IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_8375.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent Boxes and the Success Rate of Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald B. Davies
  • Dieter F. Kogler
  • Ryan Hynes

Abstract

Patent boxes significantly reduce the corporate tax rate applied to income earned from a patent. This incentivizes firms to increase the likelihood of a patent application being granted by creating more novel research and using more successful legal representation when filing the application. Conversely, it supports submitting applications for marginally novel innovations that otherwise would not have been submitted, lowering the probability of success. We use data from applications to the European Patent Office from 1978 to 2019 and find that the introduction of a patent box increases the average success rate of applications from large, corporate innovators by 6.9 percentage points. This impact only materializes two years after a patent box takes effect, suggesting that improved research effort is the dominant response by firms. Therefore patent boxes may help to increase innovation novelty and improve the overall quality of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald B. Davies & Dieter F. Kogler & Ryan Hynes, 2020. "Patent Boxes and the Success Rate of Applications," CESifo Working Paper Series 8375, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_8375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp8375.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karkinsky, Tom & Riedel, Nadine, 2012. "Corporate taxation and the choice of patent location within multinational firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 176-185.
    2. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Patent validation at the country level--The role of fees and translation costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1423-1437, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Van Reenen, John, 1995. "Dynamic Count Data Models of Technological Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(429), pages 333-344, March.
    5. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1999. "Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 77-97, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Ronald B. Davies & Julien Martin & Mathieu Parenti & Farid Toubal, 2018. "Knocking on Tax Haven’s Door: Multinational Firms and Transfer Pricing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(1), pages 120-134, March.
    8. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kaplanis, Ioannis, 2020. "The role of international collaborations in securing the patent grant," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    9. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Jagadeesh Sivadasan, 2011. "What Happens When Firms Patent? New Evidence from U.S. Economic Census Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 126-146, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Sebastien Bradley & Estelle Dauchy & Leslie Robinson, 2015. "Cross-Country Evidence on the Preliminary Effects of Patent Box Regimes on Patent Activity and Ownership," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 68(4), pages 1047-1072, December.
    12. Michele Pezzoni & Francesco Lissoni & Gianluca Tarasconi, 2014. "How to kill inventors: testing the Massacrator© algorithm for inventor disambiguation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 477-504, October.
    13. Annette Alstadsæter & Salvador Barrios & Gaetan Nicodeme & Agnieszka Maria Skonieczna & Antonio Vezzani, 2018. "Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 131-177.
    14. Lisa Evers & Helen Miller & Christoph Spengel, 2015. "Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 502-530, June.
    15. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    16. Thomas Torslov & Ludvig Wier & Gabriel Zucman, 2020. "The Missing Profits of Nations," Working Papers halshs-03022293, HAL.
    17. Griffith, Rachel & Miller, Helen & O'Connell, Martin, 2014. "Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 12-23.
    18. Christof Ernst & Katharina Richter & Nadine Riedel, 2014. "Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(4), pages 694-719, August.
    19. Carine Peeters & Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007. "Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Franco Malerba (ed.), Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Structural Transformation, pages 345-371, Springer.
    20. 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.
    21. Simon Bösenberg & Peter H. Egger, 2017. "R&D tax incentives and the emergence and trade of ideas," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 32(89), pages 39-80.
    22. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Gaessler, Fabian & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2021. "Should there be lower taxes on patent income?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    24. Christos Agiakloglou & Kyriakos Drivas & Dimitris Karamanis, 2016. "Individual inventors and market potentials: Evidence from US patents," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 147-156.
    25. Becker, Johannes & Fuest, Clemens & Riedel, Nadine, 2012. "Corporate tax effects on the quality and quantity of FDI," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1495-1511.
    26. 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.
    27. Peter Egger & Christian Keuschnigg, 2015. "Innovation, Trade, and Finance," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 121-157, May.
    28. Coelli, Federica & Moxnes, Andreas & Ulltveit-Moe, Karen-Helene, 2016. "Better, Faster, Stronger: Global Innovation and Trade Liberalization," CEPR Discussion Papers 11506, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    29. Marko Koethenbuerger & Federica Liberini & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2019. "(Un)Intended Effects of Preferential Tax Regimes: The Case of European Patent Boxes," EconPol Working Paper 29, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    30. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    31. Dischinger, Matthias & Riedel, Nadine, 2011. "Corporate taxes and the location of intangible assets within multinational firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 691-707.
    32. Ernst, Christof & Spengel, Christoph, 2011. "Taxation, R&D tax incentives and patent application in Europe," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-024, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    33. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, June.
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. Catalina Martinez, 2010. "Insight into Different Types of Patent Families," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2010/2, OECD Publishing.
    37. Pierre Mohnen & Arthur Vankan & Bart Verspagen, 2017. "Evaluating the innovation box tax policy instrument in the Netherlands, 2007–13," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 141-156.
    38. Carine Peeters & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2006. "Complex innovation strategies and patenting behaviour," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9051, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    39. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    40. 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.
    41. Riedel, Nadine & Böhm, Tobias & Karkinsky, Tom & Knoll, Bodo, 2015. "Corporate Taxes and Strategic Patent Location within Multinational Firms," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112978, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    42. Francois P. Kabore & Walter G. Park, 2019. "Can patent family size and composition signal patent value?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(60), pages 6476-6496, December.
    43. Webster, Elizabeth & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Jensen, Paul H., 2007. "Characteristics of international patent application outcomes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 362-368, June.
    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. Dimitrios Exadaktylos & Mahdi Ghodsi & Armando Rungi, 2021. "What do Firms Gain from Patenting? The Case of the Global ICT Industry," Papers 2108.00814, arXiv.org.

