Examiner David Andrew Hopkins has allowed 67 of 219 decided applications (31%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
David Andrew Hopkins maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 219 disposed applications in his pooled record, 67 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 31%. The allowance rate across his art units ranges from 23% to 40%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications within each unit. This pooled figure represents his aggregate performance and does not predict any individual application's outcome.
A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units into a single historical snapshot. The overall allowance rate of 31% describes what was decided in the past across all units combined; it is not a prediction for any specific application. The range—23% to 40%—shows that individual art units within his portfolio have different allowance rates. Pooled figures do not indicate cause or likelihood in any particular case.
These are aggregate statistics from this examiner's past public record — not predictions about any specific application. The per-art-unit figures below show how the record varies across art units. Our approach to patent prosecution →
Each section benchmarks this examiner against that art unit's average. Figures are this examiner's own public record within the art unit; the overall rate above pools them.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 30 decided applications with an interview and 22 without.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 57 decided applications with an interview and 43 without.
Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 34 decided applications with an interview and 33 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner David Andrew Hopkins has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 2026. The overall allowance rate is total allowed divided by total decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all art units — not an average of the per-art-unit rates; pending applications are excluded. Figures are rounded for display. Pooled sample: 282 applications.
Lynch LLP is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Examiner statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data.
These statistics describe past examiner behavior and do not predict the outcome of any particular application. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Where this page compares an examiner's allowance rate to an art-unit average, that comparison is a factual description of the public record, not a characterization of any individual examiner's conduct or competence.
This page is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing it. Full disclaimers →
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING — Sean Lynch, Partner, Lynch LLP