When Chris Holt created the “Examiner Allowance Rate” metric for what would become LexisNexis PatentAdvisor® over 10 years ago, it was a breakthrough innovation in the area of patent prosecution. For the first time, IP attorneys and other patent professionals had access to a tool that allowed them to conduct an objective evaluation of their examiner. This data-driven metric was used to guide patent prosecution strategies and was soon replicated in various forms.
Now, armed by the emergence of new data science and deeper analytics capabilities, PatentAdvisor™ is once again leading the way and ushering in a new era of innovation in patent analytics with a revolutionary new metric for predicting patent examiner behavior.
PatentAdvisor ETA™ is the single most informative metric for predicting Patent Examiner behavior.
It is now possible to easily, and with more accuracy than ever, predict an assigned examiner’s behavior and identify cases that require extra care and a carefully crafted prosecution strategy. Examiner Time Allocation is a predictive indicator of prosecution length that measures how an examiner behaves, exclusive to PatentAdvisor.
ETA™ is based on a proprietary algorithm that takes into consideration the examiner’s pending portfolio, how long they have been at the USPTO, and a wide range of important statistical evaluations of the examiner’s historical actions.
Within PatentAdvisor, the ETA metric is instantly identifiable, reflected as a color-coded range of numerical favorability. We have further broken down the ETA metric into easy-to-understand color categories that identify, in the most simplistic terms, whether you have been assigned a favorable or less favorable examiner.
Red = ETA of 6+, indicating a high likelihood of long prosecution length, examiner having less experience, granting less than 15 applications per year, on average
Yellow = ETA of 2.6-5.9, indicating mediocre prosecution length, examiner having average experience, granting between 15-150 applications per year, on average
Green = ETA of .1-2.5, indicating high likelihood of a short prosecution length, examiner having lots of experience, granting over 150 applications per year, on average
This simple dashboard metric provides a far more useful predictor of examiner behavior than any tool previously available in the marketplace so that patent professionals can adjust their prosecution strategy based on the guidance it delivers.
ETA is more accurate and a better predictor of examiner’s behavior than Examiner Allowance Rate because it is based upon the examiner’s actual body of work.
In this sense, ETA is superior to the Examiner Allowance Rate metric because it predicts both the likelihood and the difficulty of obtaining a patent from the assigned USPTO examiner. It contemplates all pending applications in front of the examiner and assesses the examiner’s own behaviors, uninfluenced by the filer’s actions.
In a recently released Better Patents Now podcast, Chris and Megan discuss the “Birth of the Ultimate Metric,” which introduces PatentAdvisor ETA™ in more detail and shares the vision behind the innovation. Ask for a free 2-day trial of LexisNexis PatentAdvisor to see ETA™ in action.
Get to know your examiner better with more context and a deeper understanding of your examiner’s behavior than ever available before.
With your free trial, you will gain instant access to:
Examiner Search allows you to search by examiner name for a filterable, examiner specific dashboard of patent analytics, including rejection specific statistics, appeal statistics, prosecution statistics, interview statistics, a backlog of RCEs and timeline.
QuickPair easily replaces the USPTO Public PAIR by providing the most robust application details anywhere, including examiner timeline, examiner allowance rate and the average time and number of office actions to allowance.
PatentAdvisor, the first-ever data-driven patent strategy tool, provides a systemic approach to crafting an effective prosecution strategy. Understand why certain patent applications take longer than others to reach allowance—then use that knowledge to devise better patent prosecution strategies.