    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. Schwab, Thomas & Todtenhaupt, Maximilian, 2016. "Spillover from the haven: Cross-border externalities of patent box regimes within multinational firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-073, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Annette Alstadsæter & Salvador Barrios & Gaetan Nicodeme & Agnieszka Maria Skonieczna & Antonio Vezzani, 2018. "Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 131-177.
    3. Sandro Montresor & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Key Enabling Technologies and Smart Specialization Strategies. European Regional Evidence from patent data," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2015-05, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    4. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kaplanis, Ioannis, 2020. "The role of international collaborations in securing the patent grant," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    5. İrem Güçeri & Marko Köthenbürger & Martin Simmler, 2020. "Supporting Firm Innovation and R&D: What is the Optimal Policy Mix?," EconPol Policy Reports 20, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    6. 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.
    7. Pfeiffer, Olena & Spengel, Christoph, 2017. "Tax incentives for research and development and their use in tax planning," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-046, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Gaessler, Fabian & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2021. "Should there be lower taxes on patent income?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    9. Martina Baumann & Tobias Boehm & Bodo Knoll & Nadine Riedel, 2020. "Corporate Taxes, Patent Shifting, and Anti-avoidance Rules: Empirical Evidence," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(4), pages 467-504, July.
    10. Dudar, Olena & Voget, Johannes, 2016. "Corporate taxation and location of intangible assets: Patents vs. trademarks," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Bornemann, Tobias & Laplante, Stacie K. & Osswald, Benjamin, 2018. "The effect of intellectual property boxes on innovative activity & effective tax rates," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 234, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    12. Christof Ernst & Katharina Richter & Nadine Riedel, 2014. "Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(4), pages 694-719, August.
    13. Dudar, Olena & Spengel, Christoph & Voget, Johannes, 2015. "The impact of taxes on bilateral royalty flows," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-052, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Sebastien Bradley & Estelle Dauchy & Leslie Robinson, 2015. "Cross-Country Evidence on the Preliminary Effects of Patent Box Regimes on Patent Activity and Ownership," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 68(4), pages 1047-1072, December.
    15. Andreas Haufler & Dirk Schindler, 2020. "Attracting Profit Shifting or Fostering Innovation? On Patent Boxes and R&D Subsidies," CESifo Working Paper Series 8640, CESifo.
    16. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Yann Ménière & Myra Mohnen, 2017. "International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 793-828, May.
    17. Marko Köthenbürger & Federica Liberini & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2018. "Is it just Luring Reported Profit? The Case of European Patent Boxes," CESifo Working Paper Series 7061, CESifo.
    18. Marko Koethenbuerger & Federica Liberini & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2019. "(Un)Intended Effects of Preferential Tax Regimes: The Case of European Patent Boxes," EconPol Working Paper 29, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    19. Lisa Evers & Helen Miller & Christoph Spengel, 2015. "Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 502-530, June.
    20. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    patent box; patents; application success; corporate taxation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H20 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - General
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_8375. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.