Public participation in patent examination

Public participation in patent examination

The involvement of the public in patent examination has been proposed and is currently used in some forms to help identifying relevant prior art and, more generally, to help assessing whether patent applications and inventions meet the requirements of patent law, such as novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness, and sufficiency of disclosure.

Contents

Rationale

The rationale for public participation in patent application review is that knowledgeable persons in fields relevant to a particular patent application will provide useful information to patent examiners if the proper forum is provided. One model for such a forum is a wiki model where the public may submit prior art and commentary relevant to a given patent application and patent examiners can consult that forum. The hoped-for effect is that patent examination will be more efficient and thorough thus patents that do issue will be of higher quality than is currently possible.[1]

History

In the 17th and 18th centuries, patent examination in France for novelty and utility was performed by the private French Academy under commission from the French government. The Academy sought the input of outside experts in the specific fields of the inventions. Galileo, for example, was consulted when a patent was applied for on a new method of determining longitude by measuring the position of the moon. Galileo’s conclusion was that the method would work in principle, but the measuring techniques were not accurate enough to provide meaningful results. A patent, therefore, was denied.[2]

Legal constraints

United States

In the United States, the third parties may not provide commentary or opinions directly to a patent examiner during the prosecution of a patent unless the patent applicant gives the examiner written permission to do so.[3] The public may, however, provide prior art to examiners during a two month window after an application is published.

History

Observations by third parties

The European Patent Convention (EPC) provides that any person may present observations concerning the patentability of an invention described in a European patent application.[4] This is a form of public participation to patent examination. Filing such observations by third parties at the European Patent Office (EPO) is free of charge, but the observations must include a statement of grounds.[4] The statement of grounds must be in English, French or German according to the Guidelines for Examination at the EPO.[5] The person filing the observations does not become party to the proceedings.[4]

If the observations call into question the patentability of the invention, they must be taken into account in any proceedings pending before a department of the EPO until such proceedings have been terminated, i.e. they must be admitted to the proceedings.[5] However, while considered by some as "a powerful and sharp tool",[6] "in practice, this procedure does not serve as an incentive for third parties to become involved and to provide examiners with possible insights in the inventiveness of an application or less obvious prior art." [7]

In the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), third parties may submit prior art relevant to a published patent application within two months of said publication or before a notice of allowance is given, whichever comes first. In contrast to European practice, however, third parties are not allowed to provide any additional explanation of the relevance of the prior art. The USPTO requires a fee.[8]

Some countries such as Australia can only accept but not grant patents after examination. The accepted patent is then advertised and public comment is sought. After the lapsing of a certain period (90 days in Australia) with no comment the patent is granted.[9]

Wiki review

The review of patent and patent applications through wiki projects was proposed in 2005 by patent attorney J. Matthew Buchanan on his blog.[10] A subsequent proposal was made in Fortune magazine in 2006.[11] The claimed purpose is to improve the quality of patent examination, as well as re-examination, through the involvement of the public, to help identifying relevant prior art. The USPTO has endorsed some of these projects.

According to Dave Kappos, former vice president for intellectual-property law at IBM and now head of the USPTO, "it's a very powerful concept because it leverages the enormous capabilities of the entire world of technical talent." [11]

Wikipedia itself has been used by US patent examiners as a reference to get a "quick outline of an unfamiliar topic".[12] Citations of Wikipedia as prior art, however, is not allowed in the US, due to the fluid and open nature of its editing.[13] Nonetheless, in the related area of trademark examination, entries from Wikipedia have been cited in precedential opinions by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO.[14]

Blackboard patent

Wikipedia has also been used to collect early references related to controversial patents. History of virtual learning environments, for example, is an article that was created primarily to list prior art that would potentially invalidate U.S. Patent 6,988,138, “Internet-based education support system and methods”. This patent issued to Blackboard Inc. in June 2000. The Moodle wiki has a similar page.[15] Once the patent was issued, Blackboard Inc. sued its competitor Desire2Learn to stop them from infringing the patent. In July 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that all of the claims of the Blackboard patent were invalid either for being too vague or for being already in practice before Blackboard filed their application. Blackboard, however, has four continuation applications pending where it can correct the deficiencies in its claims and get new patents to issue.[16]

While the lawsuit was moving forward, the Software Freedom Law Center filed for a reexamination citing that new prior art had been discovered that raised a substantial new question of validity. The USPTO agreed and the patent is currently undergoing reexamination.[17]

USPTO community patent review (Peer to Patent)

On June 15, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office began a two year pilot community patent review called Peer to patent or Community Patent Review.[18] The program organizers anticipate having 250 pending software patent applications reviewed by members of the interested public. They can submit prior art along with commentary and vote on the most relevant prior art. Four months after a patent application is posted the most relevant prior art is provided to the patent examiner.

In the first five months of the program, over 20 applications have been opened to the public and 8 have completed reviews. Over 28,000 site visits have been recorded. 1,600 reviewers from more than 100 different countries have registered. Over one hundred thirty potential prior art references have been submitted. General Electric, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, and Oracle Corporation each have volunteered some of their pending patent applications for review.

Patent examiners will have access to the commentary and will consider it in their examination. Applications that are part of the pilot program will get accelerated examination.[19]

Of the first 19 office actions received by Peer-to-Patent applications, 5 cited the prior art submitted by reviewers.[20]

A new pilot started on October 25, 2010, and will continue until September 30, 2011.[21]

IP.Com PatentDebate

IP.com PatentDebate is a blog type web site were the public can comment on all pending published US patent applications.[22] User registration is required. Unlike Peer to Patent, however, there is no formal relationship between the USPTO and PatentDebate. The site is sponsored at least in part by advertising.

