The quality factor in patent systems

Industrial and Corporate Change

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1755-1793

  Van pottelsberghe de la potterie, Bruno ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY;

EUROPE; JAPAN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 82955176929     PISSN: 09606491     EISSN: 14643650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtr066     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. 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, 103-132.
2. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri and A. Gambardella (2002), Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
3. Barton, J. H. (2000), 'Reforming the patent system,' Science, 287, 1933-1934.
4. Barzel, Y. (1968), 'Optimal timing of innovation,' Review of Economics and Statistics, 50, 348-355.
5. Bessen, J. and M. J. Meurer (2008), Patent Failure: How Judges, Lawyers and Bureaucrats Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
6. Burk, D. and M. Lemley (2003), 'Policy levers in patent law,' Virginia Law Review, 89, 1575-1696.
7. Caillaud, B. and A. Duchêne (2009), 'Patent office in innovation policy: nobody's perfect,' Paris School of Economics, Working Paper, pp. 2009-2039.
8. Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA.
9. Chin, A. (2009), 'Search for tomorrow: some side effects of patent office automation,' North Carolina Law Review, 87, 1617-1656.
10. Claessens, S. and L. Laeven (2003), 'Financial development, property rights, and growth,' Journal of Finance, 58, 2401-2436.
11. Cockburn, I. M., S. Kortum and S. Stern (2002), 'Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of examiner characteristics'. NBER Working Paper Series, w8980.
12. Cornelli, F. and M. Schankerman (1999), 'Patent renewals and R&D incentives,' The RAND Journal of Economics, 30, 197-213.
13. Cotropia, C., M. Lemley and B. Sampat (2010), 'Do applicant patent citations matter? Implications for the presumption of validity,' Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 401.
14. Danguy, J. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2011), 'Cost-benefit analysis of the community patent,' Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. Vol. 2, Berkeley Electronic Press, pp. 1-41.
15. de Rassenfosse, G. (2010), 'How much do we know about firms' propensity to patent and should we worry about it?' ECARES Working Paper, forthcoming.
16. de Rassenfosse, G. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2007), 'Per un pugno di dollari: s first look at the price elasticity of patents,' Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 588-604.
17. de Rassenfosse, G. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2011), 'On the price elasticity of demand for patents,' Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.
18. de Rassenfosse, G. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2011), 'The role of fees in patent systems: theory and evidence,' Journal of Economics Surveys, forthcoming.
19. Dewatripont, M. and P. Legros (2008), '" Essential" patents, FRAND royalties and technology standards,' ECARES Working Paper, 2008_010.
20. Encaoua, D., D. Guellec and C. Martínez (2006), 'Patent systems for encouraging innovation: lessons from economic analysis,' Research Policy, 35, 1423-1440.
21. EPO (2007), 'Scenarios for the future: how might IP regimes evolve by 2025? What global legitimacy might such regimes have?', EPO
22. EPO (2010), 'Guidelines for examination in the European Patent Office', European Patent Office', Munich, Germany, April
23. Farrell, J. and C. Shapiro (2008), 'How strong are weak patents?' American Economic Review, 98, 1347-69.
24. Federal Trade Commission (2003), 'To promote innovation: the proper balance between competition and patent law and policy', http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf.
25. Franzoni, C. and G. Scellato (2010), 'The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure,' Research Policy, 39, 200-213.
26. Friebel, G., A. Koch, D. Prady and P. Seabright (2006), 'Objectives and incentives at the European Patent Office,' Centre IDEI - Institut d'Economie Industrielle, Université de Toulouse.
27. Gallini, N. (1992), 'Patent policy and costly imitation,' The RAND Journal of Economics, 23, 52-63.
28. Ginsburgh, V. (2005), 'Languages, genes, and cultures,' Journal of Cultural Economics, 29, 1-17.
29. Gallini, N. (2002), 'The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform,' Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 131-154.
30. Gilbert, R. and C. Shapiro (1990), 'Optimal patent length and breadth,' The RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 106-112.
