Patent status covers things like when was a patent specification published in its different stages, is it awaiting grant, have renewal fees being paid, has it run its full term and expired.
Some patent authorities have made free data available either on separate status databases or have incorporated it in their ordinary databases. The alternative is to ask them. Below is a list of those that I am aware of. Many are in English.
Those that can be accessed via the free Espacenet database are marked by an asterisk *. If a certain record is found, then a link is provided to the status data. For example, see the record for GB2471438, where the link to "GB Register" is just below the Bibliographic data in big, bold type, below the top banner.
I am sorry to say that I gave up trying to find the individual sites for Belgium, Greece and Italy.
Belgium *
Canada
Denmark *
European Patent Convention *
Finland *
France *
Germany
Greece *
Ireland
Italy *
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Norway *
Sweden *
Switzerland *
United Kingdom*
United States
Otherwise, Espacenet has an "Inpadoc legal status" tab on the left hand side when viewing information on a patent specification. There is often little data, or it is hard to understand it, but still, better than nothing.
The existence of the legal status databases is not given in the valuable data on Intellogist's Interactive Patent Coverage Map, and I would like to suggest that it would augment an already very useful site. For some reason the French site, at least, is indeed listed and explained. You find data on what online sources (some priced) cover a country by clicking on the continent, then on the country.
It would be helpful if the same software was used by new countries, partly to avoid duplicate effort and partly to help searchers using databases from different patent authorities.
Although I use patent status to determine if a patent is in force, ownership information is also very important for due diligence searches. If a company takeover is contemplated or occurring you obviously want to know what is owned by the company. As companies are not required to record changes in ownership or assignments (to my knowledge it is everywhere voluntary), you cannot rely on the owner name on a published patent specification. There may be false positives (it apparently has patents it doesn't have) or false negatives (it doesn't appear to have patents it does actually have).
Data on litigation (such as links to court cases) is rarely provided, and would again be useful.
I retired in April 2013 after 25 years as a librarian at the British Library specialising in inventions. This included running numerous workshops; writing books on inventions and a work blog; carrying out searches for clients; and one-to-one meetings with inventors. [more]
[ABOUT ME] [CONSULTANCY WORK] [FAVOURITE LINKS] [BOOKS] [CONTACT]
Showing posts with label Databases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Databases. Show all posts
4 September 2014
3 September 2014
Negative lists for patent searchers
The free Espacenet patent database contains a vast number of patents and can be searched in a number of ways. One of its features is the ability to create lists of important patents.
When a search is run, each entry in the results has a blue star on the left hand side. By clicking on the star, it turns red and the same entry is available in the "My patents list" folder above the hit list.
This means that useful patents can be noted for future study. In addition, if another search is run, those already marked in this way appear with a red rather than a blue star to show that they have already been put in the folder.
This is a useful feature and avoids wasted time looking at the same patents again and again in modified searches. Two small suggestions are that it would be useful if additional folders were available, and if they could be named, as a searcher might be dealing with more than one search.
However, this post is really about supplementing this concept of a folder of "positive", wanted, hits with a second folder of unwanted hits -- a negative folder.
Just as you can indicate that you "like" a patent, you should be able to indicate you "dislike" a patent that might seem from the brief details on the hit list to be relevant. In the same way as with the "likes", the searcher can simply disregard the entry on a revised search. There is no need to look at it again, you are reminded that you have already seen it and found it to be irrelevant.
Maybe the red star could be replaced by a "thumbs up" for positive and "thumbs down" for negative documents.
When a search is run, each entry in the results has a blue star on the left hand side. By clicking on the star, it turns red and the same entry is available in the "My patents list" folder above the hit list.
This means that useful patents can be noted for future study. In addition, if another search is run, those already marked in this way appear with a red rather than a blue star to show that they have already been put in the folder.
This is a useful feature and avoids wasted time looking at the same patents again and again in modified searches. Two small suggestions are that it would be useful if additional folders were available, and if they could be named, as a searcher might be dealing with more than one search.
However, this post is really about supplementing this concept of a folder of "positive", wanted, hits with a second folder of unwanted hits -- a negative folder.
Just as you can indicate that you "like" a patent, you should be able to indicate you "dislike" a patent that might seem from the brief details on the hit list to be relevant. In the same way as with the "likes", the searcher can simply disregard the entry on a revised search. There is no need to look at it again, you are reminded that you have already seen it and found it to be irrelevant.
Maybe the red star could be replaced by a "thumbs up" for positive and "thumbs down" for negative documents.
8 January 2014
The British registered design database: a critique
Registered designs (called design patents in the USA) can be a significant part of an innovator's arsenal if the looks, rather than the function, of an article is important. This post is an assessment of the free UK official online registered designs database.
It is not explained how far back the database goes, but there is certainly material as far back as 1984, and maximum protection is 25 years. Hence all currently protected designs ought to be on it. In 2012, 5,144 designs were registered, of which 3,797 were of UK origin. The numbers were about double that in 2002, when half were of foreign origin, but the EU designs at OHIM has had a big impact since then, as it offers an attractive alternative to using a national office.
Searches can be carried out by design number, by proprietor name; by classification; or by a combination of the last two.
Searching by number is easy (if you know it), as each seven digit number is unique (and none in the database have fewer digits). At present designs are in a 4 million range.
The results are 32 images appearing in a tile like pattern which is very useful for checking for similar images. This can be altered so that display is of up to 132 images. The US Patent Office's examiners uses this as a convenient way to scan for prior art. The UK gave up checking for novelty some years ago.
More recent registrations are usually photographs, often coloured, but earlier designs are often line drawings and are difficult to see on the screen. The design number and the first letters of the proprietor are also given. Here are examples.
