About Patent Reality
Patent Reality is an independent publication examining influential claims about the patent system against the law, evidence, history, and real-world consequences.
We don’t try to cover every patent decision or development. We focus on places where rhetoric and reality diverge — including questionable statistics, unsupported assertions, misleading studies, unreasonable legal arguments, and policies whose stated justifications don’t withstand scrutiny.
Authority isn’t evidence. Repetition doesn’t make a claim true. Patent Reality looks behind the rhetoric.
Founded by Thomas Krause
Patent Reality was founded by Thomas Krause, who spent more than two decades at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including service as Solicitor and PTAB Director Review Executive.
During that career, he represented the USPTO in patent cases before the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court and worked on many of the legal and policy questions that continue to shape the patent system.
Patent Reality grew out of a concern that important patent-policy debates are increasingly shaped by well-funded advocacy, institutional authority, and claims that are repeated far more often than they are examined.
The premise of Patent Reality is simple: examine the evidence.
Thomas W. Krause
Founder
Grounded in Expertise, Driven by Evidence
Explore our commitment to authoritative analysis, rigorous fact-checking, and respected affiliations that build your confidence.
Independence
Patent Reality’s editorial judgments are its own. Funders and republication partners do not determine what we cover or the conclusions we reach.
Evidence
Claims are tested against primary sources, empirical research, legal authority, historical evidence, common sense, and real-world experience.
Open Debate
Disagreement is welcome. Serious responses and competing perspectives are encouraged when they engage with the evidence.
Want to Contribute?
Patent Reality welcomes contributions from academics, practitioners, former government officials, researchers, and others with evidence or arguments that can improve the patent-policy debate.
We particularly welcome accessible summaries of new academic research, responses to Patent Reality articles, and timely reactions to public statements, reports, speeches, and policy arguments that deserve closer scrutiny — .including claims advanced by patent maximalists, pharmaceutical-industry advocates, and others whose assertions may carry the trappings of expertise, prestige, or institutional credibility without being well supported by the evidence.
We also welcome perspectives that engage seriously with the evidence, including respectful disagreement with Patent Reality itself.