The puzzle of patent value indicators

Economics of Innovation and New Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 33-62

  van Zeebroeck, Nicolas ^a  

^a SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Citations; Families; Grant rate; Oppositions; Patent value; Renewals

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651357601     PISSN: 10438599     EISSN: 14768364     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10438590903038256     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Allison, J., and M. Lemley. 1998. Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents. AIPLA Quarterly Journal 26, no. 3: 187-275.
2. Allison, J., M. Lemley, K. Moore, and R. Trunkey. 2004. Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal 92: 435-80.
3. Archontopoulos, E., D. Guellec, N. Stevnsborg, B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and N. van Zeebroeck. 2007. When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Information Economics and Policy 19, no. 2: 103-32.
4. Bessen, J. 2008. The value of U.S. Patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy 37, no. 5: 932-45.
5. Blind, K., K. Cremers, and E. Mueller. 2008. The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios. Research Policy 38, no. 2: 428-36.
6. Bloom, N., and J. van Reenen. 2002. Patents, real options and firm performance. Economic Journal 112: 97-116.
7. Bosworth, D., C. Greenhalgh, and A. Wharton. 2000. Intangible assets and the market valuation of UK companies: Evidence from fixed effects models. Oxford Working Paper, St Peter's College, Oxford.
8. Bosworth, D., and M. Rogers. 2001. Market value, R&D and intellectual property: An empirical analysis of large Australian firms. The Economic Record 77, no. 239: 323-37.
9. Brusoni, S., G. Crespi, D. Francoz, A. Gambardella, W. Garcia-Fontes, A. Geuna, P. Giuri, et al. 2006. Everything you always wanted to know about inventors (but never asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU survey. CEPR Discussion Paper 5752, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London.
10. Calderini, M., and G. Scellato. 2004. Intellectual property rights as strategic assets: The case of European patent opposition in the telecommunications industry. CESPRI Working Paper 158, Universita Commerciale Bocconi, Milano.
11. Cincera, M. 2007. Déterminants des Oppositions de Brevets: une Analyse Micro-Économique au Niveau Belge. Paper presented at the '17ème Congrès des Economistes Belges de Langue Française - Nos Régions en Europe: Voies d'Impasse, Voies d'Avenir: Quel Développement pour la Wallonie et Bruxelles?', 21-22 November, in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
12. Cincera, M., and R. Prokopieva. 2005. Oppositions de Brevets et leurs Déterminants: Une Analyse Micro-Économique. Paper presented at the AEA International Conference on Innovations and Intellectual Property Values, Université Paris I, 20-21 October, in Paris, France.
13. Cockburn, I., and Z. Griliches. 1988. Industry effects and appropriability measures in the stock market's valuation of R&D and patents. American Economic Review 78, no. 2: 419-32.
14. Cornelli, F., and M. Schankerman. 1999. Patent renewals and R&D incentives. RAND Journal of Economics 30, no. 2: 197-213.
15. Cremers, K. 2004. Determinants of patent litigation in Germany. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 04-72, Center for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim.
16. Criscuolo, P. 2005. The 'home advantage' effect and patent families: A comparison of OECD triadic tatents, the USPTO and the EPO. Miméo, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London. Paper presented at the EPIP Conference, 10-11 March, in Copenhagen, Denmark.
17. Czarnitzki, D., B. Hall, and R. Oriani. 2005. The market valuation of knowledge assets in US and European firms. Berkeley Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley.
18. Deng, Y. 2005. Renewal study of european patents: A three-country comparison. Southern Methodist University of Dallas Working Paper, University of Dallas, Dallas.
19. Dernis, H., D. Guellec, and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2001. Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. STI Review 27: 129-46.
20. Dixon, P., and C. Greenhalgh. 2002. The economics of intellectual property: A review to identify themes for future research. Oxford Working Paper, St Peter's College, Oxford.
21. EPO. 2006. EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database. European Patent Office, April.
22. Gambardella, A., D. Harhoff, and B. Verspagen. 2006. The value of patents. Paper presented at the EPIP Conference, September, Munich, Germany.
23. Graham, S., B. Hall, D. Harhoff, and D. Mowery. 2002. Post-issue patent 'quality control': A comparative study of US patent re-examinations and European oppositions. NBER WP 8807, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
24. Graham, S., and D. Harhoff. 2006. Can postgrant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of European and US patents. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5680, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London.
25. Greenhalgh, C., and M. Rogers. 2006. The value of innovation: The interaction of competition, R&D and IP. Research Policy 35: 562-80.
26. Greenhalgh, C., and M. Rogers. 2007. The value of intellectual property rights to firms. Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre Working Paper, St Peter's College, Oxford.
