📌 What Lampe (2012) Claimed

The U.S. patent system requires applicants to disclose documents known to be relevant to examination. Lampe (2012) reported that applicants withheld 21%–33% of relevant citations, concluding that many patents were obtained fraudulently.

📚 Why Lampe's Empirical Design Is Problematic

The empirical approach in Lampe (2012) is inconsistent with legal standards and with standard operating procedures used in patent examination. In particular, the design departs from how courts identify strategic withholding and from routine examiner practices, calling its interpretation of withheld citations into question.

🔎 How the Evidence Was Reassessed

• Compiled a comprehensive dataset to reexamine the empirical basis of Lampe's claim.
• Reconstructed citation patterns and compared them against legal and procedural benchmarks used to assess strategic withholding.

✅ Key Finding

No evidence was found that applicants withhold citations. The reassessment does not support Lampe's estimate that 21%–33% of relevant citations are withheld, nor the implication that many patents are fraudulently obtained.

🌍 Why This Matters

These results alter the empirical foundation for claims of widespread citation withholding and alleged fraud in patent procurement. They also highlight the importance of aligning empirical designs with legal standards and examiner procedures when evaluating misconduct.