Dr Joe Lane

Henley Business School

University of Reading

Abstract: The Patents Act of 1902 introduced a new component to the patenting process in Great Britain: examination by the Patent Office to determine whether all or any part of the invention had been previously patented in the preceding 50 years. The decision to introduce examination of specifications rested almost entirely on evidence presented to a Parliamentary Committee by the Patent Office, which claimed that as much as 42% of patents granted in the preceding three years had in whole or in part been anticipated; a state which the Committee argued rendered them invalid and prompted them to decry the granting of anticipated patents a ‘serious evil, inasmuch as it attends to the restraint of trade and to the embarrassment of honest traders and inventors.’

Detailed examination of the Parliamentary papers and journals of the Comptroller General reveals, however, that the evidence on which this momentous decision was based is far from robust, representing an extremely limited sample of patent specifications particularly subject to human error. In this paper we take the first steps to examine documents relating to the parliamentary enquiry as well as patent specifications for the years 1853-1902, with a view to subjecting the specifications to modern textual analysis techniques using machine learning. New methodologies are presented to both prepare and analyse historical patent data in this way. We aim to test the assertions of the Patent Office and the findings of the Committee which had had a profound and irreversible impact on the patenting process up to 1977. We begin to compile and analyse falsifiable evidence to assess the extent of true anticipation in patent specification in the UK.

The results of our analysis may have profound implications for how we understand the role of patent examination. Witnesses in the Parliamentary Inquiry thought examination would reduce anticipation by providing patentees and the public more information on anticipating patents. Other witnesses, however, viewed anticipation as necessary because only valuable patents are anticipated. This paper aims to explore whether examination as an action to stop anticipation was necessary and if it was successful. If it was successful in lowering anticipation, then we can demonstrate the 1902 Patents Act did indeed force novelty in patenting, raising further questions concerning whether this meant that patented inventions after the Act were more valuable. If no significant evidence of anticipation is found, then the considerable financial and institutional resources invested in the changes were effectively wasted, calling into question the enquiry, actions of the Committee and ultimately the Act itself.

Stephen Billington – Ulster University

Alan Hanna – Queen's University, Belfast

Joe Lane – University of Reading