IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-017-2272-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relation of patent description and examination with validity: an empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Yutaka Niidome

    () (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies)

Abstract

Abstract This paper describes an empirical study to identify factors of patent description and examination that affect the outcome of later challenges to patent validity. Using ternary dummy variables based on the change in the scope of protection before and after Japanese invalidation trials as the dependent variable, the study compares models estimated by ordered and binary logistic regression. The standardized length of the first part of the description explaining the prior art, and the second part explaining the details of the invention, were found to relate to the “maximum” and “minimum” survival of patents, respectively. Other factors were also identified. Different modes of survival are discussed. Models on the likelihood of a challenge to patent validity were also estimated. The variables related to patent validity were compared to those related to the likelihood of a challenge. This revealed factors affected by selection biases based on the opponent’s decision to make the challenge. Factors including the first and second parts of the description were not affected by selection biases and thus confirmed to be related to patent validity. Factors that not only affect patent validity but also affect an opponent’s decision to challenge patent validity are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yutaka Niidome, 2017. "The relation of patent description and examination with validity: an empirical study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 159-183, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2272-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2272-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2272-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The vulnerability of patent value determinants," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 283-308.
    3. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    5. 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.
    6. Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants--the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 443-480, April.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2272-7. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.