IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v71y2023i1p124-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Gaétan De Rassenfosse
  • Paul H. Jensen
  • T'Mir Julius
  • Alfons Palangkaraya
  • Elizabeth Webster

Abstract

The patent system underpins the business model of some of the fastest‐growing companies. Used appropriately, it should support frontier technologies and nurture new firms. Used perniciously, it can stifle innovation and protect established technological behemoths. We analyze patent examination decisions at the American, European, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese patent offices and find evidence that patent attorneys have a surprisingly significant role in the patent system. Our results suggest that some forces within the examination system maintain the uneven playing field by allocating monopoly rights to inventors with better access to influential attorneys, rather than leveling it by favoring inventors with better, nonobvious ideas. Attorney quality is most important, vis‐à‐vis invention quality, in less codified and more rapidly changing technology areas such as software and ICT.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:71:y:2023:i:1:p:124-142
    DOI: 10.1111/joie.12319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12319
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joie.12319?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    2. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    4. Timothy Bates & William D. Bradford & Robert Seamans, 2018. "Minority entrepreneurship in twenty-first century America," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 415-427, March.
    5. David Card & Jörg Heining & Patrick Kline, 2013. "Workplace Heterogeneity and the Rise of West German Wage Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(3), pages 967-1015.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Grid Thoma & Salvatore Torrisi, 2006. "The market value of patents and R&D: Evidence from European firms," KITeS Working Papers 186, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Nov 2006.
    7. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    8. Tom Nicholas, 2008. "Does Innovation Cause Stock Market Runups? Evidence from the Great Crash," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1370-1396, September.
    9. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2019. "Correlated random effects models with unbalanced panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 137-150.
    11. C. N. V. Krishnan & Steven Davidoff Solomon & Randall S. Thomas, 2016. "Who are the Top Law Firms? Assessing the Value of Plaintiffs' Law Firms in Merger Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 122-154.
    12. Chen, Chen & Chen, Yangyang & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Podolski, Edward J., 2016. "Be nice to your innovators: Employee treatment and corporate innovation performance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 78-98.
    13. 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.
    14. Paulo Guimarães & Pedro Portugal, 2010. "A simple feasible procedure to fit models with high-dimensional fixed effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(4), pages 628-649, December.
    15. Corinne Langinier & Philippe Marcoul, 2016. "The Search of Prior Art and the Revelation of Information by Patent Applicants," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 49(3), pages 399-427, November.
    16. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    17. Griffith, Rachel & Miller, Helen & O'Connell, Martin, 2014. "Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 12-23.
    18. Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 69-85, January.
    19. John M. Abowd & Francis Kramarz & David N. Margolis, 1999. "High Wage Workers and High Wage Firms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 251-334, March.
    20. Georg Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner & Dietmar Harhoff, 2013. "Incidence and Growth of Patent Thickets: The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Complexity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 521-563, September.
    21. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    22. Palangkaraya, Alfons & Jensen, Paul H. & Webster, Elizabeth, 2008. "Applicant behaviour in patent examination request lags," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 243-245, December.
    23. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    24. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Wagner, 2009. "The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1969-1984, December.
    26. Haris Tabakovic & Thomas G. Wollmann, 2018. "From Revolving Doors to Regulatory Capture? Evidence from Patent Examiners," NBER Working Papers 24638, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Lazaridis, George & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the "induced withdrawals"," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 317-326, December.
    28. Jeffrey M. Kuhn & Neil C. Thompson, 2019. "How to Measure and Draw Causal Inferences with Patent Scope," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 5-38, January.
    29. Bena, Jan & Ferreira, Miguel A & Matos, Pedro & Pires, Pedro, 2017. "Are foreign investors locusts? The long-term effects of foreign institutional ownership," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 122-146.
    30. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    31. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    32. Riju Joshi & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2019. "Correlated Random Effects Models with Endogenous Explanatory Variables and Unbalanced Panels," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 134, pages 243-268.
    33. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    34. Bronwyn H Hall & Georg von Graevenitz & Christian Helmers, 2021. "Technology Entry in the Presence of Patent Thickets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(2), pages 953-953.
    35. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
    36. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Reza Hosseini, 2020. "Discrimination against foreigners in the U.S. patent system," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 349-366, December.
    37. Iain M. Cockburn & Samuel Kortum & Scott Stern, 2002. "Are All Patent Examiners Equal? The Impact of Examiner Characteristics," NBER Working Papers 8980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    38. 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.
    39. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    40. Chamberlain, Gary, 1982. "Multivariate regression models for panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 5-46, January.
    41. C. N. V. Krishnan & Ronald W. Masulis, 2013. "Law Firm Expertise and Merger and Acquisition Outcomes," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(1), pages 189-226.
    42. Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Improving patent valuations for management purposes--validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 939-957, September.
    43. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    44. Krishnan, C.N.V. & Solomon, Steven Davidoff & Thomas, Randall S., 2017. "The impact on shareholder value of top defense counsel in mergers and acquisitions litigation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 480-495.
    45. Junbyoung Oh & Yee Kyoung Kim, 2017. "Examination workloads, grant decision bias and examination quality of patent office," Inha University IBER Working Paper Series 2017-3, Inha University, Institute of Business and Economic Research, revised Apr 2017.
    46. Tim Reiffenstein, 2009. "Specialization, Centralization, and the Distribution of Patent Intermediaries in the USA and Japan," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 571-588.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Heikkilä, Jussi T.S. & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2023. "The changing work of IPR attorneys: 30 years of institutional transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li Yao & He Ni, 2023. "Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 4933-4969, September.
    2. deGrazia, Charles A.W. & Pairolero, Nicholas A. & Teodorescu, Mike H.M., 2021. "Examination incentives, learning, and patent office outcomes: The use of examiner’s amendments at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Philippe, 2020. "Monetary and implicit incentives of patent examiners," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    8. Heikkilä, Jussi T.S. & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2023. "The changing work of IPR attorneys: 30 years of institutional transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    9. Corinne Langinier & Philippe Marcoul, 2019. "Subjective performance of patent examiners, implicit contracts, and self‐funded patent offices," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 251-266, April.
    10. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    11. Elise Petit & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Lluís Gimeno Fabra, 2021. "Are Patent Offices Substitutes?," Working Papers ECARES 2021-18, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Emilio Raiteri, 2022. "Technology Protectionism and the Patent System: Evidence from China," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 1-43, March.
    13. Bekkers, Rudi & Martinelli, Arianna & Tamagni, Federico, 2020. "The impact of including standards-related documentation in patent prior art: Evidence from an EPO policy change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    14. Corinne Langinier & Stéphanie Lluis, 2021. "Departure And Promotion Of U.S. Patent Examiners: Do Patent Characteristics Matter?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 416-434, April.
    15. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 923-952, August.
    16. Michael J. Andrews, 2021. "Historical patent data: A practitioner's guide," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 368-397, May.
    17. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1820, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    18. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    19. Arnd Kölling & Claus Schnabel, 2022. "Owners, external managers and industrial relations in German establishments," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 60(2), pages 424-443, June.
    20. Mark Musumba & Cheryl A. Palm & Adam M. Komarek & Patrick K. Mutuo & Bocary Kaya, 2022. "Household livelihood diversification in rural Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 246-256, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • L43 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Legal Monopolies and Regulation or Deregulation
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:bla:jindec:v:71:y:2023:i:1:p:124-142. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    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.