27. Grefermann, K., K. Oppenländer, E. Peffgen, K. Röthlingshöfer, and L. Scholz. 1974. Patent wesenund technischer Fortschritt. Teil I: Die Wirkung des Patentwesens im Innovationsprozess. Göttingen: Verlag Otto Schwarz & Co.
28. Griffiths, W., P. Jensen and E. Webster. 2005. The effects on firm profits of the stock of intellectual property rights. Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia Working Paper No. 05/05, University of Melbourne, Australia.
29. Griliches, Z. 1981. Market value, R&D, and patents. Economic Letters 7: 183-87.
30. Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28, no. 4: 1661-707.
31. Griliches, Z., A. Pakes, and B. Hall. 1986. The value of patents as indicators of inventive activity. NBER Working Paper No. 2083, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
32. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2000. Applications, grants and the value of patents. Economic Letters 69, no. 1: 109-14.
33. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2002. The value of patents and patenting strategies: Countries and technology areas patterns. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies 11, no. 2: 133-48.
34. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2004. Measuring the internationalisation of the generation of knowledge: An approach based on patent data. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of science and technology systems, ed. D. Guellec, H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, and U. Schmoch, 645-62. Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2007. The economics of the European patent system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Hagedoorn, J., and M. Cloodt. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy 32: 1365-79.
37. Hall, B. 1999. Innovation and market value. NBER Working Paper No. 6984, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
38. Hall, B., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2001. Market value and patent citations: A first look. NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
39. Hall, B., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2005. Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics 36: 16-38.
40. Hall, B., S. Graham, D. Harhoff, and D. Mowery. 2003. Prospects for improving U.S. patent quality via post-grant opposition. NBER Working Paper 9731, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
41. Hall, B., and M. MacGarvie. 2006. The private value of software patents. Berkeley Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley.
42. Hall, B., G. Toma, and S. Torrisi. 2007. The market value of patents and R&D: Evidence from European firms. NBER Working Paper 13426, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
43. Harhoff, D. 2008. Patent citations datafile. Available at http://www.inno-tec.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/harhoff/ (accessed 10 March 2008).
44. Harhoff, D., and B. Hall. 2002. Intellectual property strategy in the global cosmetics industry. LMU Working Paper, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
45. Harhoff, D., F. Narin, F. Scherer, and K. Vopel. 1999. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics 81, no. 3: 511-15.
46. Harhoff, D., and M. Reitzig. 2004. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants: The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22, no. 4: 443-80.
47. Harhoff, D., F. Scherer, and K. Vopel. 2002. Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights. Research Policy 32, no. 8: 1343-63.
48. Hegde, D., S. Graham, and D. Mowery. 2007. Pioneers, submariners, or thickets: Which firms use continuations in patenting and why? NBER working paper 13153, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
49. Jaffe, A., and J. Lerner. 2004. Innovation and its discontents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
50. Jaffe, A., and M. Trajtenberg. 2002. Patents, citations, innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Jensen, P., A. Palangkaraya, and E. Webster. 2005. Patent application outcomes across the trilateral patent offices. Melbourne Institute Working Paper 2005/05, University of Melbourne, Australia.
52. Jensen, P., and E. Webster. 2004. Examining biases in measures of firm innovation. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 10/04, University of Melbourne, Australia.
53. Jerak, A., and S. Wagner. 2003. Modeling probabilities of patent oppositions in a Bayesian semi parametric regression framework. LMU Working Paper, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
54. Kleinknecht, A., K. van Montfort, and E. Brouwer. 2000. How consistent are innovation indicators? A factor analysis of CIS data. VUA Research Memorandum 2000-28, Amsterdam.
55. Kleinknecht, A., K. van Montfort, and E. Brouwer. 2002. The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11, no. 2: 109-21.
56. Kortum, S., and J. Lerner. 1999. What is behind the recent surge in patenting. Research Policy 28, no. 1: 1-22.
57. Lanjouw, J. 1993. Patent protection: Of what value and for how long? NBER Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
58. Lanjouw, J., A. Pakes, and J. Putnam. 1998. How to count patents and value intellectual property: Uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics 46, no. 4: 405-32.
59. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 1997. Stylised facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. NBER Working Paper No. 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
60. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 1999. The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working Paper No. 7345, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
61. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics 32, no. 1: 129-51.
62. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 2004. Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal 114: 441-65.
63. Lerner, J. 1994. The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics 25, no. 2: 319-33.
64. Maurseth, P. 2005. Lovely but dangerous: The impact of patent citation son patent renewal. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 14, no. 5: 351-74.
