Learn About Patents Around the World

 
 
 
IN THIS SECTION
2 posts
EkaterinaLevitskaya
Last seen: 09/05/2024 - 13:20
Joined: 06/02/2022 - 10:31
Missing patents in WIPO table in the version of data September 2023
Hello,
 
I wanted to confirm about some patents missing in the WIPO table in the version of the data from September 2023
 
I believe I was able to find thousands of patents which are not in the WIPO table - many of them start with "H" and "D" but I see some patent numbers like 10950680, 7072513, etc. which are not in the WIPO table either
 
I wanted to confirm that they are indeed missing from the WIPO table. If they are, is there a better patent classification table to use than the WIPO table? Is there a patent classification table that doesn't have missing patents?
 
Thank you very much for the help with much appreciation
Tue, 09/10/2024 - 13:30
PVTeam
Role: moderator
Last seen: 09/10/2024 - 13:29
Joined: 10/17/2017 - 10:47
WIPO TABLE INCOMPLETENESS

Hello Ekaterina

we've already discussed this through the service desk portal, but I'm sharing the conclusion of our conversation here for the reference of other users, along with some additional context our team thought might be relevant.

Our WIPO technology table is derived from the cpc_current data that USPTO publishes in their bulk data portal and that we provide among our own download files. The calculation is done via a cpc-to-ipc crosswalk provided by the CPC organization and an IPC-to-technology-group crosswalk that was previously published by the USPTO, kept available through PatentsView here. This table is no longer updated regularly by USPTO, and was last revised in 2019.

There are three reasons that a patent might not have a WIPO technology code:

  1. it has no CPC code (e.g. "D" and "P" patents)
  2. the CPC code is not included in the CPC-to-IPC crosswalk, most likely due to the versions of the CPC-current data and CPC-to-IPC crosswalk becoming out-of-sync
  3. the IPC code is not included in the WIPO Technology group lookup either due to it being out of the scope of the table or having been added to the IPC in the time since the table was last updated.

Our recommendations would be to use the high-level CPC-current codes for analysis for completeness and treating "D" patents (design) and "P" patents (botanics) as their own categories. IPC-at-issue is also available with very similar coverage of historical patents, but unlike CPC-current, lacks consistency across different versions of the IPC over the decades.

Best,
PVTeam