I’m looking forward to being part of the upcoming Patent Open Data Conference at USPTO-Detroit – hosted by Regional Director Damian Porcari. Attend in person or via web. Sign-up to join the conversation:
Sign-Up: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/midwest-regional-uspto-patent-open-data-conference-tickets-74450376079
Speakers:
- Keynote: Russell Slifer (Black Hills IP; former PTO Deputy Director);
- Gov’t: Damian Porcari (PTO Regional Director)
- Gov’t: Scott Beliveau (PTO Chief of Advanced Analytics)
- Gov’t: Christophe Mazenc (WIPO databases)
- Gov’t: Lustin Diaconescu (WIPO patent databases)
- Industry: Jay Yonamine (Google Patents data chief)
- Industry: Chad Gilles (BigPatentData founder)
- Industry: Lisa Lepore (Questel sales)
- Industry: Tony Trippe (Patinfomatics founder)
- Academia: Dennis Crouch (me)
- Industry: John Russell (MR IP LAW and McCoy Russell)
- Industry: Elizabeth Kendall, (Impeccable IP and Nelson, Mullins)
- Industry & Academia: Oliver Mayer (Bayern Innovativ)
A “Patent Open Data” conference is appropriate, since in my experiences foreign engineers pay a lot more attention to published application or patent disclosures than U.S. engineers do or should.*
I do have a pet peeve about the amount of money some people have made over the years claiming that one can accurately determine the value or “pioneer” status of patents from the number of times it is cited in later filed patents [like science papers are supposed to]. In any given field both attorneys and PTO examiners pick the prior art to cite against patent applications depending on what “hits” they get in on-line searching, or what prior art patent they are aware of having a good detailed specification. Neither is likely to be the first-filed pioneer patent and/or the patent with the broadest claims, since claim breadth is irrelevant to prior art searches and citations for patents.
*Even if not also hacked-into well before 18 months from their filing dates.
I agree with your stated misgivings on the “traceability” factor.
Why not have the Chinese can come tell us how they suck American IP out of this data?
An article published today on Gene’s blog by someone paying more attention notes some serious drafting error ambiguities in the “Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2019” or the “STRONGER Patents Act of 2019,” currently under consideration as Senate Bill 2082 and House Resolution 3666.
Anything worse than what we’ve already commented on here?
Another whole different issue.
Comments are closed.