High-quality patents enable certainty and clarity of rights, which fuels innovation and reduces needless litigation. The Patent Quality Forum Series presents senior USPTO executives and patent quality experts discussing the latest achievements of the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI), highlighting options to participate in current quality programs, and conducting panel discussions where stakeholders can share ideas about enhancing patent quality for the future.
The USPTO is hosting this Patent Quality Community Symposium to update the public on the status of our quality enhancing programs, to introduce some developing programs, collect your feedback and to continue the discussion from a stakeholder’s perspective on what patent applicants and their representatives can do to enhance quality.
Moreover, a practitioner panel will highlight how you can file and prosecute a quality application. The programs of the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, as well as other quality-focused programs in the patents area, will be highlighted by USPTO experts. We are strengthening work products, processes, services, and how we measure patent quality at all stages of the patent process. To ensure we continue issuing high-quality patents well into the future, we established the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI). Empowering innovation through enhanced quality experience how we review examiners’ work product to assess quality; and gain strategies for enhancing your application filings, responses and examiner interactions during prosecution. If you are a patent applicant, practitioner, or litigator, please attend to:
As the USPTO pursues patent quality, so too are practitioners seeking ways to address this issue in their work.
To this end, we draw attention to three important books by Larry Goldstein.
TRUE PATENT VALUE is intended for four groups of readers: (1) Entrepreneurs and engineers who until now had no way of judging how good their patents are; (2) Patent attorneys and agents looking for a concentration of live cases where specific drafting created (or failed to create) valuable patents; (3) Corporate executives, corporate Board members, and patent brokers, contemplating the purchase or sale of patent portfolios; (4) Investment advisors, equity analysts, and investment bankers working with high-tech companies, who need to understand whether a patent portfolio truly adds value.
The first book in the series, TRUE PATENT VALUE: Defining Quality in Patents and Patent Portfolios, was published in 2013, and the third book in the series, PATENT PORTFOLIOS: Quality, Creation, and Cost, will be published soon. • Second, twenty case studies of more than fifty patents. Each case study or portfolio analysis concludes with a short and pointed list of “Lessons Learned”. Specific patents are analyzed and shown to commit or avoid the most common patent mistakes. The book includes three main sections: • First, a review of basic patent concepts, and of techniques used by professional evaluators to review and rate patent quality. This section also includes an analysis of the patent portfolios of three high-tech companies, reviewed by quality, by geographic balance, and by balance over time.
LITIGATION-PROOF PATENTS: Avoiding the Most Common Patent Mistakes explains the principles of excellent patents, presents the ten most common errors in patents, and details a step-by-step method for avoiding these common errors. Litigation-Proof Patents: Avoiding the Most Common Patent Mistakes Paperback – October 29, 2014 by Mr. Larry M Goldstein (Author). It is intended for patent evaluators who want to understand whether or not the patents being reviewed suffer from value-destroying mistakes. It is intended for patent managers and heads of IP departments who are managing significant patent portfolios, and who want to understand the relative quality of their portfolios. • First, a step-by-step process for writing outstanding patents that capture all the innovative points of an invention and that avoid the most common patent mistakes. • Second, principles of litigation-proof patents, including characteristics of good patent claims, Key Claim Terms, patent value, seminal patents, and tips for writing patent applications. • Third, the ten most common mistakes that appear frequently in patents, and that destroy both patent quality and patent value. • Fourth, five patents that illustrate the concept of “litigation-proof patents”.
PATENT PORTFOLIOS is directed specifically to people who manage patent portfolios, or who advise others on the management of patent portfolios. Patent Portfolios: Quality, Creation, and Cost Paperback – January 3, 2015. by Mr. Larry M Goldstein (Author). How is it possible to obtain an excellent patent portfolio? 3. The book answers three questions: 1. What is an excellent patent portfolio? 2. What is the cost to obtain an excellent patent portfolio? Specific portfolios are presented as examples illustrating the principles of excellence.
Ten principles of high-quality patent portfolios are discussed, including, among others, corporate & patent strategies, geographic & time balance, criteria for measuring the success of a patent program, and placement of the patenting function within a company. • Chapter 1 presents the basic concepts of a “portfolio” as opposed to a single patent. • Chapter 2 discusses ways of creating an excellent patent portfolio. • Chapter 3 discusses budgeting for investment in patents, including benchmarks for patent investing and the four most common methods used by companies to budget their investments in patent portfolios. • Chapter 4 is a Summary in Question & Answer format, with particular emphasis on Basic Characteristics of Excellent Portfolios, Managing the Portfolio, Budgeting for Patents, Technology Inflection Points, Patent Aggregation, and Patent Evaluation.
The chapter reviews in detail two major portfolio decisions (build or buy, and quality or quantity), and presents a model for an in-house patent program to create an excellent portfolio.
The following YouTube video clip provides a recorded presentation of the LexisNexis panel discussion entitled:</span>