Google Hosts Bulk USPTO Patent Data

The USPTO and Google have entered a two-year agreement to allow Google to provide bulk patent and trademark data to the public, according to a USPTO press release dated June 2.

The agreement requires Google to host the data at no charge and without modification. It appears that the data is being offered in weekly segments, at least for the last ten years or so. Older data (pre-1996) is offered in yearly files.

This is a great day for public access to patent information, especially for people who want to mine patent data or build large patent databases. I'm not sure how useful it will be for average users who might want to download a much smaller, targeted set of data.

Patent Info News Supplement / EPO Discontinues DVD Products

The EPO is now publishing a supplement with its Patent Information News newsletter that covers data and technical topics formerly covered in the INPADOC Patent News. e.g. Legal status codes, country coverage, etc. The first issue contains a nice overview of patent procedure in the U.S.

The latest issue of PIN also states that the EPO will cease production of the ESPACE WORLD DVD at the end of 2010; this product contained digital copies of PCT applications. Three other DVD products, ESPACE ACCESS, FIRST and ACCESS-EPC, are also slated to disapper. The data contained in them is now be available in a new online database called the Global Patent Index (GPI).

Thus marks another step in the long retreat from DVD as a media for disseminating patent info.

Promoting IP Awareness - Database of Materials

The WIPO has a new database called IP Outreach in Practice which contains "basic information and links to practical examples of interesting IP outreach initiatives."

It's quite an interesting collection and a great place to look for inspiration and ideas. You can search by category (IP creation, IP use and awareness, IP crime), format (tv program, curriculum material, newsletter, etc.). There's an advanced search for more complicated queries.

WIPO wants to continue building the collection. You can send examples of outreach materials or initiatives to outreach@wipo.int.

Patents and Biotech - a Broken System? Fixed by Information

A couple of months ago a Montreal-based non-profit IP consulting firm called The Innovation Partnership issued an interesting report calling for changes in the way biotechnology IP is created, disseminated and protected. In recent years there has been much debate in academic and research circles about whether the prolific patenting and licensing of biotechnology IP inhibits pure research and information sharing. The full report is available at:

Toward a New Era of Intellectual Property: From Confrontation to Negotiation - A Report from the International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property

What struck me most about the report was the number of recommendations linked to the dissemination of patent information to the public. Specifically, the authors of the report argue that... "As custodians of the patent system, patent offices around the world should...

... build publicly-available databases of patent information that can be used to better track the impact and effectiveness of not only the IP system, but of particular methods of dissemination.

... should collect patent-related information in a standard form and make this available to the public for free. Data should include information that will assist in assessing patent landscapes in targeted areas of technology, such as essential medicines. Patent databases should be linked so that a user can identify not only the patents in one country but related patents in other countries. These databases should also be easily searchable.

...should collect data on the type and major terms of licence agreements. A pilot project at the Japanese Patent Office on creating such a database should be expanded and spread to patent offices around the world.

...To better enable patent offices to respond to the needs of the public sector, these offices
should establish policy branches that would investigate ways to make data more available, assist in patent landscaping and disseminate information about the patent system.

Patent Offices Agree on Work Sharing Initiative

Joff Wild at IAM Magazine reports that the EPO, JPO, USPTO, SIPO and KIPO have just reached an agreement on a major work-sharing initiative that will reduce duplication and enhance patent examination. Part of the agreement includes the creation of 10 "Foundation Projects". The projects (as described in an EPO press release) that could have the most impact on public users of patent information include:

A) Common documentation database (lead: EPO)
Aim: To bring together a common set of relevant patent and non-patent literature from around the world to assist patent examiners in their prior art searches.

B) Common approach to hybrid classification (lead: EPO)
Aim: To enable joint and efficient updating of patent classification and facilitate the reuse of work among the patent offices.

