Thursday, June 04, 2015

The matter of unreliable assertions in the patent reform debate

One might have thought a post titled The scariest number in the patent debate is also wrong was written by someone opposing bills such as the Innovation Act or the PATENT Act.

In fact, the author is Colleen Chien, with the post beginning

Thursday [4 June 2015], the Senate Judiciary Committee marks up the PATENT Act, an important bipartisan measure to curb abusive behavior in the patent system. In the debate over this bill, opponents hoping to dial back patent reform have called the US Patent and Trademark Office a patent “death squad.” They cite the high “kill rates” from its new patent-review process that threaten to wipe out the majority of patents.

And to back it up, they cite a very scary number from the USPTO itself: that under current patent law, approximately 84 percent of reviewed patents have their claims thrown out.

One recalls that the work of Colleen Chien has in turn been questioned.

See the discussion in

Katznelson's "A Federal Information Quality Act Challenge to the White House 'Patent Troll' Report"

Ron Katznelson had written at PatentlyO:

Whereas 51 professors, relying on works that do not meet the IQA standards, can freely publish and argue (as they have) that patent litigation inhibits technological progress, the government is precluded from doing so. But that is exactly what the White House has done in contravention of the IQA by publishing its “patent troll” report known as the Patent Assertion Entities (“PAE”) Report. It relies on many of the works cited by the 51 professors’ letter, without even having conducted an IQA pre-dissemination review—a basic first-level IQA requirement. For these reasons, I have filed with the White House a petition under the IQA, requesting correction and removal of this PAE Report from all government websites.

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.

See also

Colleen Chien and "patent assertion entities"


Post a Comment

<< Home