ARTICLE ONE PARTNERS
amount in foreign language publications that isn’t digitised and, even for English language articles, figures and tables aren’t digitised. So, really, there is a treasure chest of information which can help people understand the value of patents.”
When it’s received, a reference goes through an automated filter at AOP to see how closely it fits the technology description, before it’s sent back to the client. The process typically takes four to six weeks as, for example, requesting hard copies from libraries can take two weeks. Afterwards, the clients can go back and ask the researchers for more articles by the same author, or for more information, so there is the ability to “iterate” the results, says Milone.
“Having the four to six-week timeframe allows more of
that iteration, which can provide
additional value to clients. But occasionally, if a client has a more urgent need, we can cut the wait to as little as a few days.”
Pointing towards the benefits of crowd sourcing, she says it enables researchers to unearth information that might otherwise be tricky to find. Tis is particularly true in less-developed regions where there may be inadequate databases or non-digitised information. “In these places, crowd sourcing is beneficial because the native language speakers go beyond those limitations and are able to look at hard copies,” she says.
Milone uses the examples of Russia, the Middle East, South America and Africa, and even “developed regions for prior art such as Japan, China and Korea”, where she says the community can produce better results than a firm based in those countries. “Again, it’s the aggregation of resources.”
Some would argue that smaller teams of
researchers are more effective than a crowd. But while Milone admits that small teams conduct high quality research, she believes they are limited to which databases they can use. “It’s not the researchers, it’s the limitations placed on them— and that’s what crowd sourcing overcomes.”
Most importantly, she says, AOP’s work allows patent owners to fully understand their objectives. “For example, in validity it was difficult historically to determine whether the search was accurate unless you found a smoking gun. Now, with this platform, because of the aggregation of so many resources, even where a smoking gun is not found, the client has more confidence that every stone has been turned.”
Broadcasting is another benefit of the crowd- sourcing model: AOP’s platform amounts, in effect, to a public notice that patents are being
60
“Courts are seeing assertive claims over patents, and it is exciting to work for a company that is helping to evaluate these innovations (while they’re defending their patents) and to build their portfolios to support innovation,” she adds. “AOP is a fundamental component of building patent quality, so if there are higher quality patents and fewer lawyers in the system, then the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can return to its original mandate, which is to drive innovation rather than driving litigation and being driven by litigation.”
While AOP has made positive strides since
forming four years ago, it is still a young company looking up to bigger players in the market. Its presence in Europe is low key, and although it operates mainly in the US, there are still other, more established rivals working there.
“BECAUSE OF THE AGGREGATION OF SO MANY RESOURCES, EVEN WHERE A SMOKING GUN IS NOT FOUND, THE CLIENT HAS MORE CONFIDENCE THAT EVERY STONE HAS BEEN TURNED.”
researched. In turn, for companies routinely targeted by aggressive, non-practising entities (NPEs), it becomes easier to highlight the risks associated with an NPE’s actions. “So it’s helping to defend and deter those actions,” says Milone.
When cases come to court, how direct is the relationship between AOP’s research and patents being invalidated? “It’s hard to judge,” she says. “It’s not a one-to-one relationship. Litigation is a long process.”
While this may be true, Milone says she does know of patents that have been invalidated with the help of evidence provided by AOP. And she says there can be a more direct relationship aſter the America Invents Act, with its ‘first inventor to file’ system, is implemented in September 2012. “It has very clear proceedings for adjudicating patents, and those will be helpful because they will be having a close look at patent validity and making a decision to allow the stakeholders to move on and not waste resources on patent disputes,” she says.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 The birth of crowd sourcing
According to Roya Ghafele, an academic at Oxford University who has worked with AOP, it was Professor Beth Noveck who first wrote about crowd sourcing for prior art searches. Noveck, formerly head of the Open Government Initiative under President Obama’s administration, published an article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology in 2006. In it she described a “crisis of patent quality” at the USPTO, worsened by restricted access to information. “Examiners may neither consult the public, talk to experts nor, in many cases, even use the Internet,” she says. In Noveck’s view, the answer was for the office to adopt a “peer to patent” model: crowd sourcing.
In the same vein as Noveck and AOP, Ghafele says crowd sourcing, which she compares to online reference source Wikipedia, is the “right thing to do”. She says that, potentially, it can help patent offices in developing countries to better examine their patents, contributing to higher patent quality and, ultimately, to bringing down the cost of
litigation. “This
game would be reduced if the patent offices issued patents of better quality,” she says.
But, for AOP, here lies something of a paradox. While the company helps to find information that patent offices have missed, it also relies on their missing this information to expose their mistakes. Of course, patent offices can’t be expected to find all the prior art in the world, and there will always be a market for filling in these gaps. But the more efficient the patent office is—to some extent at least—the less AOP and its peers will be required.
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128