Obtaining patents that will withstand litigation is one of the primarily goals of a good patent practitioner, but unfortunately, it is not always clear which prosecution strategies will ensure positive outcomes in court.
Conventional wisdom used to be that a longer prosecution record was bad for litigation—the court might use file wrapper estoppel to further limit your claims—but now some practitioners are erring towards a longer record to have more evidence of patentability.
So what prosecution features—if any—are tied to positive litigation outcomes? Now that we actually have data tying prosecution events to litigation outcomes, we can give you the most “lawyerly” answer: it depends.
LexisNexis PatentAdvisor® recently teamed up with Lex Machina® to integrate the valuable litigation data (including District Court litigation, PTAB post-grant, and ITC proceedings) from Lex Machina into the PatentAdvisor® prosecution statistics dashboards. So for any examiner, art unit, technology center, etc., you can see what types of post-grant review has occurred, and whether the patents at issue withstood review.
Litigated patents from technology center group 2810
One interesting observation that has already come out of this unique data combination is that most litigated patents come from experienced examiners with “primary” status.¹
But it turns out that many correlations between pre- and post-grant events vary by technology area. Fortunately, PatentAdvisor provides you with all of the data for whatever technology space you are working in. Using PatentAdvisor, you can find correlations of countless prosecution features—number of office actions, rejection type, issue date—to litigation outcomes. For example, we discovered that there may be something to the conventional wisdom that longer prosecution records can lead to worse litigation outcomes, at least in technology center group 3690 (electric commerce). In this group, it turns out that the percentage of patents having an outcome that we characterize as a “win” for the patent owner is nearly cut in half for applications that underwent extensive prosecution, defined as having 4 or more office actions.
0-3 office actions, technology center group 3690
4+ office actions, technology center group 3690
Players in this technology area may want to take note, and ensure that prosecution remains as compact as possible. Of course, this is just one way that PatentAdvisor can help you to get stronger patents, faster. For more ways, check out LexisNexis PatentAdvisor.
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.