Thursday, September 07, 2006

Law review on HR 2795 relies on economists as patent law experts

Christopher L. Logan has a law review article on HR 2795 (on patent reform): PATENT REFORM 2005: HR 2795 AND THE ROAD TO POST-GRANT OPPOSITIONS, 74 UMKC L. Rev. 975 (2006).

Of interest, although Logan talks about "patent quality" (eg, This system may very well be the root of the problem regarding low patent quality we face today; Despite attempts by Congress to improve patent quality throughout the years, many scholars still feel that improvements need to be made.), Logan does not cite any Quillen/Webster article. Logan does not cite Jaffe/Lerner. Logan does cite other economists: Hall/Haroff. Logan elevates the economists to the status of "patent law expert": Experts in patent law have long suggested that a post-grant
opposition system would improve patent quality. For example, Professor Hall et al. state that "[a] properly designed post-grant review mechanism . . . should generate
considerable welfare gains for the intellectual property system." Although Logan discusses the view on post-grant oppositions by economists, he cites no article by Joseph Hosteny, an experienced registered patent attorney who opposes post-grant oppositions. Cecil Quillen also opposes oppositions.

Bronwyn H. Hall and Dietmar Harhoff, Post-Grant Reviews in the U.S. Patent System - Design Choices and Expected Impact, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 989 (2004)

Footnote 25: Because of the existence of continuations and divisionals, the
computation of the share of patent applications that are ultimately
granted is somewhat difficult and subject to debate. For detailed information on
this topic, see Robert A. Clarke, U.S. Continuity Law and its Impact on the
Comparative Patenting Rates of the U.S., Japan and the European Patent
Office, 85 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 335 (2003); Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. et
al., Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office - Extended, 12 Fed. Cir. B.J. 35 (2002). [IPBiz: note that Hall/Haroff cite the SECOND Quillen/Webster paper, not the first paper criticized by Clarke.]


Post a Comment

<< Home