Yesterday, the Israel PTO sent out a notice that, in translation, reads as follows:
“After several years of successful cooperation with the company Similari in the area of prior art searching by means of an AI-based tool, the engagement with the company has concluded.
“The Authority [viz. the ILPTO] is expected in the coming months to issue a new tender for an AI-based search tool. As a result of this, we are terminating the search service of the Similari company on the Authority’s web site, effective 11 June 2024.
“We apologize for the inconvenience which may be caused as a result of this, and invite the public to continue to utilize the variety of databases that are available on the Authority’s web site for searching prior art.
“We take this opportunity to thank the Similari company for a fruitful collaboration.”
I wasn’t sure what to make of this, so I poked around on the ILPTO’s website. It turns out that the website has a page that includes links to various databases that are available to users free of charge. Below is screenshot of that page taken yesterday.
As one can see, the link to “Similari” is at the top. Clicking on that link (https://app.similari.com/ilpo, which after today will no longer function) takes one to the company’s site. Below is the screen that greets the user:
What I found disconcerting was that, clicking through, the system appears to prefer that users input an entire patent application for search purposes. To me, that’s just bizarre: (a) if I’m interested in a prior art search, why would I go to the trouble of drafting a full patent application before I’ve done the search? (b) Why would draft a full application that discloses the client’s invention, and then give that application to a third party, thereby disclosing the client’s invention to that third party, which has no obligation – contractual or otherwise – maintain that disclosure in secrecy? Even if I had drafted a patent application and filed it, and used that filed application as the basis for my search, presumably the idea would be to use the search results to draft an improved patent application, in which case the delta between the two applications would be unprotected vis-à-vis the first application that was disclosed to Similari.
So in trying to help individual inventors and small applicants by providing a link to Similari, the ILPTO may have inadvertently put those inventors’ and applicants’ IP at risk.
Similari apparently has a subscription service available. Maybe a non-disclosure agreement is included as part of its contract with paying clients. On its website the company includes a blurb about data privacy, and it’s hard to imagine a company like this gaining a significant number of paying customers without protecting clients’ disclosures.
The availability of a subscription service from Similari raises an interesting question: has the ILPTO been using Similari to assist in conducting (or to conduct in full) prior art searches? It turns out that the answer is “yes”. The statute allows the ILPTO to engage third-party search services, and the wording of the ILPTO’s announcement (specifically the part about a new tender) implies that yes, the ILPTO has been using Similari. More importantly, tucked in the Office’s annual report for 2020 includes the following statement:
“In 2020, patent examiners began using the "SIMILARI" artificial intelligence-based search tool. Examiners use this tool as a primary search tool, after which the examiner completes the search using additional commercial search databases available at the ILPO. The new tool improves efficiency and quality of the search. It is worthy noting the search is run automatically for each application before the examiner starts the examination.”
Payment by the ILPTO for Similari’s services would help explain why the company has been willing to provide (at least in part) its search services to the public for free, and termination or non-renewal of a contract with Similari would explain why that public search service will no longer be available.
Another question that arises is, Why did the ILPTO wait until the end of the contract with Similari before even beginning the process of issuing a new tender to provide similar services? How are examiners going to conduct searches at this point? Or are searches such going to languish until a new contract is signed with a different company?