As we near the launch of the first phase of Patdek, I started reflecting on how this started and why we continue to press forward. It's because there needs to be a better way to analyze patents and patent issues. Stretching back to 2001 this problem of effectively analyzing patents, file histories, prior art, what the claims mean - all of it - has been very troubling for me. I suspect this holds true for other practitioners too.
I'll touch on one approach here - a group-based, reasoned analysis of the main question to be resolved. The question could be how to prove invalidity, how to show infringement, how to demonstrate what the claims mean. Essentially the typical issues confronted in patent assessments. The general term to describe this group effort might be called collaboration. Collaboration means so many things to so many people. For example, if person A reviews a draft by person B and then emails that draft document back with redlined suggestions, this is probably considered a form of collaboration. Two or more people brainstorming on an issue - another form of collaboration.
But what about parallel analysis that aggregates group analysis? What could this notion of parallel analysis be called? That's where the idea of "syndicated analysis" emerges. More later.