IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i2d10.1007_s11192-025-05239-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Repeated examiner-attorney interaction and patent approval

Author

Listed:
  • Elena M. Tur

    (Eindhoven University of Technology
    University of Gothenburg)

  • Arjan Markus

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

Abstract

Can factors other than technical merit influence whether a patent application is approved and how long that approval takes? We posit that interactions between a given patent attorney-examiner pair related to former patenting procedures benefit subsequent application processes, increasing the likelihood and speed of an application being granted. Combining USPTO PatEx data with the PATSTAT database enabled us to study over 3 million applications dating from 2001 to 2014. This revealed that examiner-attorney interactions and the percentage of those leading to approval increased the probability of grant approval and reduced the length of the process. For an average patent, with a lag of 36.45 months, a one-standard deviation increase in the mean of previous examiner-attorney interaction speeds up future grant processes by around 11 days, and a one-standard deviation increase in successful interaction speeds them up by a further 65 days. We conclude that communication between examiners and attorneys enhances mutual understanding and reduces friction between applicants and granting institutions. Our findings have implications for diverse stakeholders in the patent process, including patent office examiners, patent attorneys, and companies applying for patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena M. Tur & Arjan Markus, 2025. "Repeated examiner-attorney interaction and patent approval," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 619-639, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05239-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05239-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05239-9
    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/s11192-025-05239-9?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. 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. van Zeebroeck, Nicolas & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Guellec, Dominique, 2009. "Claiming more: the Increased Voluminosity of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1006-1020, July.
    3. Lluís Gimeno-Fabra & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2021. "Decoding patent examination services," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(7), pages 707-730, October.
    4. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Erratum to: Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1107-1119, August.
    5. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    6. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    7. Josh Feng & Xavier Jaravel, 2020. "Crafting Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Patent Assertion Entities, Litigation, and Innovation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 140-181, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Marco, Alan C. & Sarnoff, Joshua D. & deGrazia, Charles A.W., 2019. "Patent claims and patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. Solon Moreira & Arjan Markus & Keld Laursen, 2018. "Knowledge diversity and coordination: The effect of intrafirm inventor task networks on absorption speed," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(9), pages 2517-2546, September.
    11. Myriam, Mariani, 2004. "What determines technological hits? Geography vs. firm competencies," Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Stuart J.H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Richard Miller, 2018. "The USPTO Patent Examination Research Dataset: A window on patent processing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 554-578, September.
    13. Johnson, Daniel K N & Popp, David, 2003. "Forced Out of the Closet: The Impact of the American Inventors Protection Act on the Timing of Patent Disclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(1), pages 96-112, Spring.
    14. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2020. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1572-1594, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 171-180, August.
    20. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    21. 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.
    22. Pierre Régibeau & Katharine Rockett, 2010. "Innovation Cycles And Learning At The Patent Office: Does The Early Patent Get The Delay?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 222-246, June.
    23. 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.
    24. Zoltan J. Acs & Luc Anselin & Attila Varga, 2008. "Patents and Innovation Counts as Measures of Regional Production of New Knowledge," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 11, pages 135-151, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    26. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    27. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    28. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    29. 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.
    30. Mukund Chari & H. Kevin Steensma & Charles Connaughton, 2020. "Previous and Prospective Career Mobility, Client Capture, and Compromised Professional Judgment: The Withholding of Known Relevant Prior Art by Patent Lawyers on Behalf of Their Clients," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 489-507, March.
    31. Mariani, Myriam, 2004. "What determines technological hits?: Geography versus firm competencies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1565-1582, December.
    32. Eduardo Melero & Neus Palomeras & David Wehrheim, 2020. "The Effect of Patent Protection on Inventor Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5485-5504, December.
    33. 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.
    34. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    35. 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.
    36. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    37. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers & Pluvia Zuniga, 2008. "In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(4), pages 611-646, August.
    38. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2016. "Openness and innovation in the US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1660-1671.
    39. Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Wagner, 2009. "The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1969-1984, December.
    40. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    41. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
    42. Catalina Martínez, 2011. "Patent families: When do different definitions really matter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 39-63, January.
    43. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    44. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    45. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    2. Li Yao & He Ni, 2023. "Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 4933-4969, September.
    3. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    4. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    5. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    6. 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.
    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. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," MPRA Paper 123361, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Lee, Honggi, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of patent scope on licensing propensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    10. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & Jaffe, Adam B, 2020. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," SocArXiv 49qxk_v1, Center for Open Science.
    11. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    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. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.
    14. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    15. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1820, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    16. Timothy Simcoe & Cesare Righi, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    17. Andriosopoulos, Dimitris & Czarnowski, Pawel & Marshall, Andrew, 2023. "Do corporate lawyers matter? Evidence from patents," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. Wagner, Stefan & Wakeman, Simon, 2016. "What do patent-based measures tell us about product commercialization? Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1091-1102.
    19. Stuart J.H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Richard Miller, 2018. "The USPTO Patent Examination Research Dataset: A window on patent processing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 554-578, September.
    20. Zhang, Gupeng & Xiong, Libin & Duan, Hongbo & Huang, Dujuan, 2020. "Obtaining certainty vs. creating uncertainty: Does firms’ patent filing strategy work as expected?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).

    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:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05239-9. 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.