claim language that is not about the invention, meaning it does not help readers identify what is claimed as the inventive contribution.\"},{\"question\":\"How common is non-inventive (cluttered) claim language?\",\"answer\":\"Based on analysis of approximately 25,000 patents, the article estimates that about 25% of all claim language relates to something other than the invention.\"},{\"question\":\"What problems in patent law does cluttered claim language worsen?\",\"answer\":\"The article links clutter to major issues including the searchability, examinability, and comprehensibility of patents.\"}]","Patent Clutter - Introduction | PDF",186]