Colleen Chien and ED Texas

An opinion piece in the Washington Post about venue titled A patent reform we can all agree on is authored by Colleen Chien and Michael Risch.

Note a previous IPBiz post about Chien (and ED Texas):

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2015/04/colleen-chien-and-patent-assertion.html


**Separately, from a recent comment at PatentlyO:


(this also reminds me, Ron Katznelson’s piece in front of the Executive – the one still waiting an answer – is tied to the misrepresentations of an academic….)


link: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/11/misquoting.html#comments

Of the work by Katznelson, see his guest post on PatentlyO:

White House “Patent Troll” Report Challenged under the Federal Information Quality Act. including the text


My Petition shows that the PAE Report contravenes the IQA because it expressly relies on third-party information that does not meet the IQA standards. The sources relied on by the PAE Report purport to document patent litigation rates, quantify the private and social costs of patent litigation, survey “victims” of PAE litigation, and show the purported adverse effects of PAE activities. This information includes studies that have undergone no peer review; that have relied on opaque or erroneous methods and surveys; that lack objectivity; and lack practical utility.

To achieve agency compliance with identifiable IQA standards, my Petition concludes with 21 specific requests for correction supported by evidence and arguments. My Petition provides a compendium of detailed analyses of fundamental flaws surrounding data and methods used in eight commonly cited studies purported to document PAE harms, upon which the PAE Report relies.




In comment 16, Katzelson wrote:


The effectiveness of those aiming to steer the conversation here away from the substance of my article is remarkable. Perhaps others should resist the deflection tactics and address the topic at hand. For example, should the 51 law professors adopt IQA-like standards before they publish or endorse substandard or erroneous empirical “studies”? Have these professors recently distanced themselves from their purported “increasing body of evidence” articles they cited in their letter to Congress? Why else would they remove the full letter (including the reference list) from SSRN and thereby frustrate one of their heavily-cited authors’ tweets at link to twitter.com ?



**update

Robert Gebelhoff followed up on the Chien/Risch post, evading the anti-ED Texas tone of the post:

--
Colleen Chien and Michael Risch then finished off the series, suggesting that courts could possibly solve many of the problems facing the patent system by changing were lawsuits can be filed.

--

link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/11/23/patent-trolls-reading-the-comments/

Both Chien and Gebelhoff missed the irony that the Eolas patents were found invalid in ED Texas. Recall also:

"We are pleased that the court found the patents invalid, as it affirms our assertion that the claims are without merit," Google spokesperson said Thursday.