Patent Re-Exams Improve Patent Quality; So Why Does Congress Want To Limit Them?

from the questions-that-should-be-answered dept

I've explained why I'm not comfortable with the proposed patent reform effort, as there are a number of changes in it that could potentially make the system much worse. One example, as the EFF highlighted last month, was that it would unnecessarily limit the ability of third parties to request a re-exam of a patent. Now the EFF is looking through some statistics and noting some rather shocking numbers about third-party-initiated patent re-exams. Contrary to what some supporters of the patent system claim, it appears that a large majority of these requests aren't just legitimate requests, but serve to have a patent's claims limited or rejected entirely. 92% of re-exam requests are granted, with 3 out of every 4 exams resulting in adjustments (or total rejections) of the patents. In other words, clearly, the process helps improve patent quality. So why would Congress want to remove that part?

However, a much bigger question should probably be: why is the Patent Office so bad at getting things right the first time around? If so many patents end up needing to be corrected on re-exam, it certainly sounds like patent examiners aren't doing a very good job. Given the already massive economic costs that result from bad patents, this should be a major concern.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: patent reform, patents, re-exam, uspto

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    steve wren, 19 Mar 2008 @ 8:40am


    I wish the shills for large corporate thieves would stop whining about patents and put effort into developing innovative technologies to help us better compete with the Chinese. But then many of those companies can no longer innovate or were never truly very good at, relying more on superior capitol and antitrust behavior as we read about nowadays so often.

    As to the PTO statistics you cite, not so fast. Just because claims are narrower, does not mean the patentee no longer owns patents covering meaningful or even essential technologies. Sometimes the claims are broader than needed as a practical matter so narrowing may not have any bearing on protection. Your cries of a “substantial effect” are unsupported without further data and you fail to cite any instance where these 3rd party submissions have proved fruitful. It is interesting to note that you do not specify the probability that all claims were reversed. That of course would justify such a declaration of a “substantial effect”.

    As for the EFF, who funds them? Could it be that they are funded by the same corporate raiders who are so often found guilty of stealing others innovations? Are they truly an advocacy group, or just paid assassins? Are these really 3rd party submissions anyway? They should come out publicly and release the names of their principal funding sources, or sit down and shut up.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.