Patent infringement litigation : trends and the role of patent examinations / Lindsey Gonzales, editor.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Vendor-supplied metadata.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION TRENDS AND THE ROLE OF PATENT EXAMINATIONS ; PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION TRENDS AND THE ROLE OF PATENT EXAMINATIONS ; Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data; CONTENTS ; PREFACE ; Chapter 1 PATENT LITIGATION AND USPTO TRIALS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PATENT EXAMINATION QUALITY*; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ; Introduction ; Methods ; Results ; 1. INTRODUCTION ; 2. BACKGROUND; 2.1. Determinants of Litigation ; 2.2. A Brief Literature Review ; 2.3. The Patent Examination Process ; 3. MATCHED CASE-CONTROL STUDIES ; 3.1. Data Sources

3.1.1. GAO Litigated Patent Data3.1.2. PTAB Inter Partes Review Data ; 3.1.3. PALM Data ; 3.1.4. Other USPTO Data Sources ; 3.1.5. Database Construction ; 3.2. Matched Samples ; 3.2.1. Matching Algorithms ; 1. Define the set of all potential matches. ; 2. Choose one control patent for each litigated patent as defined by the particular matching algorithm. ; a. Citation match. ; b. Propensity score matching. ; 3.2.2. Matched Litigation Sample ; 3.2.3. Matched IPR Sample ; 3.3. Explanatory Variables ; 3.3.1. Application Characteristics ; Small Entity Status; Number of Parent Applications

PendencyForeign Origin ; 3.3.2. Examination Characteristics ; IDS Filings ; Number of Interviews ; Examination Pendency ; RCE Count; Appeals ; First-Action Allowance ; Examiner Seniority ; 3.3.3. Characteristics of Allowed Claims ; Number of Independent Claims ; Words Per Independent Claim; Functional Claiming ; 4. ESTIMATION OF MATCHED CASE-CONTROL STUDIES ; 4.1. Incidence of Litigation ; 4.1.1. Means Comparisons ; 4.1.2. Conditional Logistic Results ; 4.2. The Likelihood of an IPR Petition ; 4.2.1. Means Comparisons ; 4.2.2. Conditional Logistic Results

5. COMPARISON OF INSTITUTED AND NON-INSTITUTED IPR-PETITIONED PATENTS 5.1. Data and Methods ; 5.2. Results ; 5.2.1. Descriptive Statistics ; 5.2.2. Logistic Results ; 6. HANDS-ON REVIEW OF PATENTS WHICH HAVE UNDERGONE IPR ; 6.1. Data and Methods ; 6.2. Results ; 6.2.1. Sources of Prior Art Relied on in the Decision ; 6.2.2. The Examiner's Prior Art Search; 6.2.3. The Examiner's Handling of Prior Art Rejections ; 6.2.4. The Examiner's Handling of Application Continuity ; 6.2.5. Substantive Interviews between the Examiner and the Applicant ; 6.2.6. Claim Interpretation Issues ; CONCLUSION

8. GLOSSARY 9. APPENDIX I. IPR PROCEEDINGS STUDIED IN HANDS-ON REVIEW ; 10. APPENDIX II. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HANDS-ON REVIEW BY QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALISTS AT USPTO; REFERENCES ; End Notes ; Chapter 2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: ASSESSING FACTORS THAT AFFECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION COULD HELP IMPROVE PATENT QUALITY* ; WHY GAO DID THIS STUDY ; WHAT GAO RECOMMENDS ; WHAT GAO FOUND ; ABBREVIATIONS ; BACKGROUND ; NUMBER OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUITS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY IN 2011 AND THE NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS INCREASED BETWEEN 2007 AND 2011

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide