Fans of Monty Python may recall the “Dead Bishop on the Landing” sketch, which included an exchange that went something like this:
“What’s for dessert?”
“We got rat pudding, rat pie, rat cake, rat sorbet, and strawberry tart.”
“Does it have any rat in it?
“Well, it does have some rat in it.”
“How much?”
“Oh, three or four. Rather a lot, really.”
“Alright, I’ll have one piece of strawberry tart without so much rat in it.”
Last week I mentioned that the Israel PTO patents database is a relatively new tool available to the public. This week I discovered that it does contains some errors.
More than three or four. Quite a few errors, actually.
For example, according to WIPO’s own publicly-available database, PCT/US2003/000012, entitled “Devices and Methods for Heart Valve Treatment” and filed in the name of Myocor, Inc. on January 8, 2003, published as WO 2003/059209 on July 24, 2003. But a search for PCT/US2003/000012 in the ILTPO database yields two Israel applications, IL 164219 and IL 164428, neither of which was filed in the name of or subsequently assigned to Myocor. Conversely, a search for WO 2003/059209 yields no Israel applications, and likewise and a search for applicant “Myocor” turns up empty.
IL 164219 was filed in the name of Bone Care International Inc., and is entitled “Method for Treating and Preventing Hypathyroidism” (the last word of the title being an obvious typographical error). According to the ILPTO database, the PCT publication number for this national phase application is WO 2003/088976, published October 30, 2003; but WIPO’s own database says that this PCT publication number corresponds to application number PCT/US2003/012013, “Method for Treating and Preventing Hyperparathyroidism”, filed April 17, 2003. Consistent with the incorrect information in the ILPTO database, a search for application number PCT/US2003/012013 in the ILPTO database yields no results, thus indicating to the searcher that there is no national phase application in Israel; but a search for WO 2003/088976 directs the user to IL 164219. Interestingly, when one clicks on the “show the WIPO publication” link for IL 164219, one is actually sent to the WIPO page for Myocor’s WO 2003/059209.
As to IL 164428, according to the ILPTO database this application (which is abandoned) is entitled “Computer-implemented system and method for measuring and improving manufacturing processes and maximizing product research and development speed and efficiency”, and corresponds to WO 2003/060812, published July 24, 2003. But according to WIPO, the PCT application number for that publication is PCT/US2003/001272, filed January 15, 2003. The ILPTO database has no record for a national phase entry for that PCT application number.
This isn’t an isolated instance. For example, the same problem exists when searching the ILPTO database for national phase applications corresponding to PCT/US2003/000013 (two national phase applications to two different entities listed), PCT/US2003/000017 (ditto), PCT/US2003/000022 (ditto), and PCT/US2003/000018 (three national phase applications to three different entities listed). That means out of the eleven PCT applications ranging from PCT/US2003/000012 to 000022, at least five are incorrectly linked with the corresponding Israel applications. “Rather a lot, really.” I’d rather have a database that doesn’t have so many errors in it, or at least not such a high incidence of errors.
That there are errors in the ILPTO database is not surprising - all databases of a sufficiently large size are bound to contain some errors (look for 12:01 Tuesday to post in the future regarding some humorous errors in the USPTO’s searchable patent database). I think that, for this reason, most patent searchers and patent practitioners recommend utilizing more than one database when searching, on the assumption that multiple sources are more likely to lead to the uncovering of errors or omissions. Nevertheless, the number of errors in the ILPTO’s database seems to be surprisingly large, to the point that it appears there may be a systemic problem with the database. Kind of makes you wonder how the ILTPO got approval in September to become a PCT search authority, but that’s for a future post.
In any case, there is a qualitative diffrence between an isolated error in a commercial database, which has no legal ramifications, and what may be a systemic error in an officially-maintained database that ostensibly reflects the legal status of a pending patent application. Significant reduction of such errors is critical if Israel is to really move to paperless patent prosecution
In any case, there is a qualitative diffrence between an isolated error in a commercial database, which has no legal ramifications, and what may be a systemic error in an officially-maintained database that ostensibly reflects the legal status of a pending patent application. Significant reduction of such errors is critical if Israel is to really move to paperless patent prosecution.