C) Common Approach to Sharing and Documenting Search Strategies (lead: USPTO)
Aim: To promote reutilization by enabling the patent examiners of each office to understand each other's search strategy

D) Common Search and Examination Support Tools (lead: USPTO)
Aim: To establish a system of common search and examination tools to facilitate work-sharing

E) Common Access to Search and Examination Results (lead: JPO)
Aim: To enable examiners to find one-stop references in the dossier information of other offices, such as search and examination results.
To conduct the priority document exchange (PDX) to reduce the cost of ordering copies of priority documents for applicants and the administrative costs of electronic processing for offices.

F) Common Application Format (lead: JPO)
Aim: To facilitate the filing procedure of each office by using a Common Application Format; and by using electronic or digitized patent application filing (in XML format) and subsequent processing and publication in XML format.

Transparency in the US Patent System

An op-ed piece in the July 14th Wall Street Journal by L. Gordon Crovitz makes an interesting case about the shortcomings of the US patent system and the recent failure of Congress to enact patent reform. One of his criticisms is the lack of transparency in the system. This may seem odd given the amount of patent information that is available in public databases. Surely the public has never had better access to the latest patent information? Well, actually...

Although the USPTO was a leader among patent offices in publishing patent data on the web in the mid-1990s, over the past decade it hasn't invested much in its core patent databases, PatFT and AppFT. PatFT contains issued patents from 1790 to the present and AppFT contains published applications from 2001 forward. Creating a separate database for published applications may have made sense from an internal bureaucratic, ah...administrative, point of view, but it's a huge disadvantage to searchers because it forces them to do double the work. Almost every type of patent search, from a patentability search to a state-of-the-art search, must include both issued patents and published applications. Other third-party public databases such as esp@cenet, FreePatentsOnline and Patent Lens, allow users to search both types of documents at the same time.

Most patent offices publish patent documents in PDF format, but the USPTO still insists on using TIFF, an obscure format that is loathed by searchers because it requires them to install a special browser plugin such as AlternaTIFF or InterTIFF. And the USPTO still does not allow printing or saving multipage documents, forcing users to go to esp@cenet, which enabled multi-page downloads in 2004, or a third-party service like Pat2PDF, in order to download complete US documents. The USPTO allows does not allow exporting patent bibliographic data, which would be very useful for creating databases or spreadsheets for analysis purposes.

One of the biggest impediments to transparency is the fact that there is no central access point on the USPTO website to patent information. Patent documents, classification, status information, ownership, and post-grant actions are scattered in at least a half dozen systems and channels. For example, the USPTO publishes notices about expired patents, corrections, reexamination filings, reissue applications in the electronic Official Gazette, a weekly periodical that was first published (in print) in 1872. Even though the print edition was discontinued in favor of the electronic in 2002, the format of these notices has not really changed in more than fifty years. Although the OG is searchable back to 1995, it would be much more convenient to make this data available in the PatFT database and allow users to create RSS or e-mail alerts for individual patents. Users who want to check on the ownership status of a patent or published application must use the Assignments on the Web database. Users who want to view the contents of a file wrapper must use the PAIR system. Neither system is connected to the PatFT or AppFT databases.

So while the public has much better access to US patent information than it did 15 years ago, it is still very difficult to find given that it is locked up in so many different silos and stovepipes on the USPTO website. The end result is a very fragmented, user-unfriendly system that effectively hides important information.

New Patent PDF Download Tool

IP Newsflash (IPN), an information portal for IP news, official notices and case law, has added a patent document download to its suite of patent information tools. Users can retrieve a PDF copy of any patent document in the EPO's Open Patent Services (OPS) database by entering a patent or publication number. Other tools include a patent family search (with data export in XLS, DOC and XML formats), prior art search and register of EPO Board of Appeals decisions. IPN also tracks recently granted EP patents and published applications up to six months old through its EP Monitor service. Users can view graphs and lists of top applicants by IPC.

IPN is one of my favorite sites for tracking IP news. Its suite of information tools is an excellent compliment to official patent office websites.

Paris Convention and Public Access to Patents

This year is the 125th anniversary of signing of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, one of the cornerstones of the modern international industrial property system. The treaty was signed in Paris by representatives of 11 countries on March 20, 1883. Today, there are 172 member countries.

