IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A quality index for patent systems

  • de Saint-Georges, Matthis
  • van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno

This paper presents a quality index for patent systems. The index is composed of nine operational design components that shape the transparency and stringency of patent systems and affect the extent to which they comply with patentability conditions. Seven components are related to rules and regulations (e.g., grace period, opposition process and continuation-in-parts), while two components measure patent offices’ resource allocation policy (i.e., workload per examiner and incentives). The index is computed for 32 national patent systems, and displays a high degree of heterogeneity across countries. Cross-sectional quantitative analyses suggest that the demand for patent rights is lower in patent systems with a higher quality index, controlling for research efforts, patent fees and the “strength” of enforcement mechanisms. These results have important policy and research (metrics) implications.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312002119
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

Volume (Year): 42 (2013)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 704-719

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:3:p:704-719
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.003
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Dewatripont, Mathias & Legros, Patrick, 2008. "'Essential' Patents, FRAND Royalties and Technological Standards," CEPR Discussion Papers 6925, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2007. "Per un pugno di dollari: A first look at the price elasticity of patents," Working Papers CEB 07-022.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  3. George Lazaridis & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2007. "The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the "induced withdrawals"," Working Papers CEB 07-007.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  4. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2009. "Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/60726, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  5. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2006. "Can Post-Grant Reviews Improve Patent System Design? A Twin Study of US and European Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 5680, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  6. Archontopoulos, Eugenio & Guellec, Dominique & Stevnsborg, Niels & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2007. "When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 103-132, June.
  7. Claessens, Stijn & Laeven, Luc, 2002. "Financial Development, Property Rights and Growth," CEPR Discussion Papers 3295, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Graham, Stuart J. H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8bs830w9, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  9. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2010. "The Role of Fees in Patent Systems: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2010-023, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  10. Guellec, Dominique & Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno v., 2000. "Applications, grants and the value of patent," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 109-114, October.
  11. Mejer, Malwina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2008. "The London Agreement and the Cost of Patenting in Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 7033, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  12. Picard, Pierre M & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2011. "Patent Office Governance and Patent System Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 8338, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  13. Guellec, Dominique & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "The Economics of the European Patent System: IP Policy for Innovation and Competition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199216987, December.
  14. Gene M. Grossman & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2002. "International Protection of Intellectual Property," CESifo Working Paper Series 790, CESifo Group Munich.
  15. Deepak Hegde & David C. Mowery & Stuart J. H. Graham, 2009. "Pioneering Inventors or Thicket Builders: Which U.S. Firms Use Continuations in Patenting?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1214-1226, July.
  16. Jérôme Danguy & Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2010. "The R&D‐Patent relationship: An Industry Perspective," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2010-038, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  17. Franzoni, Chiara & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2010. "The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 200-213, March.
  18. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
  19. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2010. "The Quality Factor in Patent Systems," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2010-027, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  20. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2008. "A Policy Insight into the R&D-Patent Relationship," Working Papers CEB 08-008.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  21. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Patent validation at the country level--The role of fees and translation costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1423-1437, November.
  22. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2008. "On the price elasticity of demand for patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 7029, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  23. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Didier François, 2009. "The Cost Factor in Patent Systems," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 329-355, December.
  24. 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.
  25. Park, Walter G., 2008. "International patent protection: 1960-2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 761-766, May.
  26. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent “Quality Control:†A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt7931q79x, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  27. Burk, Dan L. & Lemley, Mark, 2003. "Policy Levers in Patent Law," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt4qr081sg, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
  28. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  29. Keith E. Maskus, 2006. "Reforming U.S. Patent Policy: Getting the Incentives Right," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 127-153, October.
  30. Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Phillipe, 2009. "Monetary and Implicit Incentives of Patent Examiners," Working Papers 2009-22, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
  31. Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring.
  32. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8vg425vj, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  33. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
  34. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:3:p:704-719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.