Analyze the number of allowed, abandoned, and pending applications before the examiner to assure confidence in our data set.
See a textual summary of the examiner’s behavior for easy inclusion in memoranda or client correspondence.
Understand the likelihood of success on appeal and instantly access prior briefs that have defeated your examiner.
While most prosecutors respond to a rejection with an RCE, our data can show whether an interview or appeal may be better.
Discern whether your examiner prefers interview to RCEs to save precious time and money in your application.
We provide you with accurate estimates of your time to first examination and allowance, plus the additional time for specific office actions.
Better predict the probability of your application getting allowed or rejected with one simple figure.
Be able to tell your client the number of claims you can expect to lose between publishing and allowance.
CALCULATIONS TO DATE
We’ve spent the past two and a half years writing Juristat’s proprietary natural language processing algorithm, which organizes and structures raw USPTO data to build behavioral models of examiners’ past behaviors, allowing attorneys to more accurately predict examiners’ future behavior.
Prosecution is made up of hundreds of choices including what office action to take, what arguments to make, and what claims to amend. Juristat helps answer all of these questions, making your prosecution more profitable and effective.
Our research shows that the merits of an argument often matter less than an examiner’s bias, timing, and the prosecutor’s personal skill. For example, we’ve found numerous art units with an examiner who has a 90% allowance rate while another examiner has a 10% allowance rate. Generally, examiners in a single art unit are dealing with applications of similar technology with the same relevant prior art. If the merits of the application were the deciding factor as to whether or not an application is allowed, these examiners should have relatively similar allowance rates. By tracking and identifying examiner biases, Juristat provides the tools necessary for patent prosecutors to optimize outcomes.
Yes. We have performed numerous custom projects for law firms and in-house counsels, including: 1) assiting applicants in changing examiners, 2) helping attorneys better market to in-house counsels, and 3) helping in-house counsel improve their competitive intelligence.
Juristat collects data from each of the publicly available datasets provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., PAIR).
We download updates to applications daily. Each analytic is rerun when our clients open an Examiner Report, to ensure you have the most updated data possible.
Often, patent prosecutors will see the same examiner many times, and develop assumptions as to how a particular examiner might behave. Instead of making a critical prosecution decision based on a handful of past experiences, Juristat allows attorneys to look at the entire dataset of an examiner’s past behavior, providing concrete evidence in support of a particular prosecution decision. By looking at examiner data in the aggregate, attorneys can adjust their prosecution decision making strategy, maximizing prosecution efficiency and effectiveness.
Academics interested in cutting edge research into the patent system use our tools free of charge, and our data scientists are available for bespoke analytics relevant to your research.
Everyday attorneys and agents at solo firms and NLJ 250 firms are logging on to Juristat to determine the statistically best response to an adverse office action and to instantly access successful appellate briefs. Our tools improve client outcomes, help manage client expectations, maximize profitability in both hourly and flat fee arrangements, and ease business development efforts.
In-house Counsels use Juristat tools to easily manage their portfolio, ensure outside counsel make statistically sound prosecution decisions, improve budget and timing estimates while reducing costs and increasing allowance rates.
Chief Financial Officers use Juristat to reduce legal spends, while improving outcomes. Juristat can identify and correct inefficient office practices over the past few years. For example, we can determine how frequently the company filed a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”) when an interview had a higher mathematical chance of success and a lower cost.