IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v22y2025i1p76-89.html

Patents Used in Patent Office Rejections as Indicators of Value

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher A. Cotropia
  • David L. Schwartz

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel approach to measure a patent's economic value by examining whether the patent's disclosure leads to rejection of another pending US patent application. This approach considers the use of the patent by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in office action rejections on the grounds of novelty or obviousness, as well as its citation as an X or Y reference in a European Patent Office (EPO) search report, which provides analogous information. Unlike conventional citation metrics widely employed by economists, the novel metric is arguably more closely tied to private value, as it is centered on the examiner's rejection of another patent application based on the patent in question. As this metric is not directly influenced by potential strategic behavior by patent lawyers or patent applicants, it is more directly tied to private value. This study evaluates how patents used in novelty and obviousness rejections, and comparable EPO information, correspond to common measures of private value—specifically patent renewal, the assertion of a patent in litigation, the number of independent patent claims, and classification in multiple technological subject matters. We examine rejection data over a defined time period for US patents issued from 1999 to 2007 and then link value data to these patents. A similar analysis is also conducted for EPO search reports. Our findings reveal that rejection uses, as well as X and Y EPO search citations, independently exhibit positive correlations with all of these value measurements. Moreover, when information from both the USPTO and EPO concerning a given patent is combined, further insights about that patent's value are obtained. We also find that rejection uses provide unique insights into additional measures of private value such as the patent being listed in the Orange Book or as a Standard Essential Patent. Accordingly, these rejection use metrics provide another independent tool for evaluating a patent's value.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher A. Cotropia & David L. Schwartz, 2025. "Patents Used in Patent Office Rejections as Indicators of Value," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 76-89, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:1:p:76-89
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12404?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hegde, Deepak & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 287-289, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Tetsuo Wada, 2020. "When do the USPTO examiners cite as the EPO examiners? An analysis of examination spillovers through rejection citations at the international family-to-family level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1591-1615, November.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Jean O. Lanjouw & Ariel Pakes & Jonathan Putnam, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    8. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Honggi Lee, 2018. "Reversed citations and the localization of knowledge spillovers," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 495-521.
    9. Nelson, Andrew & Earle, Andrew & Howard-Grenville, Jennifer & Haack, Julie & Young, Doug, 2014. "Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 927-940.
    10. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2010. "When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 399-416, May.
    11. Justus Baron & Henry Delcamp, 2012. "The private and social value of patents in discrete and cumulative innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 581-606, February.
    12. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:4:p:405-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Pakes, Ariel S, 1986. "Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 755-784, July.
    14. Justus Baron & Tim Pohlmann, 2018. "Mapping standards to patents using declarations of standard‐essential patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 504-534, September.
    15. Jeffrey Kuhn & Kenneth Younge & Alan Marco, 2020. "Patent citations reexamined," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(1), pages 109-132, March.
    16. von Graevenitz, Georg & Wagner, Stefan & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2011. "How to measure patent thickets--A novel approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 6-9, April.
    17. Sun, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2022. "Citations backward and forward: Insights into the patent examiner's role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    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. 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.
    2. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    3. Sun, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2022. "Citations backward and forward: Insights into the patent examiner's role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    4. Petra Moser & Joerg Ohmstedt & Paul W. Rhode, 2018. "Patent Citations—An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1926-1940, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Jonathan H. Ashtor, 2019. "Investigating Cohort Similarity as an Ex Ante Alternative to Patent Forward Citations," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 848-880, December.
    7. Ashtor, Jonathan H., 2022. "Modeling patent clarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    8. Higham, Kyle & Contisciani, Martina & De Bacco, Caterina, 2022. "Multilayer patent citation networks: A comprehensive analytical framework for studying explicit technological relationships," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    10. Michael J. Andrews, 2021. "Historical patent data: A practitioner's guide," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 368-397, May.
    11. Andriosopoulos, Dimitris & Czarnowski, Pawel & Marshall, Andrew, 2023. "Do corporate lawyers matter? Evidence from patents," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    12. Tetsuo Wada, 2024. "Experience effects of patent examiners: an empirical study of the career length and citation patterns on triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6333-6348, October.
    13. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    14. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    15. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    16. repec:osf:socarx:49qxk_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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).
    18. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    19. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Laurie Ciaramella & Catalina Martínez & Yann Ménière, 2017. "Tracking patent transfers in different European countries: methods and a first application to medical technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 817-850, August.
    21. Bulat Sanditov, 2005. "Patent Citations, the Value of Innovations and Path-Dependency," KITeS Working Papers 177, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Nov 2005.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:1:p:76-89. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.