IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v117y2018i3d10.1007_s11192-018-2894-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities

Author

Listed:
  • Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro

    () (Universitat Politècnica de València)

  • Elena M. Tur

    () (Universitat Politècnica de València
    Eindhoven University of Technology
    University of Gothenburg)

Abstract

Abstract Indicators based on the probability of applicant citations in patents have been used to emphasize the importance of distinguishing applicant and examiner citations. However, the interpretation of these indicators and of the presence of applicant citations in European Patent Office (EPO) examiner reports is still uncertain. Based on interviews with patent examiners and patent applicants, we develop the idea that applicant citations in EPO examiner reports indicate examiner trust in applicants, and that this trust varies according to national patterns. Using EPO data for over 3,500,000 citations during 1997–2007, we verify that examiner trust in applicants is higher in granted patents. Examiners trust applicants from scientifically or economically strong countries, from member states of the European Patent Organization, and from the same country of the examiners.

Suggested Citation

  • Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Elena M. Tur, 2018. "Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1319-1348, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:117:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2894-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2894-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2894-4
    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. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    2. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    3. Collins, Peter & Wyatt, Suzanne, 1988. "Citations in patents to the basic research literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 65-74, April.
    4. de Saint-Georges, Matthis & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "A quality index for patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 704-719.
    5. Cornelia Lawson & Valerio Sterzi, 2014. "The role of early-career factors in the formation of serial academic inventors," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 464-479.
    6. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    7. Criscuolo, Paola & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1892-1908, December.
    8. repec:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0857-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Joaquín Azagra-Caro & Davide Consoli, 2016. "Knowledge flows, the influence of national R&D structure and the moderating role of public–private cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 152-172, February.
    10. repec:spr:scient:v:99:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1195-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1351-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Joaquín M. Azagra‐Caro & Pauline Mattsson & François Perruchas, 2011. "Smoothing the lies: The distinctive effects of patent characteristics on examiner and applicant citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(9), pages 1727-1740, September.
    13. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    14. Rui Li & Tamy Chambers & Ying Ding & Guo Zhang & Liansheng Meng, 2014. "Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 1007-1017, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Peter Thompson, 2006. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Inventor- and Examiner-added Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 383-388, May.
    17. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio & François Perruchas & Pauline Mattsson, 2009. "What do patent examiner inserted citations indicate for a region with low absorptive capacity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 441-455, August.
    18. repec:taf:regstd:v:51:y:2017:i:8:p:1232-1245 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
    20. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Porter, Michael E. & Stern, Scott, 2002. "The determinants of national innovative capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 899-933, August.
    21. repec:spr:scient:v:51:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1010577030871 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Picci, Lucio, 2010. "The internationalization of inventive activity: A gravity model using patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1070-1081, October.
    23. repec:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2323-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. 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.
    25. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    26. 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.
    27. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    28. repec:spr:scient:v:69:y:2006:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-006-0135-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. Park, Walter G., 2008. "International patent protection: 1960-2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 761-766, May.
    30. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya, 2014. "Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(2), pages 449-469, June.
    31. Maurseth, Per Botolf & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. " Knowledge Spillovers in Europe: A Patent Citations Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 104(4), pages 531-545, December.
    32. repec:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0891-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    33. repec:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1073-x is not listed on IDEAS
    34. Mingfeng Lin & Henry C. Lucas & Galit Shmueli, 2013. "Research Commentary ---Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and the p -Value Problem," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 906-917, December.
    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:117:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2894-4. 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 (Mallaigh Nolan). 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.