IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2354-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of successful patent applications to combat financial fraud

Author

Listed:
  • Davit Khachatryan

    (Babson College)

  • Brigitte Muehlmann

    (Babson College)

Abstract

Finding out the characteristics of patent applications that lead to successful grants is an important and yet under-investigated topic in the scientometric literature. Using data from financial fraud-related patent applications submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), this study aims to determine which factors that can be influenced by inventors relate to successful patent grants. A descriptive statistical model is proposed to estimate the likelihood of a patent document being granted by the USPTO based on a number of explanatory variables. The following factors are among the notable statistically significant determinants for the studied patent sample: number of drawings, drafting aggressiveness, proportion of granted patent prior art references, proportion of web-based non-patent literature references, subclass specialization, and representation by a patent attorney or agent. The implications of these empirical findings are discussed in the context of entrepreneurship.

Suggested Citation

  • Davit Khachatryan & Brigitte Muehlmann, 2017. "Determinants of successful patent applications to combat financial fraud," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1353-1383, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2354-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2354-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2354-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2354-6?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kimberly Blanton, 2012. "The Rise of Financial Fraud," Issues in Brief ib2012-5, Center for Retirement Research, revised Feb 2012.
    2. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2014. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents?: Evidence from Micro-Level Application Data," NBER Working Papers 20337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    4. Jyrki Ali-Yrkko & Ari Hyytinen & Mika Pajarinen, 2005. "Does patenting increase the probability of being acquired? Evidence from cross-border and domestic acquisitions," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(14), pages 1007-1017.
    5. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    6. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    7. Joan Farre-Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2016. "The Bright Side of Patents," NBER Working Papers 21959, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Éric Archambault, 2002. "Methods for using patents in cross-country comparisons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(1), pages 15-30, April.
    9. Christian Sternitzke, 2009. "Patents and publications as sources of novel and inventive knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 551-561, June.
    10. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    11. Ying Xie & David Giles, 2011. "A survival analysis of the approval of US patent applications," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(11), pages 1375-1384.
    12. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal & Andrew Pickles, 2002. "Reliable estimation of generalized linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(1), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Adams, Stephen, 2003. "A comparison of early publication practices in the United States and Europe," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 117-122, June.
    14. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    15. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 883-909, December.
    16. Ronald J. Mann & Marian Underweiser, 2012. "A New Look at Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution to Validity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, March.
    17. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2013. "The more you spend, the more you get? The effects of R&D and capital expenditures on the patenting activities of biotechnology firms," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 497-521, February.
    18. Carter, Nancy M. & Gartner, William B. & Reynolds, Paul D., 1996. "Exploring start-up event sequences," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 151-166, May.
    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. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.

    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. WADA Tetsuo, 2015. "Cognitive Distances in Prior Art Search by the Triadic Patent Offices: Empirical evidence from international search reports," Discussion papers 15096, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    2. John-Paul Ferguson & Gianluca Carnabuci, 2017. "Risky Recombinations: Institutional Gatekeeping in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 133-151, February.
    3. Corinne Langinier & Stéphanie Lluis, 2021. "Departure And Promotion Of U.S. Patent Examiners: Do Patent Characteristics Matter?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 416-434, April.
    4. Sun, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2022. "Citations backward and forward: Insights into the patent examiner's role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    5. Prithwiraj Choudhury & Martine R. Haas, 2018. "Scope versus speed: Team diversity, leader experience, and patenting outcomes for firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 977-1002, April.
    6. Tetsuo Wada, 2016. "Obstacles to prior art searching by the trilateral patent offices: empirical evidence from International Search Reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 701-722, May.
    7. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    8. Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Why weak patents? Testing the examiner ignorance hypothesis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 43-56.
    9. Bekkers, Rudi & Martinelli, Arianna & Tamagni, Federico, 2020. "The impact of including standards-related documentation in patent prior art: Evidence from an EPO policy change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    10. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 923-952, August.
    11. Davit Khachatryan & Brigitte Muehlmann, 2020. "Measuring the drafting alignment of patent documents using text mining," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.
    12. deGrazia, Charles A.W. & Pairolero, Nicholas A. & Teodorescu, Mike H.M., 2021. "Examination incentives, learning, and patent office outcomes: The use of examiner’s amendments at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    13. Changbae Mun & Sejun Yoon & Hyunseok Park, 2019. "Structural decomposition of technological domain using patent co-classification and classification hierarchy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 633-652, November.
    14. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    15. Tetsuo Wada, 2018. "The choice of examiner patent citations for refusals: evidence from the trilateral offices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 825-843, November.
    16. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    17. Elise Petit & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Lluís Gimeno Fabra, 2021. "Are Patent Offices Substitutes?," Working Papers ECARES 2021-18, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Lee, Changyong & Jeon, Daeseong & Ahn, Joon Mo & Kwon, Ohjin, 2020. "Navigating a product landscape for technology opportunity analysis: A word2vec approach using an integrated patent-product database," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    19. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    20. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).

    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:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2354-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.