Which Patent Office Does It Best? Survey Says: "The EPO"
Joff Wild at the IAM Blog reported on an on-going benchmarking survey being conducted by IAM magazine and Thomson Reuters on various patent-related topics. Recently they asked questions to various professionals regarding patent quality at the larger patent offices.
IN-HOUSE SURVEY RESULTS:
Examination Quality is "Excellent" or Very Good"
EPO - 70%
USPTO - 56%
JPO - 54%
KIPO (Korea) - 25%
SIPO (China) - 18%
Overall, Patent Quality Has Improved/Stayed the Same/Gotten Worse
EPO: improved = 26%, stayed the same = 71%, got worse = 3%
USPTO: improved = 23%, stayed the same = 61%, got worse = 16%
JPO: improved = 17%, stayed the same = 78%, got worse = 5%
KIPO: improved = 34%, stayed the same = 61%, got worse = 5%
SIPO: improved = 58%, stayed the same = 37%, got worse = 5%
(interestingly, the USPTO's "got worse" rating is over triple the amount of any other office)
PRIVATE PRACTICE SURVEY RESULTS
Examination Quality is "Excellent" or Very Good"
EPO - 56% (-14)
USPTO - 38% (-18)
JPO - 40% (-14)
KIPO (Korea) - 21% (-4)
SIPO (China) - 20% (+2)
Overall, Patent Quality Has Improved/Stayed the Same/Gotten Worse
EPO: improved = 28%, stayed the same = 64%, got worse = 7%
USPTO: improved = 20%, stayed the same = 62%, got worse = 18%
JPO: improved = 19%, stayed the same = 77%, got worse = 4%
KIPO: improved = 30%, stayed the same = 67%, got worse = 3%
SIPO: improved = 56%, stayed the same = 42%, got worse = 2%
When asked "what are the biggest impediments to quality," the answers were
(1) the pressure to get examinations done more quickly;
(2) the sheer number of applications being submitted; and
(3) government regulations.
Joff notes
Clearly, the EPO is regarded as the pace-setter among the world's leading patent offices; both the Koreans and the Chinese have improved significantly, but still have work to do. What our respondents are telling us about the USPTO, meanwhile, only goes to emphasise the job that David Kappos has in front of him. That said, it seems to me that there are still far too many people who believe that none of the offices we asked about offer high enough standards. There is room for all of them to up their game, at least as far their users are concerned.
Read the post in its entirety here (link)
9 Comentários:
The percentage of correspondents reporting that PTO quality "got worse" is interesting. Given the huge backlogs in PTO's all over the world, why haven't they all "got worse" at the same rate? If it is only the USPTO that has got significantly worse, and none of the others, well then it should be a relatively simple matter for the USPTO to "get better", no?
INSHA ALLAH THE QUALITY OF VITAL INSTITUTIONS LIKE PTOS NEED TO REFLECT BETTER RATING RATHER THAN DECLINING.BOTH SIDES ARE BETTER BUT WHO STANDS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORSENING THE ELEVATED PTOS?
all ptos need to judge themselves before judging the inventors in the best interest of moral and social justice.
Hi,Sam here I saw your blog post is very interesting.This post concerning especially interested me.
I'm a community member at www.Patents.com/
Patents.com provides one of the most comprehensive worldwide sources of patent data - available in 15 languages. It’s a source for patent data, analytic tools and provides a hosted community platform enabling users to connect to generate business opportunities, including the licensing/sale of patent.Will like to talk(through email) to you,is this the right time to talk about or should we talk during weekends ?
Best-Regards,
Sam from Us Patents LLC
E-sam@patents.com
These comparisons are not really fair unless the great differences in search and examination FEES are also noted.
The EPO sure was quick to pat itself on its back.
http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2009/20091105a.html
I'd be interested in knowing more about how they polled and who. I wouldn't be surprised if the Asian Patent Offices were ranked lower by people than they should because of the Western-centrism of many and internal prejudices.
Uh, the JPO rated as being good? Yeah. The JPO, where a 9 way rejection of a mobile communications device with references directed to a cordless telephone from 1983, a toaster, a hamster wheel, a wine cork remover, a foldable gazebo, an answering machine, a beeper, a megaphone, and a belt buckle is perfectly logical and fair rejection to make. GTFO.
I advise most clients to not even bother with the JPO.
Hmm... quality is a relative term, and if the various PTOs work with standards for assessing unity of invention, inventiveness, clarity, and sufficient disclosure, it is no wonder that they appear to have different qualities. One aspect which I find universal as a parameter of quality for a PTO is the ability to find relevant prior art. But I am not sure if this is reflected in the IAM report.
Post a Comment