The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the "induced withdrawals"

World Patent Information

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 317-326

  Lazaridis, George ^a   van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno ^a,b  

^a EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Claims; Communications; European Patent Office; Examination procedure; Grant; Induced withdrawals; Patent filing

Indexed keywords

EID: 35548989807     PISSN: 01722190     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wpi.2007.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Abbot A. Pressurised staff lose faith in patent quality. Nature 429 (2004) 493
2. EPO. European Patent Convention. Munich, Germany; July 2002.
3. Stevnsborg N., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Patenting procedures and filing strategies at the EPO. In: Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. (Eds). The Economics of the European Patent System (2007), Oxford University Press, Oxford 155-183
4. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. The Economics of the European Patent System (2007), Oxford University Press, Oxford
5. Michel J., and Bettels B. Patent citation analysis: a closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics 51 1 (2001) 185-201
6. Henkel J, Pangerl S. Alternatives to the patent arms race: an empirical study of defensive publishing. Technische Universität München; 2007.
7. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, François D. The Cost Factors in Patent Systems. CEPR Discussion Paper 5944; 2006.
8. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Applications, grants and the value of patents. Econ Lett 69 1 (2000) 109-114
9. van Zeebroeck N, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, Guellec D. Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. CEPR Discussion Paper 5971; 2006.
10. Archontopoulos E., Guellec D., Stevnsborg N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B., and van Zeebroeck N. When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Information Economics and Policy 19 2 (2007) 103-132