Locating close prior art provides a critical edge in patent litigation or licensing, by documenting that the patent in question should not have been granted due to anticipatory (102) or obviousness (103) art. However, the prior art defense is contingent upon successfully locating such art. as most law firms have discovered, there is a wide range of outcomes when a prior art search is commissioned. this is dramatically evident when a Joint defense Group commissions 3 searches and compares the results, only to find that while they purport to cover the same materials, the outcomes are dramatically different.
The challenge of assessing the quality of a search is difficult, since attorneys have no way of knowing what critical findings were missed. consequently, they tend to rely on proxies to gauge the quality of a search, e.g. the number of findings uncovered, the total number of databases reviewed, length of the search report, etc. However, there is no evidence that any of these factors correlate with search integrity.
The challenge of assessing the quality of a search is difficult, since attorneys have no way of knowing what critical findings were missed. consequently, they tend to rely on proxies to gauge the quality of a search, e.g. the number of findings uncovered, the total number of databases reviewed, length of the search report, etc. However, there is no evidence that any of these factors correlate with search integrity.