PatentHawk flames Crouch over patent litigation analysis
Continuing an earlier theme, PatentHawk has once again flamed Patently-O:
Professor Dennis Crouch: "Over the past two decades, the number of patents being litigated has risen dramatically." Crouch then shows a graph that's clear as mud: one axis labeled "Patent Count;" the other "Year Complaint Was Filed." One has no way of knowing, either by graph or explanation, whether "patent count" represents number of complaints; or number of litigated patents total, irrespective of number of complaints. Regardless what "patent count" means, most damning is failure to normalize: to take into account the number of patents granted.
Crouch commented:
Gary, Thanks for the link. However, I do believe that my graph is fairly easy to understand -- The number of patents associated with complaints filed in a given year.
I have a problem with normalization without also providing the underlying data. In your example, the graph is designed to impart the feeling that Britian's economy is the strongest in the world. It is not.
It would seem in ONE litigation involving N patents, Crouch would add N (rather than one) to his y axis.
This all pales compared to the assumption of Quillen and Webster than no more than one patent could issue from a patent family, which assisted QW in reaching a 97% patent grant rate. See discussion in 88 JPTOS 239 and 88 JPTOS 1068.
See also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/07/quillens-85-grant-rate-number-still.html
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/07/suit-filed-in-ddc-to-remove-margaret.html
Professor Dennis Crouch: "Over the past two decades, the number of patents being litigated has risen dramatically." Crouch then shows a graph that's clear as mud: one axis labeled "Patent Count;" the other "Year Complaint Was Filed." One has no way of knowing, either by graph or explanation, whether "patent count" represents number of complaints; or number of litigated patents total, irrespective of number of complaints. Regardless what "patent count" means, most damning is failure to normalize: to take into account the number of patents granted.
Crouch commented:
Gary, Thanks for the link. However, I do believe that my graph is fairly easy to understand -- The number of patents associated with complaints filed in a given year.
I have a problem with normalization without also providing the underlying data. In your example, the graph is designed to impart the feeling that Britian's economy is the strongest in the world. It is not.
It would seem in ONE litigation involving N patents, Crouch would add N (rather than one) to his y axis.
This all pales compared to the assumption of Quillen and Webster than no more than one patent could issue from a patent family, which assisted QW in reaching a 97% patent grant rate. See discussion in 88 JPTOS 239 and 88 JPTOS 1068.
See also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/07/quillens-85-grant-rate-number-still.html
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/07/suit-filed-in-ddc-to-remove-margaret.html
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:49 AM
1 Comments:
Hi!
This is Nice Blog!
We are located in Chennai India Offering a wide range of back office and I.T Enabled Services namely data entry, litigation data processing and data conversion that match the high global standards in terms of efficiency and accuracy.
We offers innovative and effective outsourcing solutions for clients around the world. We deliver higher quality, increased productivity, and lower costs. Can we do that for you? Sure we can
Post a Comment
<< Home