IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ejimpp/ejim-04-2015-0027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the patent term changes in assessing the evolution of patent valuation from filing to maturity

Author

Listed:
  • Kyriakos Drivas
  • Andreas Panagopoulos

Abstract

Purpose - The authors argue that the patent term change introduced in Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the USA inadvertently offered a metric of self-valuation of patents at the time of filing, affirming the ability of Drugs and Chemical patents to offer greater R&D incentives than other technology fields. As renewals also offer a metric of self-valuation, the authors find that upon renewal Computer patents are found to offer greater R&D incentives than Drugs and Chemicals. The purpose of this paper is to inquire as to why Computer patents are considered as more valuable in the post grant period, even though they were not considered as valuable upon filing. The authors advance the idea that patents can increase in value if encompassed in a patent portfolio. Design/methodology/approach - The authors employ the introduction of the TRIPS agreement in the USA. In order to facilitate the move to TRIPS, the USPTO (unexpectedly) allowed applicants who filed prior to June 8, 1995 a patent length that was equal to the maximum of two regimes. Therefore, applicants that filed before the deadline were given a possible small extension of their patent’s time length. The authors use this change and renewal data to infer firms’ self-valuation of patents. For this reason, the authors acquire information for all utility patents that were filed around June 8, 1995 data project. Findings - The authors offer an additional explanation that is related to the increasingly commonplace build up of patent portfolios: patents can increase in value if encompassed in a portfolio. Such portfolios are bundles of patents whose means to an end lays in their strength in numbers. As Lanjouw and Schankerman (2004) note, when a patent is added to a portfolio the cost of defending a technology against infringement allegations decreases. To rephrase, a patent is regarded as the additional foot-soldier who aids the firm, arm-in-arm, in defending its technological territory and in fulfilling its strategic goal. Originality/value - The originality stemming from the paper is that policy makers that aim to tackle patent proliferation should not focus their attention to individual patents. Instead, they should target policies toward patent portfolios, because they provide the means of endowing patents with the extra weight that makes filing and renewing irrelevant patents worthwhile.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyriakos Drivas & Andreas Panagopoulos, 2016. "Using the patent term changes in assessing the evolution of patent valuation from filing to maturity," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(4), pages 528-546, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ejimpp:ejim-04-2015-0027
    DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0027/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0027/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0027?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    2. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2013. "The Case against Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    3. Kaz Miyagiwa, 2015. "The 2011 America Invents Act: Does it Undermine Innovation?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 211-227, June.
    4. Florian Jell & Joachim Henkel, 2010. "Patent Portfolio Races in Concentrated Markets for Technology," DRUID Working Papers 10-23, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    5. Yi Deng, 2003. "A Dynamic Stochastic Analysis of International Patent Application and Renewal Processes," Computing in Economics and Finance 2003 189, Society for Computational Economics.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Andrei Hagiu & David B. Yoffie, 2013. "The New Patent Intermediaries: Platforms, Defensive Aggregators, and Super-Aggregators," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 45-66, Winter.
    8. Deng, Yi, 2011. "A dynamic stochastic analysis of international patent application and renewal processes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 766-777.
    9. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    10. Bessen, James, 2008. "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 932-945, June.
    11. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Papageorgiadis, Nikolaos & Cross, Adam R. & Alexiou, Constantinos, 2014. "International patent systems strength 1998–2011," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 586-597.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Shih-tse Lo & Dhanoos Sutthiphisal, 2009. "Does it Matter Who Has the Right to Patent: First-to-invent or First-to-file? Lessons From Canada," NBER Working Papers 14926, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Liu, Kun & Arthurs, Jonathan & Cullen, John & Alexander, Roger, 2008. "Internal sequential innovations: How does interrelatedness affect patent renewal?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 946-953, June.
    17. Mark Schankerman, 1998. "How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 77-107, Spring.
    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. Kyriakos Drivas & Claire Economidou & Elena Ketteni & Konstantina Kottaridi, 2021. "Firms’ knowledge investment and market responses," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2363-2394, November.

    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. Jinyoung Kim, 2015. "Patent Portfolio Management of Sequential Inventions: Evidence from US Patent Renewal Data," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(2), pages 195-218, September.
    2. Kim, Jinyoung, 2017. "Racing against Time in Research: A Study of the 1995 U.S. Patent Law Amendment," IZA Discussion Papers 10815, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Jinyoung Kim, 2010. "Patent Portfolio Management of Sequential Innovations," Discussion Paper Series 1005, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    4. Jinyoung Kim, 2015. "Patent Portfolio Management of Sequential Innovations: Theory and Empirics," Discussion Paper Series 1504, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    5. Kyriakos Drivas & Claire Economidou & Elena Ketteni & Konstantina Kottaridi, 2021. "Firms’ knowledge investment and market responses," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2363-2394, November.
    6. Bessen, James, 2008. "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 932-945, June.
    7. Ananthraman, Srinivasan & Cambré, Bart & Delcamp, Henry, 2025. "Interpretive aspects of claim language and patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    8. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    9. repec:osf:socarx:49qxk_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    11. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Simon Wakeman, 2012. "How does obtaining intellectual property rights impact technology commercialization strategy for start-up innovators? Reconciling the effects on licensing vs. financing," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-12-03 (R1), ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 11 Jul 2012.
    13. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2009. "From patent renewals to applications survival: do portfolio management strategies play a role in patent length?," Working Papers CEB 09-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. 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).
    15. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    16. Bessen, James, 2009. "Estimates of patent rents from firm market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1604-1616, December.
    17. Ivan Lugovoi & Dimitrios A. Andritsos & Claire Senot, 2022. "Novelty and scope of process innovation: The role of related and unrelated manufacturing experience," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(10), pages 3877-3895, October.
    18. Federico Munari & Maurizio Sobrero, 2011. "Economic and Management Perspectives on the Value of Patents," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Koh, Ping-Sheng & Reeb, David M., 2015. "Missing R&D," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 73-94.
    20. Bessen, James & Neuhäusler, Peter & Turner, John L. & Williams, Jonathan, 2018. "Trends in private patent costs and rents for publicly-traded United States firms," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 53-69.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    TRIPS; Patent portfolios; Patent renewals; R&D incentives; Technology transfer policy; O31; O32; O33; O34;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • 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:eme:ejimpp:ejim-04-2015-0027. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.