IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The quality factor in patent systems

  • Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie

This article develops a methodology to compare the quality of examination services in three major patent systems. Quality is defined as the extent to which patent systems comply with the patentability conditions in a transparent way. The methodology consists of a two-layer analytical framework encompassing "legal standards" (LS) and their "operational design" (OD) which includes several interdependent components that affect the stringency and transparency of the filtering process. The comparison of patent systems in Europe, Japan, and the United States shows that their operational designs differ substantially: the European system provides higher-quality and more expensive examination services than the United States one, while the Japanese Patent system is in an intermediate position. The results illustrate that different system designs lead to different outcomes in terms of backlogs, patent propensity, and the number of dubious patent rights in force. In this respect, these findings (i) provide an empirical validation of the conjecture of a vicious cycle linking the quality of examination and demand for patents and (ii) highlight the need for a multifaceted convergence of patent systems before mutual recognition is put in place. Copyright 2011 The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

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:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 Oxford University Press in its journal Industrial and Corporate Change.

Volume (Year): 20 (2011)
Issue (Month): 6 (December)
Pages: 1755-1793

in new window

Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:20:y:2011:i:6:p:1755-1793
Contact details of provider: Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page:

Order Information: Web:

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. Mejer, Malwina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Economic incongruities in the European patent system," CEPR Discussion Papers 7142, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  3. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2008. "On the Price Elasticity of Demand for Patents," Working Papers ECARES 2008_031, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  4. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eugenio Archontopoulos & Dominique Guellec & Niels Stevnsborg & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2006. "When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO," Working Papers CEB 06-019.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  5. 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.
  6. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
  7. 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.
  8. Francois, Didier & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2006. "The Cost Factor in Patent Systems," CEPR Discussion Papers 5944, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  9. 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.
  10. Danguy Jérôme & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie Bruno, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-43, April.
  11. 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.
  12. Scherer, F M, 1972. "Nordhaus' Theory of Optimal Patent Life: A Geometric Reinterpretation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 422-27, June.
  13. Teece, David J., 1993. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 112-113, April.
  14. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "Patent Validation at the Country Level - The Role of Fees and Translation costs," CEPR Discussion Papers 6565, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  15. 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.
  16. 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, 09.
  17. Kazenske, Edward R., 2003. "The future of prior art searching at the United States patent and trademark office," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 283-287, December.
  18. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
  19. 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.
  20. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
  21. Grossman, G.M. & Lai, E., 2001. "International Protection of intellectual Property," Papers 215, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
  22. 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.
  23. Claessens, Stijn & Laeven, Luc, 2002. "Financial development, property rights, and growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2924, The World Bank.
  24. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2008. "A brief history of space and time: the scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6383, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  25. Bruno van Pottelsberghe, 2008. "The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe," Working Papers 264, Bruegel.
  26. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
  27. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
  28. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2008. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-69, September.
  29. Gilbert, R. & Shapiro, C., 1988. "Optimal Patent Length And Breadth," Papers 28, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
  30. Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring.
  31. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2006. "Can Post-Grant Reviews Improve Patent System Design? A Twin Study of US and European Patents," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 38, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
  32. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Languages, Fees and the International Scope of Patenting," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 10456, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
  33. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2009. "Filing strategies and the increasing duration of patent applications," Working Papers CEB 09-005.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  34. Guellec, Dominique & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2006. "Claiming More: The Increased Voluminosity of Patent Applications and its Determinants," CEPR Discussion Papers 5971, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  35. Mejer, Malwina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2011. "Patent backlogs at USPTO and EPO: Systemic failure vs deliberate delays," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 122-127, June.
  36. Sherry, Edward F. & Teece, David J., 2004. "Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 179-191, March.
  37. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
  38. Bernard Caillaud & Anne Duchene, 2009. "Patent Office in innovation policy: Nobody's perfect," PSE Working Papers halshs-00575019, HAL.
  39. van Zeebroeck, N. & Stevnsborg, N. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. & Guellec, D. & Archontopoulos, E., 2008. "Patent inflation in Europe," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-52, March.
  40. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Carine Peeters, 2006. "Innovation strategy and the patenting performances of large firms," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6201, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  41. 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 qt2qt097bd, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  42. Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Legros, 2013. "'Essential' patents, FRAND royalties and technological standards," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/168609, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  43. Victor Ginsburgh, 2005. "Languages, Genes, and Cultures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, February.
  44. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
  45. 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.
  46. Dominique Guellec & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patent as a market instrument," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/60728, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  47. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2000. "Applications grants and the value of patents," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6229, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  48. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
  49. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Herman Denis & Dominique Guellec, 2001. "Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6227, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  50. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
  51. 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.
  52. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, June.
  53. Bruno van Pottelsberghe, . "Lost property: The European patent system and why it doesn't work," Blueprints, Bruegel, number 312, June.
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:oup:indcch:v:20:y:2011:i:6:p:1755-1793. 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: (Oxford University Press)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.