IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v2y2011i02p1-43_00.html

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent

Author

Listed:
  • Danguy, Jérôme
  • van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno

Abstract

For more than 40 years, governments and professional associations have acted, voted or lobbied against the implementation of the Community Patent (COMPAT, officially called the EU Patent). The econometric results and simulations presented in this paper suggest that, thanks to its attractiveness in terms of market size and a sound renewal fee structure, the COMPAT would drastically reduce the relative patenting costs for applicants while generating more income for the European Patent Office and most National Patent Offices. The loss of economic rents (€400 million would be lost by patent attorneys, translators and lawyers) and the drop of controlling power by national patent offices elucidate further the observed resistance to the Community Patent.

Suggested Citation

  • Danguy, Jérôme & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-43, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:2:y:2011:i:02:p:1-43_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588800000142/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Agnieszka Kupzok & Julien Pénin, 2013. "Les enjeux économiques du brevet unitaire européen," Bulletin de l'Observatoire des politiques économiques en Europe, Observatoire des Politiques Économiques en Europe (OPEE), vol. 29(1), pages 29-34, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Michele Gazzola & Alessia Volpe, 2014. "Linguistic justice in IP policies: evaluating the fairness of the language regime of the European Patent Office," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 47-70, August.
    4. Michele Gazzola, 2017. "Multilingualism and the International Patent System: an Assessment of the Fairness of the Language Policy of WIPO," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 349-369, September.
    5. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-367 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Prud'homme, Dan, 2012. "Dulling the Cutting Edge: How Patent-Related Policies and Practices Hamper Innovation in China," MPRA Paper 43299, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Dec 2012.
    7. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kaplanis, Ioannis, 2020. "The role of international collaborations in securing the patent grant," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    8. Glazer Klara, 2015. "Advantages and Disadvantages of the Single European Patent / Prednosti in slabosti enotnega evropskega patenta," Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, Sciendo, vol. 61(2), pages 24-34, April.
    9. Kani, Masayo & Nishimura, Yoichiro, 2025. "Does patent fee reform lower the bar? Evidence from the deferred patent examination system in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(4).
    10. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    11. repec:ulp:buopee:v:29:y:2013:m:12:i:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jérôme Danguy & Bruno van Pottelsberghe, 2014. "The policy dilemma of the unitary patent," Bruegel Working Papers 858, Bruegel.
    13. Hikkerova, Lubica & Kammoun, Niaz & Lantz, Jean-Sébastien, 2014. "Patent life cycle: New evidence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 313-324.
    14. Herz, Benedikt & Mejer, Malwina, 2019. "Effects of the European Union trademark: Lessons for the harmonization of intellectual property systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1841-1854.
    15. Prud'homme, Dan, 2012. "A statistical analysis of China's patent quality situation and larger innovation ecosystem," MPRA Paper 51619, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Andrea Conte, 2013. "Determinants of policy reforms in the fields of R&D, education and innovation: EU-27 evidence during the Lisbon Decade," Chapters, in: Mehmet Ugur (ed.), Governance, Regulation and Innovation, chapter 5, pages 122-146, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Picard, Pierre M. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "Patent office governance and patent examination quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 14-25.
    18. Spithoven, André & Teirlinck, Peter, 2011. "The relation between the firm’s IP strategy and occupation and qualification of the R&D labour force," Working Papers 2011/21, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    19. Kimberlee Weatherall & Elizabeth Webster, 2014. "Patent Enforcement: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 312-343, April.
    20. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2013. "The Role Of Fees In Patent Systems: Theory And Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 696-716, September.
    21. Prud'homme, Dan, 2012. "How certain indigenous innovation and other patent policies hamper innovation in China," MPRA Paper 51710, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Dec 2012.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • P14 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Property Rights

    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:cup:jbcoan:v:2:y:2011:i:02:p:1-43_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    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.