Inside the mind of an EPO examiner

Lahorte, Philippe

doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2017.03.005

World Patent Information

2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.wpi.2017.03.005

|View full text |Cite

Inside the mind of an EPO examiner

Philippe Lahorte

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2020

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that external peer review, analogous to review at a scientific journal, should be distinguished from internal peer review through teamed examination (Ho ), supervisorial review (Ho & Sherman ), or informal peer effects (Frakes & Wasserman ). The European Patent Office already involves significant collaboration and peer review in the examiner training process (Lahorte ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review

Ho¹,

Ouellette²

2020

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many have advocated for the expansion of peer review to improve scientific judgments in law and public policy. One such test case is the patent examination process, with numerous commentators arguing that scientific peer review can solve informational deficits in patent determinations. We present results from a novel randomized field experiment, carried out over the course of three years, in which 336 prominent scientific experts agreed to provide input on U.S. patent applications. Their input was edited for compliance with submission requirements and submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by our research team. We show that the intervention caused examiners to (1) increase search efforts and citations to the non‐patent (scientific) literature and (2) grant the application at lower rates in the first instance. However, results were substantially weaker and resource costs substantially higher than anticipated in the literature, highlighting significant challenges and questions of institutional design in bringing scientific expertise into law and government.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review

Ho¹,

Ouellette²

2020

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bridge strongly or focus – An analysis of bridging patents in four application fields of carbon fiber reinforcements

Moehrle

Frischkorn

2021

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early Certainty in patent cases involving by opposition proceedings

Hoock

Brown

2020

World Patent Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Inside the mind of an EPO examiner

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review

Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review

Bridge strongly or focus – An analysis of bridging patents in four application fields of carbon fiber reinforcements

Early Certainty in patent cases involving by opposition proceedings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About