« New York Law School Announces Two New Members of the Community Patent Review Project Team | Main | Applicant Participation in the Pilot »


Dan Dobkin

Dear sir:

I would like to respectfully suggest that the existing voluntary peer review is not nearly a drastic-enough change. Obligatory peer review has served science well for over 300 years. It should be used in patents.

Every patent should be reviewed by at least 3 people skilled in the relevant art, who should be compensated for their time according to a set fee schedule (possibly considering seniority or qualifications) to minimize the financial stake they have in the result of their review. The resulting documents needn't be considered in the prosecution process but MUST be disclosed as evidence in the case of litigation related to the relevant patents. Having done some patent litigation, I can assure you that the more-or-less unbiased observations of a reviewer are MUCH more convincing than the testimony of paid experts, even those of us who do aspire to accurately represent the truth for the jury.

Availability as a reviewer might reasonably be interpreted as a professional obligation for those who hold licenses (e.g. as professional engineers), or be a pre-requisite for an individual filing their own patents.

Thanks for your consideration.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • OneWebDay

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner