More on peer to patent project
A discussion of events in the peer to patent project can be found here.
Paul Edward Geller wrote: I'm reading your "Peer to Patent" downloaded from the SSRN. It's quite fascinating, and I quite agree with your basic principle. But, with peer review, do we need the patent bureaucracy at all? IPBiz to Paul: "peer to patent" is NOT peer review. It is about members of the public submitting prior art for the patent examiner to review.
There is a post from Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property Law, IBM Corporation, which observed:
Approximately 40 people attended, not including the speakers.
The USPTO then presented the qualifications of prior art and how to review a patent application. These presentations were intended to help educate those that would locate and comment on prior art as part of Community Patent Review, but they were a bit too legal so we hope to modify them to be more practical for use in the future.
The pilot is targeted to begin January, 2007.
In a private meeting with the USPTO (after the public meeting), we brainstormed out a list of some of the items that need to be addressed for the pilot. Those include advisory/steering committee, technology infrastructure, communications plan (announcement, education, code of conduct, etc), patentee consent to have certain published patent applications commented on by third parties, participants to review and comment on published patent applications, incentives to participate, USPTO rule changes that might be required, and more. Consensus seemed to be that 200-300 published patent applications would be needed for the pilot.
We [IBM] hope that others will also contribute some of their own published patent apps, technical support, engineers to help provide comments, funding, etc.
Concerns [about peer to patent] expressed included impact on patent application pendency, cost to the USPTO and/or patent applicants, and patent applicants' duty of candor to the USPTO. Each of these and other concerns would be suitable topics for discussion on this thread. [IPBiz note: No mention of conflict of interest wherein a competitor might try to game this system. No mention of whether or not examiner gets added "time per application" to implement this added review.]
[IPBiz post 1619]
Paul Edward Geller wrote: I'm reading your "Peer to Patent" downloaded from the SSRN. It's quite fascinating, and I quite agree with your basic principle. But, with peer review, do we need the patent bureaucracy at all? IPBiz to Paul: "peer to patent" is NOT peer review. It is about members of the public submitting prior art for the patent examiner to review.
There is a post from Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property Law, IBM Corporation, which observed:
Approximately 40 people attended, not including the speakers.
The USPTO then presented the qualifications of prior art and how to review a patent application. These presentations were intended to help educate those that would locate and comment on prior art as part of Community Patent Review, but they were a bit too legal so we hope to modify them to be more practical for use in the future.
The pilot is targeted to begin January, 2007.
In a private meeting with the USPTO (after the public meeting), we brainstormed out a list of some of the items that need to be addressed for the pilot. Those include advisory/steering committee, technology infrastructure, communications plan (announcement, education, code of conduct, etc), patentee consent to have certain published patent applications commented on by third parties, participants to review and comment on published patent applications, incentives to participate, USPTO rule changes that might be required, and more. Consensus seemed to be that 200-300 published patent applications would be needed for the pilot.
We [IBM] hope that others will also contribute some of their own published patent apps, technical support, engineers to help provide comments, funding, etc.
Concerns [about peer to patent] expressed included impact on patent application pendency, cost to the USPTO and/or patent applicants, and patent applicants' duty of candor to the USPTO. Each of these and other concerns would be suitable topics for discussion on this thread. [IPBiz note: No mention of conflict of interest wherein a competitor might try to game this system. No mention of whether or not examiner gets added "time per application" to implement this added review.]
[IPBiz post 1619]
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home