Last week, Patent
Docs published a post on the recent White Paper issued from the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office regarding provisions contained in the "Managers' Amendment" of
the Senate patent reform bill (S. 515) (see "USPTO White Paper Supports Patent Reform Proposals").
The first author of that Paper, Ms. Arti Rai (at right),
Administrator for External Affairs for the USPTO, has now
graciously responded to the post, pointing out areas of agreement and
disagreement with the views expressed in our post. We are grateful for her continued input, and post her response
here to further the discussion.
A response to Kevin Noonan:
We read with interest Kevin Noonan's comments ("USPTO
White Paper Supports Patent Reform Proposals" in http://www.patentdocs.org, April 22) on the
Department of Commerce white paper I co-authored with Mark Doms and Stuart
Graham on patent reform, innovation, jobs, and economic growth. While some of
Dr. Noonan's assertions relative to the white
paper seem misplaced, others are fair and underscore the need for
additional research in this area of inquiry.The intended audience of this white paper is not,
as Dr. Noonan suggests, a "technology-savvy audience" but rather the
broader public audience. The
important role technology improvements play in economic growth, job creation,
and increased standards of living are not – regrettably – as widely appreciated
as Dr. Noonan suggests. The role
that a well-functioning patent system plays in spurring technology improvements
and enabling the diffusion of innovative goods and services is even less widely
appreciated. The white paper aims at educating the broader
audience about these two extremely important points, and at highlighting the
potential economic benefits of certain aspects of patent reform legislation.In many of his criticisms, Dr. Noonan faults the
paper for including too little theoretical or empirical evidence to support its
arguments. While we readily
acknowledge that in some areas the evidence is underdeveloped, our conclusions
are based on the best available evidence.
And in many circumstances, like the research supporting post-grant
review, we believe the evidence to be overwhelming. There are also instances in which Dr. Noonan asserts a lack
of evidence where the evidence is in fact provided in the cited materials.
Additionally, we note that in all but one instance in which he claims that
cited sources are not publicly available, they are — in publicly available
sources like the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). His own links to the materials reflect
that.Nonetheless, Dr. Noonan is correct in recognizing
that the evidence is not complete and that that there is a clear need to
augment the literature on the relationship of patenting to economic
activity. That is precisely why
Director Kappos established the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at the
USPTO, and why we are so pleased to have Dr. Stuart Graham on board.We thank Dr. Noonan for his thoughtful comments as
we work to improve the functioning of the patent system and to do further
economic analysis in this critical area.
Arti Rai
Administrator for External Affairs
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Patent Docs 
Leave a reply to Kevin E. Noonan Cancel reply