The convention introduced many important principals to international intellectual property law. First and foremost, it required members to apply the same level of protection to nationals of other member countries as their own citizens. It also established the right of priority, a grace period for the payment of maintenance fees, and the right of the inventor to be mentioned in a patent. Less well know is its impact on the dissemination of patent information.

Article 12, which has the rather ambiguous title "Special National Industrial Property Services" requires member states to make intellectual property information available to the public. Specifically, the text of the Article states:

(1) Each country of the Union undertakes to establish a special industrial property service and a central office for the communication to the public of patents, utility models, industrial designs, and trademarks.

(2) This service shall publish an official periodical journal. It shall publish regularly:
(a) the names of the proprietors of patents granted, with a brief designation of the inventions patented;
(b) the reproductions of registered trademarks.

It's easy today to take for granted free and reliable access to patent information. Would it have been so if the framers of the Paris Convention had not valued the importance of information dissemination? Would the public enjoy the level of access to patent, trademark and design information it has today? Probably not.

Big News in Patent Information Land

Joe Ebersole, founder and chief counsel for the Coalition for Patent and Trademark Information Dissemination, died on Oct. 18 in Washington, D.C. There's a brief obit in the December issue of Information Today (not yet available online) and the Washington Post (10/21). Mr. Ebersole was part of the generation that launched the modern information industry in the 1970s and 1980s. In the early 1980s he worked as director of special projects for Mead Central Data (Lexis-Nexis) and in that capacity was responsible for creating Lexpat, the world's first full-text patent system. He later moved into medical information systems.

In the 1990s he established the Coalition in order to oppose patent office efforts to make patent information available on the internet. While Ebersole was often described as a consultant to USPTO management on matters relating to patent automation, he was, in fact, a registered lobbyist whose clients included some of the largest commercial patent information vendors. He worked tirelessly to block the USPTO from improving its website. In my opinion, his influence is one of the reasons why the USPTO web-based patent databases are so under-developed compared to those of other patent offices.

Ebersole's philosophy was straightforward: patent offices had no business providing online patent information to the public that could be provided more efficiently (and at a substantial profit) by private sector vendors. [Ebersole, WPI, 2003] Of course, he conveniently ignored the fact that vendors built their search systems (developed in part with government grants and contracts) using patent data obtained from patent offices at nominal rates. In recent years many vendors have enhanced their products by linking to free patent data on patent office websites, thus avoiding the cost of storing the data and images on their own systems. Ebersole also claimed that resources spent on external information dissemination would be better spent improving internal operations for the benefit of inventors. This is a very old argument. U.S. patent commissioners in the 1870s and 1880s faced similar criticism when they began publishing a weekly gazette of patent abstracts and annual patent indexes.

The Coalition has had little impact outside the U.S. where there is greater support for patent information dissemination as a public good and a means of encouraging economic development. For example, the European Patent Office has continuously improved its esp@cenet system since it was first launched in 1998, adding 60 million patents from more than 70 countries, patent legal status and family data, enabling patent document downloading and printing, etc. According to recent articles and interviews with Wolfgang Pilch, the EPO's principal director for patent information, there are even greater things in store for esp@cenet in 2008. For example, the EPO is investigating the possibility of adding chemical structure and synonym searching.

In retrospect, the views of Mr. Ebersole and his clients were out of step with the times. In the late 1990s citizens in developed countries went online in huge numbers. Libraries, universities and government agencies at all levels turned to the internet as a means of delivering better, more effective services to their constituents. For example, the USPTO is extremely proud of its online patent and trademark application systems, which now handle 50 and 95 percent, respectively, of all new filings. Ebersole and the Coalition's arguments were also undermined by the emergence of other free independent patent databases such as FreePatentsOnline, Google Patents and Patent Lens. These services, which were created by small groups (or individuals) for a variety of entrepreneurial and idealistic motives, offer capabilities that are as good or better than many patent office websites. It will be interesting to see if the Coalition survives without Ebersole at the helm.