Clicking on the image leads through to the results. See for example UK Design 3019248. I tried copying the data and sticking it into this post, but that was a failure.
The format is awkward to use, to put it mildly. Clicking on boxes opens data or images. It needs a complete overhaul to meet modern expectations, such as easy printing or downloading. Anyone needing to read or print off the full data should access the "View full Bibliography" page at top right. Fees are due every 5 years to keep the design in force, and data on payments plus address details are given. That format can indeed be printed, buit it lacks any image.
For images, "Best View" at top left is the representative image selected for the results list. The "Formal Rep" pages are the pages showing the design as sent in. Anyone wanting to print them has to save each page and print them individually, and had better keep good records, as none of the pages state that they are British registered designs. The number is stamped or written on the Formal Rep pages, admittedly, but a novice could easily think that that was a patent number as that's it: a number, nothing else. I'd like to see at least e.g. "UK registered design xxxxxxx" stamped on each page, but preferably the presence of a formal front page containing data and a main image, or even everything incorporated in one document as a PDF, such as US Design 696744.
Subject searching is not possible by the title of the design (why not ?) but only by clicking open and selecting classes in an enhanced version of the Locarno classification. The enhancements is the best part of the database. Locarno provides classes such as 14/02 (data processing equipment and peripherals) or 21/01 (games and toys). These are big classes, so the ability to add a third level is very useful. Hence 14/02 is subdivided into 15 classes, such as 14/02/02, input devices. Hence 21/01 is subdivided into about 100 classes, such as 21/01/04B, flat game boards for football and cricket.
However, many of these third level classes are described in such detail that the full title runs off the screen (21/01 has many examples). They are unusable since what they represent cannot be identified.
Turning to searching by name, individuals can only be searched by the surname. Knowing the first name is no use at all. You can combine a name search with a class search, but only down to e.g. 25/1 or 25/2 level, not just 25 level. Often you only need the approximate class area to reduce the results found.
In conclusion, the database is valuable but I would like to see some substantial changes to make it even better. These are:
(1) Providing "UK registered design xxxxxx" data stamped on the drawings.
(2) Changing the format of the individual results to ease printing and downloading.
(3) Enabling searching by title
(4) Enabling the full titles of all third level classes to be viewed
(5) Enabling combined proprietor and class searches to be down to e.g. Class 22 and not 22/01 level
It is not explained how far back the database goes, but there is certainly material as far back as 1984, and maximum protection is 25 years. Hence all currently protected designs ought to be on it. In 2012, 5,144 designs were registered, of which 3,797 were of UK origin. The numbers were about double that in 2002, when half were of foreign origin, but the EU designs at OHIM has had a big impact since then, as it offers an attractive alternative to using a national office.
Searches can be carried out by design number, by proprietor name; by classification; or by a combination of the last two.
Searching by number is easy (if you know it), as each seven digit number is unique (and none in the database have fewer digits). At present designs are in a 4 million range.
The results are 32 images appearing in a tile like pattern which is very useful for checking for similar images. This can be altered so that display is of up to 132 images. The US Patent Office's examiners uses this as a convenient way to scan for prior art. The UK gave up checking for novelty some years ago.
More recent registrations are usually photographs, often coloured, but earlier designs are often line drawings and are difficult to see on the screen. The design number and the first letters of the proprietor are also given. Here are examples.
Clicking on the image leads through to the results. See for example UK Design 3019248. I tried copying the data and sticking it into this post, but that was a failure.
The format is awkward to use, to put it mildly. Clicking on boxes opens data or images. It needs a complete overhaul to meet modern expectations, such as easy printing or downloading. Anyone needing to read or print off the full data should access the "View full Bibliography" page at top right. Fees are due every 5 years to keep the design in force, and data on payments plus address details are given. That format can indeed be printed, buit it lacks any image.
For images, "Best View" at top left is the representative image selected for the results list. The "Formal Rep" pages are the pages showing the design as sent in. Anyone wanting to print them has to save each page and print them individually, and had better keep good records, as none of the pages state that they are British registered designs. The number is stamped or written on the Formal Rep pages, admittedly, but a novice could easily think that that was a patent number as that's it: a number, nothing else. I'd like to see at least e.g. "UK registered design xxxxxxx" stamped on each page, but preferably the presence of a formal front page containing data and a main image, or even everything incorporated in one document as a PDF, such as US Design 696744.
Subject searching is not possible by the title of the design (why not ?) but only by clicking open and selecting classes in an enhanced version of the Locarno classification. The enhancements is the best part of the database. Locarno provides classes such as 14/02 (data processing equipment and peripherals) or 21/01 (games and toys). These are big classes, so the ability to add a third level is very useful. Hence 14/02 is subdivided into 15 classes, such as 14/02/02, input devices. Hence 21/01 is subdivided into about 100 classes, such as 21/01/04B, flat game boards for football and cricket.
However, many of these third level classes are described in such detail that the full title runs off the screen (21/01 has many examples). They are unusable since what they represent cannot be identified.
Turning to searching by name, individuals can only be searched by the surname. Knowing the first name is no use at all. You can combine a name search with a class search, but only down to e.g. 25/1 or 25/2 level, not just 25 level. Often you only need the approximate class area to reduce the results found.
In conclusion, the database is valuable but I would like to see some substantial changes to make it even better. These are:
(1) Providing "UK registered design xxxxxx" data stamped on the drawings.
(2) Changing the format of the individual results to ease printing and downloading.
(3) Enabling searching by title
(4) Enabling the full titles of all third level classes to be viewed
(5) Enabling combined proprietor and class searches to be down to e.g. Class 22 and not 22/01 level
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)