Quality vs Cost of Novelty Searches

When starting our information services consulting firm (dealing in chemical information of all kinds, not just patents), my wife and I attended "starting your own business" seminars at an outplacement firm (fees furnished from my previous organization from which I had taken "early retirement").  We drafted a business plan and when it was analyzed the next day in "class", the moderator suggested that I offer flat rate services.  I replied that from my experience that this was impossible because even the most simple search requests at first sight could become very profound on further analysis.  That's still the case and I'm sure this rule of thumb applies even more to novelty searches.  I would fear for quick and dirty at best and bait and switch at worst.

I fully agree with Bob. It's the individual judgement, if anybody is offering novelty searches in very little (£200); what would be his profit and input cost (databases, utilities) where you require a skilled person for that particular job.

I agree with Bob - searcher may never know beforehead how much time he will spend on particular task, however, there is another side to this coin - the client, being able to find an offering of presumably same service for flat fee and comparing it to other options, is reluctant to pay hourly rates. So there is a conflict of quantity (of money being paid) vs, quality (of search) - since the searcher will try to minimize time expenditure as possible, in order to increase his profit. 

At my firm, we solve it by paradox - we offer "flat" range as initial offer to ease it on the client, but than we taylor price offer per each search request. It is also our job to explain to the client (inquirer) the differences in quality of "cheap and dirty" searches vs professionally done ones. That way, the client is much more educated and able to arrive at independent decisions regarding not only the search, but the overall patenting process and other related IP projects.

The above said refers to first time users of IP service providers. People more familiar with the industry usually incline toward choosing quality of services - with an eye to expenses, of course.

Please share your thoughts.

The above said cannot be used as an advice, and expresses only the personal views of the author

I would think the Quality vs. cost debate has been raging for a long time and not only in searching. I feel this curve tapers after a certain cost, in terms of the value add.

When people say novelty search, it is a novelty search, a USC 102 rejection based search. If we consider aspects such as patentabilty that include obviousness searching, designing around, and claims drafting based on the search then the cost should run up to lot more. There are many that do effective novelty search for lot less than 200 pounds.

It is important to utilize resources effectively, for a large multinational that files thousands of patents annually such detail searches may not be necessary for all programs. For smaller companies and key patents for larger companies, going with the detailed strategy is recommended.

Nar

>I am concerned at the quality of some searchers offering "novelty searches" for very little (less than £200).
>A true novelty search can take quite a lot of effort unless something comes up immediately.
>Surely the service providers should qualify their offers with Preliminary Novelty Search or Cursory Novelty Search?

Let's consider these two variables, Revenue (£200, quantitative) and Quality (high, qualitative).

For all cases, holding Quality as constant, how much is £200 (Revenue) worth?

It should be easy to realise that the 'worth' of £200 varies across different countries, from Switzerland to United States to Thailand to India to Congo.

Let's review Eddie's original question from another perspective where we are deciding on several countries to set up our patent analytics offices (with the intention of optimising staff costs), one might consider looking at the list of countries based on:

• G1. GDP (norminal) per capital, and/or,
• G2. GDP (Purchasing power parity) per hour worked
• among other GDP related information.

Visualization of G1 and G2: http://tinyurl.com/yjbhju8

Incidentally, this approach of Cost-Quality analysis is applicable to other industries since Industrial revolution.

Food for thought.

Proving patentability is a good example of proving a thing "true" ... a logical falacy.

You can exhaust resources at hand and search forever, as long as the point is not proven by the discovery (never mind the existence) of prior art. You will never know that it exists but you didn't find it - only that you didn't find it. And the longer it takes, the more you will spend. Don't they say,"One must spend money to make money"? ... they also say, "You get what you pay for."

One rule of thumb is to expend no less effort than the anticipated amount of effort the patent examiner will expend.

The nature of what patent search firms offer has changed dramatically over the last 10 years.  Large corporations that traditionally had highly trained and experienced searchers have been turning more toward outsourcing patent searches.  When they do, they are looking for firms that offer services similar to what they had internally where multiple databases were searched including those indexing Markush structures.  Firms that historically did not offer such services have reevaluated the market.  We see more of them joining PIUG and expanding their training and experience. In my opinion quality comes down to what the customer is looking for.  There are 2 grocery stores near me.  One is slightly less expensive than the other.  When I am shopping for name brand items I shop at the less expensive store because I have learned I get the same product cheaper.  But I never buy produce, baked goods or deli there because I have been very disappointed with the quality.  I feel really bad for those clients who learn their patent search lesson thru a lawsuit.