Post issuance review

Article One Partners

Article One Partners provides a community review format for enlisting members of the public to search for prior art for already issued patents. These patents are generally the subject of ongoing litigation. Anyone who signs up can earn cash rewards if they submit the most relevant prior art. Additionally, members can earn profit-sharing points for activities such as referring friends. The profit-sharing points earn them cash rewards.[23][24] Article One Partners was recognized as "2009 Startup of the Year" by Silicon Alley Insider.[25]

BountyQuest project

The now defunct BountyQuest was an early attempt to recruit members of the public to search for prior art for issued patents. Bounties were offered by companies for any prior art that someone could find that would invalidate the claims of a given US patent. BountyQuest existed from 2000 to 2003.[26]

PatentFizz

PatentFizz provides a forum for commenting on issued patents and provides a simplified view of patents.[27]

See also

References

  1. ^ Schecter, Manny, Open Collaboration Is Medicine for Our Ailing Patent System, BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Vol. 72, No. 1789, pp. 682-685, Oct. 20, 2006.
  2. ^ Nowotarski, Bakos, “A Short History of Private Patent Examination”, Insurance IP Bulletin Oct. 2009
  3. ^ 35 USC 122 plus MPEP commentary
  4. ^ a b c Article 115 EPC
  5. ^ a b Guidelines for Examination at the European Patent Office E. VI. 3. Observations by third parties and examination thereof.
  6. ^ Dr Jürgen Kaiser, A great alternative to oppositions, Managing Intellectual Property, Supplement - Germany & EPO IP Focus 2006.
  7. ^ Netherlands delegation to the Administrative Council of The European Patent Organisation, Dutch paper on the strategy debate CA/68/06, Addressees: Administrative Council (for opinion), Munich, February 15, 2006, p.8 (pdf)
  8. ^ 37 CFR § 1.99 Third-party submission in published application.
  9. ^ http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/EAB4C263579FFE56CA2572AA0011CD8F/$file/Patents1990WD02.pdf
  10. ^ Patent Reform and Third Party Submission of Art: A proposed solution
  11. ^ a b Nicholas Varchaver, Patent review goes Wiki, Fortune, VOL. 154, NO. 4 - August 21, 2006
  12. ^ Just-n-Examiner blog, January 17, 2007
  13. ^ “Just a Patent Examiner” blog, October 1, 2006
  14. ^ In re Grand Forest Holdings Incorporated S/N 78220033, 20 October 2005
  15. ^ Online Learning History, Moodledocs wikipage
  16. ^ Patently O announcement of CAFC Blackboard decision
  17. ^ “Patent Office Orders Re-Examination of Blackboard Patent”, Software Freedom Law Center, January 25, 2007.
  18. ^ Schecter, Manny, Murray, Susan, "Peer to Patent:Community Patent Review", Insurance IP Bulletin, Oct. 15, 2007
  19. ^ Shrock, Andrew, "Opening up the Patent Process", MIT Technology Review, Sep 24, 2007
  20. ^ PUBLIC SUCCESSFULLY PARTICIPATES IN U.S. PATENT EXAMINATION PROCESS, New York Law School press release
  21. ^ Peer Review Pilot FY2011
  22. ^ PatentDebate home page
  23. ^ "Online startup aims to improve patent quality" GMA News.tv Nov. 17, 2008.
  24. ^ See also US application 2008270255  and WO application 2008119083 , patent applications on the system (title: "Requesting prior art from the public in exchange for a reward").
  25. ^ http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/06/article_one_partners_business.php
  26. ^ Internet Archive. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bountyquest.com
  27. ^ "A Patent Improvement", The Economist, September 6, 2007

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем сделать НИР

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Public participation — is a political principle or practice, and may also recognised as a right (right to public participation). The terms public participation may be used interchangeably with the concept or practice of stakeholder engagement and/or popular… …   Wikipedia

  • Patent prosecution — describes the interaction between an applicant, or their representative, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre grant prosecution, which involves negotiation… …   Wikipedia

  • Patent Prosecution Highway — The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a set of initiatives for providing accelerated patent prosecution procedures by sharing information between some patent offices. It also permits each participating patent office to benefit from the work… …   Wikipedia

  • Peer to patent — The Peer to Patent project (also known as the Community PatentReview project) is an initiative that seeks reform of the patentsystem by gathering public input in a structured, productive manner. Apilot project in collaboration with the United… …   Wikipedia

  • Peer-to-Patent — The Peer To Patent project is an initiative that seeks to assist patent offices in improving patent quality by gathering public input in a structured, productive manner. Peer To Patent is the first social software project directly linked to… …   Wikipedia

  • Business method patent — Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent… …   Wikipedia

  • List of patent related topics — This is a list of topics related to patents. See list of patent legal concepts for a list of articles on various legal aspects of patents, including special types of patents and patent applications. Organizations and patent offices : For more… …   Wikipedia

  • Grant procedure before the European Patent Office — Graph of European patent applications filed and granted between 1998 and 2007. Note that the average time from filing to grant in 2007 was 43.7 months (3.6 years) The grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is an ex parte,… …   Wikipedia

  • Glossary of patent legal concepts — Patent law (patents for inventions) …   Wikipedia

  • Prior art — Patent law (patents for inventions) …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”