This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Invention Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives ( Index)

2012 2017

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The article says: "The United States allows any citizen from any country to sit for the patent bar (if he/she has the requisite technical background)"

In view of:

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/becoming-patent-practitioner

I would say that that statement is at least misleading. יעקב ( talk) 15:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There is currently a tag on the Criticism section stating that it makes the article biased to have criticism in a separate section and the content should be merged into the rest of the article. I’ve never heard of that as a policy and I think the criticism section is well written and that it would decrease rather than increase the quality of the article to change it. I’m removing the tag. MadScientistX11 ( talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Basics deserve a couple of paragraphs. If not here, then in a linked Wikipedia article. There is an old saying in journalism: Answer the 5 W's and the H (What? Where? Who? When? Why? and How?). Either need to be dealt with here or a link provided. Also missing: the length of pendency, the amount of litigation, the costs, and the failure to provide a reliable time-certain for expiration (because of so many loop-holes to the 20 yr period) are probably worthy of note. Also surprised that software, mathematical algorithms, DNA/RNA/proteins/etc. aren't mentioned. 174.131.48.89 ( talk) 09:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a collector of information nor a guide. (CC)  Tbhotch ^™ 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply