Patent citation analysis does not establish patent quality

More than ten years ago, IPBiz pointed to the folly of using patent
citation statistics to prove the value or impact of a patent.
See
There they go again: patent citation studies


Scientists long ago wised up to issues in using citation statistics.
From "Physics Today" (August 2014):



Citation counts are great for bureau­crats and
administrators because, by
definition, they are quantitative. They
can be added, subtracted, normalized,
and plotted. Indices based on these
counts abound, the ubiquitous Hirsch
or /i-index being the most prominent.
Debate continues to rage as to
whether such counts and indices actu­ally
mean anything. (See, for example,
the Commentary by Orion Penner,
Alexander Petersen, Raj Pan, and Santo
Fortunato, PHYSICS TODAY, April 2013,
page 8.)

Do they really measure the im­portance or
impact of a researcher's
work on the field?





See also IPBiz post titled

Katznelson on Lemley/Feldman paper on licensing


Related to patent quality, and the monitoring thereof, see

One Year After Scathing Report of Abuses, Patent Office Telecommuters Win Review Panel's Blessing

and from Lisa Rein on the report by the National Academy of Public Administration:


The report released Friday recommends that the agency bring in more experts to look at
the quality of its patent reviews. This conclusion echoes a highly critical report
three months ago from the Commerce Department Inspector General’s office, which found that patent officials have almost no way of knowing whether examiners are doing their jobs well.



link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/31/patent-office-stresses-quantity
-over-quality-new-review-of-troubled-telework-program-finds/