31. Ginarte, J. and W. Park (1997), 'Determinants of patent rights: a cross-national study,' Research Policy, 26, 283-301.
32. Glazier, S.C. (2000), Patent Strategies for Business. 3rd edn. LBI Institute: Washington DC.
33. Graham, S. and D. Harhoff (2006), 'Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design?: A twin study of US and European patents,' CEPR Discussion Paper 5680, 29 p.
34. 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 patent oppositions,' NBER Working Paper No. W8807.
35. Grossman, G. and E. Lai (2004), 'International protection of intellectual property,' American Economic Review, 94, 1635-1653.
36. Guellec, D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2000), 'Applications, grants and the value of patents,' Economic Letters, 69, 109-114.
37. Guellec, D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2007), The Economics of the European Patent System. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
38. Guellec, D., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie and N. van Zeebroeck (2007), 'Patent as a market instrument,' in D. Guellec and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (eds), The Economics of the European Patent System. pp. 85-113.
39. Hall, B. H. and R. H. Ziedonis (2001), 'The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995,' Rand Journal of Economics, 32, 101-128.
40. Harhoff, D. (2008), 'Strategic patenting, innovation and competition: towards subprime patents?' Presentation prepared for the Jacquemin Seminar Series, Brussels, November 7.
41. Harhoff, D. (2009), 'Economic cost-benefit analysis of a unified and integrated European patent litigation system,' EC DG Internal Market Report, 26 February, MARKT/2008/06/D.
42. Harhoff, D. (2009b), 'How to compute grant rates,' Presentation at the EPO/OECD conference, Vienna, October.
43. Harhoff, D., K. Hoisl, B. Reichl and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2009), 'Patent validation at the country level: the role of fees and translation costs,' Research Policy, 38, 1423-1437.
44. Harhoff, D., K. Hoisl and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2008), 'Languages, fees and the international scope of patenting,' ECARES Working Paper series, 2009_10.
45. Harhoff, D., F. Scherer and K. Vopel (2003), 'Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights,' Research Policy, 32, 1343-1363.
46. Henry, M. and J. Turner (2006), 'The court of appeals for the federal circuit's impact on patent litigation,' Journal of Legal Studies, 35, 85-117.
47. Jaffe, A. (2000), 'The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process,' Research Policy, 29, 531-557.
48. Jaffe, A. and J. Lerner (2004), Innovation and its Discontents: How our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do about It. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
49. Jensen, P., A. Palangkaraya and E. Webster (2006), 'Disharmony in international patent office decisions,' The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 15, 679-712.
50. Kazenske, E. (2003), 'The future of prior art searching at the United States patent and trademark office,' World Patent Information, 25, 283-287.
51. Klemperer, P. (1990), 'How broad should the scope of patent protection be?' The RAND Journal of Economics, 29, 113-130.
52. Kortum, S. and J. Lerner (1999), 'What is behind the recent surge in patenting?' Research Policy, 28, 1-22.
53. Langinier, C. and P. Marcoul (2009), 'Monetary and implicit incentives of patent examiners,' Working Paper, University of Alberta (May).
54. Lazaridis, G. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2007), 'The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: an insight into the "induced withdrawals" ,' World Patent Information, 29, 317-326.
55. Lemley, M. (2001), 'Rational ignorance at the patent office,' Northwestern University Law Review, 95, 1495-1528.
56. Lemley, M. and B. Sampat (2008), 'Examiner characteristics and the patent grant rate,' Mimeo, http://www.nber.org/_confer/2008/si2008/IPPI/lemley.pdf, last access: 31/05/2010.
57. Mazzoleni, R. and R. Nelson (1998), 'The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate,' Research Policy, 27, 273-284.
58. Maskus, K. E. (2006), 'Reforming U.S. patent policy: Getting the incentives right,' CSR 19, November, Council on Foreign Relations.
