IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v93y2011i3p1063-1075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Misclassification between Patent Offices: Evidence from a Matched Sample of Patent Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Alfons Palangkaraya

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne, Australia)

  • Elizabeth Webster

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne, Australia)

  • Paul H. Jensen

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne, Australia)

Abstract

In this paper, we estimate the extent of misclassification in patent examination decisions between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), that is, applications that are incorrectly refused a patent or incorrectly granted a patent. Using a proxy for inventive step as the predictor of the correct decision, we find that the probability that a “true grant” application is refused is 6.1%, while the probability that a “true refusal” application is granted is 9.8%. However, we find no evidence of an increasing trend of granting “bad” patents at the EPO and JPO. © 2011 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Misclassification between Patent Offices: Evidence from a Matched Sample of Patent Applications," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 1063-1075, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:93:y:2011:i:3:p:1063-1075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00111
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cohle, Zachary & Ortega, Alberto, 2023. "The effect of the opioid crisis on patenting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 493-521.
    2. Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Why weak patents? Testing the examiner ignorance hypothesis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 43-56.
    3. Adele Bergin, 2015. "Employer Changes and Wage Changes: Estimation with Measurement Error in a Binary Variable," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 29(2), pages 194-223, June.
    4. Dammert, Ana C. & Galdo, Jose, 2013. "Child Labor Variation by Type of Respondent: Evidence from a Large-Scale Study," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 207-220.
    5. Elise Petit & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Lluís Gimeno Fabra, 2021. "Are Patent Offices Substitutes ?," Working Papers TIMES² 2021-049, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Hao Mao & Lauren A. Johnston & Zhifeng Yin, 2019. "The Self-Reported Patent Quality Of Chinese Firms: Motivation Source And Technology Accumulation Effects Analysis," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(04), pages 939-960, September.
    7. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    8. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    9. de Saint-Georges, Matthis & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "A quality index for patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 704-719.
    10. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    11. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Paul Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2019. "Are foreigners treated equally under the TRIPs Agreement?," Working Papers 16, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    12. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya, 2014. "Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(2), pages 449-469, June.
    13. Adele Bergin, 2013. "Job Changes and Wage Changes: Estimation with Measurement Error in a Binary Variable," Economics Department Working Paper Series n240-13.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    14. Elise Petit & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Lluis Gimeno-Fabra, 2022. "Global patent systems: Revisiting the national bias hypothesis," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 56-67, March.
    15. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & William E. Griffiths & Adam B. Jaffe & Elizabeth Webster, 2021. "Low-Quality Patents in the Eye of the Beholder: Evidence from Multiple Examiners," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 607-636.
    16. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Elena M. Tur, 2018. "Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1319-1348, December.
    17. Shin, Seungryul Ryan & Lee, Jisoo & Jung, Yura Rosemary & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "The diffusion of scientific discoveries in government laboratories: The role of patents filed by government scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    18. Yamauchi, Isamu & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2015. "An economic analysis of deferred examination system: Evidence from a policy reform in Japan," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 19-28.
    19. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    20. WADA Tetsuo, 2015. "Cognitive Distances in Prior Art Search by the Triadic Patent Offices: Empirical evidence from international search reports," Discussion papers 15096, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    21. Kovács, Balázs, 2017. "Too hot to reject: The effect of weather variations on the patent examination process at the United States Patent and Trademark Office," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1824-1835.
    22. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2021. "The prevalence of weak patents in the United States: A new method to identify weak patents and the implications for patent policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    23. Nagaoka, Sadao & Yamauchi, Isamu, 2022. "Information constraints and examination quality in patent offices: The effect of initiation lags," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    24. Kim, Yee Kyoung & Oh, Jun Byoung, 2017. "Examination workloads, grant decision bias and examination quality of patent office," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 1005-1019.
    25. Tetsuo Wada, 2016. "Obstacles to prior art searching by the trilateral patent offices: empirical evidence from International Search Reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 701-722, May.

    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:tpr:restat:v:93:y:2011:i:3:p:1063-1075. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.