Measuring patent assessment quality-Analyzing the degree and kind of (in)consistency in patent offices' decision making

Research Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1404-1430

  Burke, Paul F ^a   Reitzig, Markus ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice models; Patent; Patent office; Patent quality; Variance decomposition

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; INVARIANCE;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC INDICATORS; DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; PATENT OFFICE SERVICE; PATENT QUALITY; VARIANCE DECOMPOSITION;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 35348952042     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allison J.R., and Tiller E.H. The business method patent myth. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18 (Fall 2003). http://ssrn.com/abstract=421980 Available at SSRN:
2. Barton J. Non-obviousness. Manuscript Drafted for the Franco-American Conference on Intellectual Property. Berkeley (2001)
3. Ben-Akiva, Bradley M.M., Morikawa T., Benjamin J., Novak T., Oppewal H., and Rao V. Combining revealed and stated preference data. Marketing Letters 5 4 (1994) 335-350
4. Ben-Akiva M., and Lerman S. Discrete Choice Analysis. sixth ed. (1985), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, London, England
5. Carpenter M., Cooper M., and Narin F. Linkage between basic research literature and patents. Research Management 23 2 (1980) 30-35
6. Cooter R., and Rubinfeld D. Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution. Journal of Economic Literature 27 September (1989) 1067-1097
7. EPO, 2003. Annual Report. The European Patent Office, Munich.
8. Ernst H., Leptien C., and Vitt J. Inventors are not alike: the distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management 47 2 (2000) 184-199
9. Gallini N. The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 2 (2002) 131-154
10. Graham, S.J.H., Hall, B.H., Harhoff, D., Mowery, D.C., 2002. Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Oppositions. NBER WP 8807.
11. Green J.R., and Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 26 1 (1995) 20-33
12. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Lotterie B. Applications grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters 69 1 (2000) 109-114
13. Harhoff D., and Reitzig M. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants: the case of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22 4 (2004) 443-480
14. Hensher D., Louviere J., and Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) 197-221
15. Hoffman P.J. The paramorphic representation of clinical judgement. Psychological Bulletin 57 (1960) 116-131
16. Lanjouw J.O., Pakes A., and Putnam J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics XLVI 4 (1998) 405-433
17. Lanjouw J.O., and Lerner J. The enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Annales d'Economie et de Statistique 49-50 (1998) 223-246
18. Lemley, M., 2000. Rational Ignorance at a patent Office. Boalt School of Law, University of California at Berkeley. Working Paper.
19. Louviere J. What if consumer experiments impact variances as well as means? Response variability as a behavioral phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Research 28 December (2) (2001) 506-511
20. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
21. Louviere J., Fox M., and Moore W. Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference models. Marketing Letters 4 3 (1993) 205-213
22. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York
23. Merges R.P. Commercial success and patent standards: economic perspectives on innovation. California Law Review 76 803 (1988) 805-876
24. Merges R. As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: property rights for business concepts and patent system reform. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14 (1999) 577-615
25. Narin F., Noma E., and Perry R. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy 16 (1987) 143-155
26. Nordhaus W.D. The Optimal Life of a Patent (1967), New Haven
27. Orsenigo L. The Emergence of Biotechnology. Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation (1989), Pinter, London
28. Parasuraman A., Berry L., and Zeithaml V. Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing 61 4 (1991) 420-450
29. Priest G., and Klein B. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 8 (1984) 1-56
30. Quillen, C., & Webster, O., 2001. Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent Office. Mimeo.
31. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuation methods for management-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy 33 6-7 (2004) 939-957
32. Reitzig, M., 2005. On the effectiveness of novelty and inventive step as patentability requirements-structural empirical evidence using patent indicators. SSRN WP 745568.
33. Sampat B., Mowery D., and Ziedonis A. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (2003) 1371-1390
34. Samuelson P. Legally Speaking: Why Reform the U.S. Patent System? (2004), Mimeo, University of California at Berkeley
35. Sanyal, P., Jaffe, A., 2005. Peanut Butter Patents Versus the New Economy: Does the Increased Rate of Patenting Signal More Invention or Just Lower Standards? WP, Brandeis University.
36. Schmoch, U., Kirsch, N., 1994. Analysis of International Patent Flows. Karlsruhe, Fraunhofer Institut für Innovationsforschung and Systemtechnik Karlsruhe.
37. Scotchmer S., and Green J. Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND Journal of Economics 21 1 (1990) 131-146
38. SUEPO, 2002. A Quality Strategy for the EPO. SUEPO WP, Munich.
39. Swait J., and Louviere J.J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 3 (1993) 305-314
40. Thomas J. The responsibility of the rulemaker: comparative approaches to patent administration reform. Berkeley Tech. L. J. 17 (2002) 728-761
41. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics 21 1 (1990) 172-187
42. Waldfogel J. Reconciling asymmetric information and diverging expectations theories of litigation. Journal of Law and Economics 49 2 (1998) 451-476