Is there strategic non-revelation of information to the USPTO by patent applicants?
Merely fyi, note "Patents, Search of Prior Art, and Revelation of Information," by Langinier and Marcoul, on the strategic non-revelation of information by "innovators" [sic] when applying for patents.
The mark of Quillen and Webster is in the paper in the text: "it is more common to grant a patent to a bad innovation than to refuse a patent to good innovation, as a very high percentage of applications are approved."
IPBiz has noted that grant rates are NOT a proxy for the kind of job the USPTO is doing in complying with the law. The USPTO has no control over the quality of incoming applications. A grant rate of 100% might be appropriate if the applications have claims which reflect inventions which are novel and nonobvious. Separately, Langinier and Marcoul seem to be unaware of the criticism of the Quillen/Webster approach.
The mark of Quillen and Webster is in the paper in the text: "it is more common to grant a patent to a bad innovation than to refuse a patent to good innovation, as a very high percentage of applications are approved."
IPBiz has noted that grant rates are NOT a proxy for the kind of job the USPTO is doing in complying with the law. The USPTO has no control over the quality of incoming applications. A grant rate of 100% might be appropriate if the applications have claims which reflect inventions which are novel and nonobvious. Separately, Langinier and Marcoul seem to be unaware of the criticism of the Quillen/Webster approach.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home