59. Mejer, M. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2009), 'Economic incongruities in the European patent system,' Bruegel Working Paper, 2009/01.
60. Nordhaus, W. (1969), Invention, Growth and Welfare: a Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change, M.I.T. Monographs in Economics, Vol. 10, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
61. NAPA (National Academy of Public Administration) (2005), 'U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Transforming to meet the challenges of the 21st century', http://www.napawash.org/Pubs/PTO-8-25-05.htm.
62. O'Donoghue, T. (1998), 'A patentability requirement for sequential innovation,' Rand Journal of Economics, 29, 654-679.
63. Peeters, C. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2006), 'Innovation strategy and the patenting performances of large firms,' Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16, 109-135.
64. Quillen, C. (2006), 'Innovation and the U.S. patent system,' Virginia Law and Business Review, 1, 207-237.
65. Quillen, C. (2008), 'Commentary on Bessen and Meurer's patent failure: an industry perspective,' Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 16, 57-82.
66. Quillen, C. and O. Webster (2001), 'Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,' Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 11, 1-21.
67. Quillen, C. and O. Webster (2006), 'Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Updated,' Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 15, 635-677.
68. Quillen, C. and O.Webster (2009), 'Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - One More Time,' The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 18, 379-404.
69. Quillen, C., O. Webster and R. Eichmann (2002), 'Continuing patent applications and performance of the US Patent and Trademark Office - Extended,' Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 12, 35-55.
70. Sampat, B. (2005), 'Determinants of patent quality: an empirical analysis,' Working Paper, Columbia University.
71. Scherer, F.M. (1972), 'Nordhaus' theory of optimal patent life: a geometric reinterpretation,' American Economic Review, 62, 422-427.
72. Scherer, F.M. (2002), 'The economics of the human gene patents,' Academic Medicine, 77(12 Part 2), 1348-1367.
73. Scotchmer, S. (1991), 'Standing on the shoulder of giants: cumulative research and the patent law,' Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 29-41.
74. Scotchmer, S. (1999), 'On the optimality of the patent renewal system,' The RAND Journal of Economics, 30, 181-196.
75. Scotchmer, S. and J. Green (1990), 'Novelty and disclosure in patent law,' RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 131-146.
76. Seckelmann, M. (2001), 'The quest for legal stability: patent protection within the German Empire,' 1871-1903', Max-Planck-Institute for European Legal History, EBHA Conference 2001: Business and Knowledge.
77. Shapiro, C. (2007), 'Patent reform: aligning reward and contribution,' Innovation Policy and the Economy, 8, 111-156.
78. Sherry, E. and D. Teece (2004), 'Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation,' Research Policy, 33, 179-191.
79. Stevnsborg, N. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2007), 'Patenting procedures and filing strategies,' in D. Guellec and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (eds), The Economics of the European Patent System. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 155-183.
80. TMPDF (2008), 'EPO future workload study; document CA144/07 - Comments by TMPDF,' May 2008, ref PP05/08, Trade Marks, Patents & Design Federation: London, UK
81. Teece, D. (1993), 'Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy,' Research Policy, 22, 112-113.
82. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and D. François (2009), 'The cost factor in patent systems,' Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9, 329-355.
83. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and M. Mejer (2010), 'The London agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe,' European Journal of Law and Economics, 29, 211-237.
84. van Zeebroeck, N. (2007), 'Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe,' Working Papers CEB 07-028.
85. 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, 1006-1020.
86. Weber, M. (1924), 'Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Abriß der universalen Sozial- und Wirtschaftgeschichte,' in S. Hellmann and M. Palyi (eds), Aus den Nachgelassenen Vorlesungen. 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot: Munich, Germany.
87. WIPO (2008a), 'World patent report: a statistical review', World Intellectual Property Organisation
88. WIPO (2008b), 'Standing Committee on the Law of Patents', Twelfth Session: Geneva, June 23-27
89. Yamauchi, I. and S. Nagaoka (2009), 'Reforms of patent examination request system in Japan: Some lessons,' IIR Working Paper.