65. Meyer, M., and P. Tang. 2005. Can one measure the value of university patents? Exploring universities' IP management practices and their implications for estimating patent value. SPRU Working Paper A292, Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton.
66. Nagaoka, S. 2004. Do speed, science linkage, focus and new entry matter in IT inventions? Institute of Innovation Research Hitotsubashi University Working Paper, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo.
67. Narin, F., E. Noma, and R. Perry. 1987. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy 16, no. 2-4: 143-55.
68. O'Donoghue, T., S. Scotchmer, and J.F. Thisse. 1998. Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 7, no. 1: 1-32.
69. OECD. 2006. Triadic patent families dataset. OECD, January 2006.
70. Pakes, A. 1986. Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks. Econometrica 54, no. 4: 755-84.
71. Pakes, A., and M. Schankerman. 1984. The rate of obsolescence of knowledge: Research, gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. NBER Working Paper 0346, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
72. Pakes, A., M. Simpson, K. Judd, and E. Mansfield. 1989. Patent renewal data. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1989: 331-401.
73. Palangkaraya, A., P. Jensen, and E. Webster. 2005. Determinants of international patent examination outcomes. Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia Working Paper No. 09/05, University of Melbourne, Australia.
74. Putnam, J. 1996. The value of international patent rights. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
75. Reitzig, M. 2003. What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy 32, no. 1: 13-26.
76. Reitzig, M. 2004a. Improving patent valuations for management purposes: Validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy 33, no. 6-7: 939-57.
77. Reitzig, M. 2004b. What do patent indicators really measure? A structural test of 'novelty' and 'inventive step' as determinants of patent profitability. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004, June, in Elsinore, Denmark.
78. Sapsalis, E., and B. van Potteslberghe de la Potterie. 2007. The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16, no. 2: 139-57.
79. Schankerman, M. 1998. How valuable is patent protection? Estimates by technology field. RAND Journal of Economics 29, no. 1: 77-107.
80. Schankerman, M., and A. Pakes. 1986. Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. The Economic Journal 96, no. 384: 1052-76.
81. Scherer, F.M. 1965. Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. American Economic Review 55: 1097-123.
82. Scherer, F.M., and D. Harhoff. 2000. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 29, no. 4-5: 559-66.
83. Scherer, F.M., D. Harhoff, and J. Kukies. 2000. Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10: 175-200.
84. Schettino, F, A. Sterlacchini, and F. Venturini. 2008. Inventive productivity and patent quality: Evidence from Italian inventors. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Working Paper #7765, Munich.
85. Schmoch, U., H. Grupp, W. Mannsbart, and B. Schwitalla. 1988. Technikprognosen mit Patentindikatoren. Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland.
86. Schneider, C. 2006. The determinants of patent applications outcomes: Does experience matter? Copenhagen Business School Working Paper, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
87. Shane, H. 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science 47, no. 2: 205-20.
88. Shane, H., and M. Klock. 1997. The relation between patent citations and Tobin's q in the semiconductor industry. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 9: 131-46.
89. Silverberg, G., and B. Verspagen. 2004. The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance. MERIT Working Paper, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht.
90. Tong, X., and J. Frame. 1994. Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy 23, no. 2: 133-41.
91. Trajtenberg, M. 1990. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics 21, no. 1: 172-87.
92. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., and D. François. 2009. The cost factor in patent systems. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 9, no. 4: 329-55.
93. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., and N. van Zeebroeck. 2008. A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals. Scientometrics 75, no. 2: 319-38.
94. van Zeebroeck, N. 2007. Patents only live twice: A patent survival analysis in Europe. CEB Working Paper 07-028, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB), Université Libre de Bruxelles.
95. van Zeebroeck, N. 2008. Long live patents: The increasing life expectancy of patent applications and its determinants. CEB Working Paper 08-040, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB), Université Libre de Bruxelles.
96. van Zeebroeck N., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2008. Filing strategies and patent value. CEPR Discussion Papers 6821, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London.
97. van Zeebroeck N., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and D. Guellec. (2009). Claiming more: The increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Research Policy 38, no. 6: 1006-20.
98. van Zeebroeck, N., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and W. Han. 2006. Issues in measuring the degree of technological specialisation with patent data. Scientometrics 66, no. 3: 481-92.
99. Wagner, S. 2004. Business method patents in europe and their strategic use: Evidence from franking device manufacturers. LMU Working Paper, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
100. Webster, E., A. Palangkaraya, and P. Jensen. 2007. Characteristics of international patent application outcomes. Economics Letters 95, no. 3: 362-68.