More on patent grant rate at USPTO
In response to discussion about the difference in method between Quillen/Webster (who reported on patents ALLOWED by the USPTO) and Clarke (who reported on patents ISSUED by the USPTO), I performed an additional study, which has now been accepted for publication.
From the abstract:
-->In the present paper, we use data from the USPTO to show that the divergence in grant rate numbers does not arise from the difference between "allowed" and "issued" applications; we suggest that the elevated numbers in the Quillen and Webster approach arise from a flawed numerical approach.<--
The initial study was Lawrence B. Ebert, Patent Grant Rates at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 4 CHI-K. J. INTELL. PROP. 108 (2004); available http://jip.kentlaw.edu/art/volume%204/4-1-4.htm).
Of the incorrect footnote in the article by Mark Lemley and Kimberly Moore in the Boston University Law Review [Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B. U. L. Rev. 63 (2004], it is noted
In working with data on issued patents to identify the number of patents based on continuing applications, Clarke merely did a more thorough job of what was attempted in the QWII. As stated in the footnote of Lemley and Clarke: "The 85% number provided in the revised Quillen et al. study is based on actual data about the applications that ISSUE based on continuations," [emphasis added], QWII made their correction based on data on ISSUED applications, not on ALLOWED applications. If the use of data on ISSUED applications means an assumption that every allowed continuation resulted in a patent, then it is an assumption made by both Quillen/Webster and Clarke. Because it is assumed by both, this assumption is not a basis to select the results of Quillen/Webster over those of Clarke.
From the abstract:
-->In the present paper, we use data from the USPTO to show that the divergence in grant rate numbers does not arise from the difference between "allowed" and "issued" applications; we suggest that the elevated numbers in the Quillen and Webster approach arise from a flawed numerical approach.<--
The initial study was Lawrence B. Ebert, Patent Grant Rates at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 4 CHI-K. J. INTELL. PROP. 108 (2004); available http://jip.kentlaw.edu/art/volume%204/4-1-4.htm).
Of the incorrect footnote in the article by Mark Lemley and Kimberly Moore in the Boston University Law Review [Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B. U. L. Rev. 63 (2004], it is noted
In working with data on issued patents to identify the number of patents based on continuing applications, Clarke merely did a more thorough job of what was attempted in the QWII. As stated in the footnote of Lemley and Clarke: "The 85% number provided in the revised Quillen et al. study is based on actual data about the applications that ISSUE based on continuations," [emphasis added], QWII made their correction based on data on ISSUED applications, not on ALLOWED applications. If the use of data on ISSUED applications means an assumption that every allowed continuation resulted in a patent, then it is an assumption made by both Quillen/Webster and Clarke. Because it is assumed by both, this assumption is not a basis to select the results of Quillen/Webster over those of Clarke.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home