This post is a continuation of my investigation into the African regional patenting authorities – see Part 1 of the series for my post on the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, ARIPO. This time, with the aid of excellent Afro-IP blog, which covers intellectual property issues in Africa, and from the oft-referenced Information Sources in Patents (3rd edition, 2012) by Stephen Adams, I’m delving into the regional African patenting authority OAPI, and this mysterious collection has left me with many unanswered questions! Read on for my investigation of OAPI coverage in both free and paid search tools.
I was surprised to find that we have never yet tackled the fascinating subject of African regional patenting authorities on the Intellogist blog. This is probably because I knew that any post I put together on the subject would have to crib heavily from the excellent Afro-IP blog, which covers intellectual property issues in Africa, and from authorities such as the oft-referenced Information Sources in Patents (3rd ed., 2012) by Stephen Adams. So to avoid blatant plagiarism, in true Intellogist fashion let’s turn this post from book report into search tool review! Read on to learn about my fruitful investigation of the African regional authority ARIPO, in both free and paid patent search tools.
As a leader in patent analysis, Landon IP has expert searchers who answer complex questions on a daily basis to produce the highest quality results. If you work with patents, you know the obstacles we face: data collections are huge and unwieldy; errors in the data are rampant; and in short, nothing involving patent data is ever easy. Today, I’m going to share some of our most basic strategies for producing high-quality datasets that lead to reliable results. Read on to get an insight into these best practices.
Unless you live under a rock, you’ve probably heard of the America Invents Act. The Senate passed its version of the bill in March, and the House of Representatives passed its own version on June 23, 2011 with a 301-117 vote. According to a CNN article by David Goldman titled “Patent reform is finally on its way,” key issues addressed in both bills include “a transition of the U.S. patent law from a ‘first to invent’ to a ‘first to file’ system,” “provisions that attempt to keep patent battles out of the courts,” and provisions to “allow the U.S. Patent and Trade Office to set and potentially keep its own fees.” Over the past week, my Google newsfeed has been inundated with a flurry of editorials and blog posts either labeling the bill as a travesty or a godsend. Am I going to add to this growing mountain of diverse opinion pieces? No.
Instead, I’ll show you how to search for these editorials in a useful subscription-based search system for locating business intelligence and non-patent literature. Read on to view a case study of searching for patent reform commentary in Factiva!
I’m going to take a break today from visiting obscure search systems (and writing long 2-part posts) to share with you a delightful patent application that I hold very close to my heart. I usually don’t spend my spare time reading the image file wrappers of US patent applications in PAIR, but I will openly admit that I spent a solid two hours one Saturday morning reading the entire file for US Application No. 11/161,345.
After the jump, discover the secrets of 11/161,345, a.k.a “Godly Powers!”
Every once in a while I am doing a project and come across the need to perform what I assume will be a simple task in my patent search software, and then find out that it just can’t be done.
I wanted to start highlighting and cataloging these little quirks, and I don’t mean to pick on any particular system. There have got to be dozens of instances of this kind of thing in most products, as designers can’t anticipate every possible way searchers will want to use these systems – but when a big workflow impediment comes up, it benefits us to document that and let our vendors know.
Update: This post has been edited to reflect that PatBase is jointly operated by Minesoft and RWS Group.
Experienced patent searchers know that searching for patent databases by company name is hard – and I mean really hard. A company which owns a patent is called the patent “assignee” in the US. Take a look at our assignee best practices wiki article over on the main Intellogist site to get an overview of some of the obstacles that can trip you up during this kind of search.
One thing that makes patent owner searching so difficult is simply that patents change hands, and when they do, the information published on the patent face is no longer correct. Another difficulty is that these types of transactions are not always on record at the USPTO. However, the USPTO does keep a US patent assignment database of all the transactions that they *have* been notified about. And fortunately, patent search vendors can update their electronic databases with the new assignment information. (by the way, as far as I know, US reassignment data is the only reassignment data that gets collected and added into commercial patent search products on a regular basis.)
Here is a quick summary of what some major commercial providers do with US reassignment data:
Filed under: Case Study, Patent Search Systems | Tagged: assignee, assignments, EPO, INPADOC, INPADOC Legal Status, LexisNexis, orbit.com, patbase, patent search vendors, QPAT, Questel, Qweb, thomson innovation, Thomson Reuters, TotalPatent | 1 Comment »