US Patent Rankings

Data-driven patent intelligence rankings based on USPTO PatentsView 2015–2025.

Ranking Methodology

Innovation Score

Composite score (0–100) weighing patent volume (40%), filing velocity growth (20%), technology breadth (25%), and claim depth (15%).

Data Coverage

US patents granted 2015–2025. Top 50,000 companies by patent count. 670 CPC technology subclasses.

Velocity Metric

Compares patent filings in the most recent 5-year window (2020–2025) against the prior 5 years (2015–2019).

Source

USPTO PatentsView — official open data from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Full methodology →

How PlainPatent Rankings Are Compiled

Our rankings are computed directly from the upstream dataset — not editorially curated and not influenced by advertisers. Each ranking surfaces a clear, reproducible metric (for example, count of records per jurisdiction, share of records within a category, or rate per capita), and the underlying numbers are visible on the associated record pages so you can verify them. We recompute rankings whenever the upstream data refreshes, and we publish the refresh cadence on the methodology page.

What Rankings Mean (and What They Do Not)

A ranking is a useful lens — it tells you where to start looking — but it is not a judgment about quality, safety, or reputation. Being at the top of a count-based ranking typically reflects scale: more records in a jurisdiction, more entities in a category. It does not mean "better" or "worse." Whenever a ranking could be misread as a quality claim, we include an explanatory note on the page. When a ranking is rate-based (per capita, per thousand, share), we describe the denominator so you can sanity-check whether the normalization fits your question.

Why We Publish These Rankings

Rankings make large public datasets navigable. Most visitors arrive with a question ("Which jurisdiction has the most records?" or "Where is this category concentrated?") and benefit from seeing a ranked list with direct links to the full records. Publishing ranked views of public data is a long-established practice in civic journalism; we are careful to surface the raw numbers, link to the official source, and avoid editorial spin. If a ranking ever implies a value judgment not supported by the data, please email us at the address on the contact page and we will review the wording.

Methodology, Sources, and Corrections

Every ranking is derived from the source dataset linked on the methodology page. We do not blend proprietary signals; we do not substitute editor opinion for data. If you believe a ranking is miscomputed or that a record is misclassified, please contact us with the specific record ID and the expected correction, and we will investigate within the next refresh cycle. Corrections that affect the published ranking are rolled forward immediately; minor formatting fixes go out with the next scheduled refresh.