IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcejxx/v9y2016i2p101-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biases in patent examination and firms’ responses: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry

Author

Listed:
  • Fei Yu
  • Yanrui Wu
  • Jin Chen

Abstract

Empirical analysis of matched patent application data in the world’s major patent offices has shown considerable variation in patent granting probability and examination duration across different countries. This phenomenon is attributed to institutional misclassifications or patent examiners’ mistakes by some authors. Others argued that cross-country heterogeneity could also be caused by deliberate manipulation of patent examination procedures with the goal to foster native inventors through suppressing foreign patent applicants. To explore whether manipulation exists, this study presents a case study of pharmaceutical patents granted by the US patent office and approved by the US FDA. Especially it focuses on the filing behavior of pharmaceutical companies in Korea, Japan and China. The regression results show that the granting ratio of the previous applications of a foreign company is correlated with the company’s probability of lodging a new patent application, which provides a supplementary evidence of the existence of the manipulated patent examination procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Fei Yu & Yanrui Wu & Jin Chen, 2016. "Biases in patent examination and firms’ responses: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," China Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 101-115, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcejxx:v:9:y:2016:i:2:p:101-115
    DOI: 10.1080/17538963.2016.1160535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17538963.2016.1160535
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17538963.2016.1160535?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rcejxx:v:9:y:2016:i:2:p:101-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcej .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.