iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The “Patent Assassins” ad was a 2009 campaign promoting patent reexamination as a way for companies to challenge patents and reduce business risk. Its striking marketing language became a case study in a larger U.S. policy dispute: whether third parties should have easier access to administrative patent review, and how to prevent that process from being used for delay or leverage rather than to correct weak patents.
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 was associated with a San Fernando Valley law firm using that name. The dispute was not about a technology product: it was about using the U.S. patent office’s reexamination process to challenge issued patents. EE Times’ 2009 listing framed the campaign as stirring debate over the legal process for challenging patents in the Senate.
How the firm said reexamination could be used
A 111th Congress Senate Judiciary Committee report described the firm’s pitch as using reexaminations to “effectively, inexpensively and quickly reduce certain corporate risks.” It said the firm’s typical clients were companies with revenues in the $10 million to $2 billion range; that was the report’s characterization of the firm’s clients, not a measure of the campaign’s reach or results. The Senate report reproduced the campaign’s “traffic jam” concept: keep uncertainty around a disputed patent alive through a prolonged reexamination while a business dispute continues.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Licensing and litigation leverage
As the report recounted the firm’s marketing, that uncertainty could be used in licensing negotiations to seek delayed or reduced royalties. In litigation, the prospect of an ongoing reexamination could support asking a court to pause the case while the patent office considered the challenge. Those were strategic uses the firm promoted, not proof that every reexamination led to a stay or changed a royalty agreement.
#1 Best Overall
Anonymity and prior art
The Senate report also reproduced website claims that challengers could use covert tactics to preserve anonymity and use one set of prior art in reexamination while reserving another for later litigation. These are claims attributed to the firm’s marketing in the report. They do not, by themselves, establish that any particular tactic was unlawful or that it was used in every case.
Why the campaign became part of patent-reform debate
The Senate report treated the campaign as an example of how procedural “wrinkles” might be exploited. It argued that expanding post-grant review without safeguards could magnify abuse, while also recording concerns from senior Patent and Trademark Office staff and advisory groups that the proposed system might be difficult to administer, strain agency resources, and build a substantial backlog. The policy tension was therefore not simply “challenge patents” versus “protect patent owners”; it included whether review could be made accessible without inviting repeated or weak challenges and overwhelming the agency.
A 2013 Columbia Science and Technology Law Review article situated the episode in the broader debate over reexamination integrity. It quoted Representative Tom Reed expressing concern that firms such as Patent Assassins specialized in attacking legitimate patents through reexamination and that this could amount to frivolous action. The article also records practitioner concerns about serial filings and non-meritorious requests. Former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel warned that reexamination procedures were being abused “not in every case, but in many cases.” These statements document concerns in a contested policy debate; they are not a finding that all third-party challenges were abusive. The 2013 Columbia article provides that later discussion.
Recommended Free Tools
Was the conduct illegal, or proof that reexamination was abused?
The cited record does not establish a blanket finding that Patent Assassins’ conduct was illegal. The Senate report quoted an attorney defending use of the rules: “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 others were more discreet.
The ad is evidence of an aggressive strategic pitch and of why lawmakers and practitioners worried about process design. It is not, on its own, evidence that every challenge was frivolous, that a court found the firm liable, or that all reexaminations were being misused. The policy question raised was how to preserve a route for testing questionable patents while limiting serial or weak filings, delay, and excessive demands on the patent office.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the historical record does—and does not—show
The documented episode is anchored in EE Times’ 2009 coverage, the 111th Congress Senate report, and a 2013 law review analysis. Those sources explain the campaign’s message and the concerns it provoked. They do not establish who funds any current campaign, whether the original website remains active, or what Congress has done on this issue in 2026. The “Patent Assassins” controversy is best understood as a historical example in the debate over patent-review safeguards, not as a verified account of a current organization.
Quick Recap
Best Value
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.
