There is no consensus on how to define patent quality- it is defined differently based on normative social and economic values and encompasses a wide range of factors.

Considering these vastly different perspectives, it is difficult to define patent quality solely in terms of legal validity. Van Overwalle and Schovsbo note that a report requested by the Scientific Technology Options Assessment of the European Parliament asserts that the definition should cover both the quality of individual patents and the quality of the ‘‘patent system as such,’’ as an institution designed for encouraging innovation.88 Kica indicates that high quality patents should ‘‘meet patentability requirements, contribute to the state of the art, offer scientific/social benefit, and stand up to the most rigorous challenges in court.’’89 Chien contends that two concepts underpin patent quality. The first is issuing patents that are strictly in conformity with legal criteria, and the second is to warrant that the granted patents are beneficial to the whole society.90 The former notion stresses that patent quality refers to legal validity, referring to how well a patent meets the standards of patentability; more specifically, ‘‘novel, nonobvious, and clearly and sufficiently described.’’91 The latter uses various indicators to evaluate different factors of patent quality, including patents’ technological, economic, social, or private value.92 Legal validity is the indispensable core of this discourse, but a wide range of considerations must also be considered. Moreover, Kica and Chien’s argument suggests that patent quality has a normative power that prioritizes certain values and obligates specific behaviors.

This divergence in definitions is well recognized by patent offices. A 2012 EPO workshop concludes that ‘‘there is no definitive definition of patent quality,’’ and such a concept should be distinguished from ‘‘two related concepts: the quality of the patent system and the value of a patent.’’93 A 2017 WIPO report reveals more perspectives from national patent offices (NPOs) worldwide.94 The major under- standing focuses on ‘‘the quality of a patent itself’’ and the ‘‘quality of a patent granting process within that office.’’95 However, several other factors are mentioned, such as the administrative and legal procedures to challenge patents, ‘‘the extent of technological innovation,’’ ‘‘the drafting of patent documents,’’ ‘‘the utilisation of patents,’’ the balance between patentees’ rights and the public domain, economic benefits, and even national development policy.96 This diversity supports the observation that ‘‘different groups approach the issue of patent quality very differently, and with different goals in mind.’’97 Drahos further asserts that companies and industries leverage NPOs to push self-serving agendas in the patent quality debates.98

Both the EPO and WIPO reports indicate that stakeholders’ perspectives must be considered.99 A patent holder may understand patent quality as robust in terms of ‘‘enforcement, litigation, and commercialization’’; applicants may favor patents with the minimum technical information fulfilling legal requirements and the widest scope; and the beneficiaries of technology transfer crave patents that reveal all technological details.100 In addition, patent attorneys and engineers tend to evaluate patents based on the language clarity or coverage of the major invention; and economists are inclined to examine whether a patent meets the essential goals of the patent system, which is to remunerate and incentivize innovation while dissemi- nating technological advancement.101

In addition to these stakeholders, the public is a crucial factor, as the goal of the patent system is to benefit the public by promoting innovation.102 The public comprises both neutral parties with no risk of infringement and competitors endeavoring to either ‘‘practice the patented invention’’ or avoid infringement.103 Such stakeholders consider patent quality as an appropriate proportionality between the contribution of the invention and patent rights,104 which is safeguarded by a

balanced patent system and an efficient judicial system to ensure that exclusive rights limiting access to innovations are beneficial in terms of social welfare.105

The only overriding consensus regarding the patent quality concept is that no consensus has yet been reached on the seemingly straightforward definition of patent quality. Exploring this concept is like peering through a kaleidoscope, as it encompasses numerous elements including the quality of the patent system per se, legal validity, the scope of claims, applicant efforts, examination and litigation processes, technological significance, private value, and social value. Even those who attempt to confine the definition to a particular element can have considerable disagreements regarding the specifics.

Each element implies certain normative expectations and assessments of patent systems. Different stakeholders have individual perspectives regarding these normative expectations and assessments. Inventors could be disappointed in terms of the robustness of patent protection. Scholars might be dissatisfied with the flaws of the patent system. Policymakers could intend to promote technology develop- ment and fair competition. Competitors might be frustrated by patent barriers. The public could be disquieted by the balance between exclusive rights and social welfare. Patent examiners might be exhausted by the heavy workload and embittered by the manner of document drafting. Judges could detest the fluidity of legal standards. It seems that when these diverse normative expectations and assessments are not met, widespread and compelling discontent with patent quality emerges.