About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Deloitte White Paper Points to Recession as Turning Point for Life Sciences Industry; Indicates That Survival Will Depend on Innovation | Main | Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution Seminar »

May 06, 2010

Comments

Director Kappos' press release is a symptom of one of the most deep-seated and destructive problems at the PTO. Note that the press release only raises concerns for "quality patents" and "quality issuances." It ignores the importance of quality *rejections* and the social costs that arise when the PTO delays or denies allowance of patents to which inventors are legally entitled.

The one analysis I've seen (see Ron Katznelson's letter from the previous round of comments on qualtiy metrics, http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/katznelson10mar2010.pdf) shows pretty convincingly that bad rejections cause greater social cost than bad allowances.

My letter also raised the issue of considering both Type I and Type II error, and weighting them appropriately (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/boundy06mar2010.pdf)

The continued focus on only half the problem is not an encouraging sign that the PTO is taking its legal obligations and applicants' entitlement seriously.

Can you revise the previous comment - in the last paragraph after "its legal obligations, applicant's entitelenet," add "the importance of patents in the economy" to the list of things the PTO isn't taking seriously - put in a dig at Rai and Graham

I will second David's comments both about the one sided focus of patent quality and Ron Katznelson's analysis of the detrimental effects of false rejections. Another interesting article explaining the detrimental effects of the PTO's one side focus on quality is by David Kline, see http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/05/the_biggest_job_creator_you_ne.html

Reward examiners who actually examine. I recently came across a case where the original claims were rejected, the patentee modified the claims, there were two other rejections. The patentee then canceled all the claims and put in the original claims. The examiner allowed the application at that point.

GCF,

What was the rationale listed for allowance?

What about estoppel? Not sure why any practicioner would ever do this. There is no chance this patent will ever be asserted against anyone.

50$ to any speaker at this conference who begins their lecture by saying "in order to improve patent quality over the long haul we're going to need to reject, reject, reject".

I will need 3rd party confirmation that it was done in a serious manner.

Darn ... I just happen to be in Los Angeles at the moment, but narrowly missed attending the roundtable. Guess I'll just have to wait until the USPTO opens its rumored west-coast patent law office.
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/patent_enforcement_21538.aspx?SectionID=2

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31