IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A quality index for patent systems

  • de Saint-Georges, Matthis
  • van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno

This paper presents a quality index for patent systems. The index is composed of nine operational design components that help shape the transparency of patent systems and affect the extent to which they comply with patentability conditions. Seven factors are related to rules and regulations (e.g., grace period, opposition process and continuation-inparts), while two factors measure patent offices’ resource allocation (i.e., workload per examiner and incentives). The index is computed for 32 national patent systems, it displays a high heterogeneity across countries. Cross-sectional quantitative analyses suggest that the demand for patent rights -or the propensity to patent- is lower in patent systems with a higher quality index, controlling for research efforts, patent fees and the "strength" of enforcement mechanisms.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 8440.

in new window

Date of creation: Jun 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:8440
Contact details of provider: Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820

Order Information: Email:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2006. "Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants," Working Papers CEB 06-018.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  2. Grossman, Gene & Lai, Edwin, 2002. "International Protection of Intellectual Property," CEPR Discussion Papers 3118, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "Patent Validation at the Country Level - The Role of Fees and Translation costs," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 2073, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
  4. Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Phillipe, 2009. "Monetary and Implicit Incentives of Patent Examiners," Working Papers 2009-22, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
  5. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2006. "Can Post-Grant Reviews Improve Patent System Design? A Twin Study of US and European Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 5680, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  6. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2013. "The Role Of Fees In Patent Systems: Theory And Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 696-716, 09.
  7. Bruno van Pottelsberghe, 2010. "The quality factor in patent systems," Working Papers 422, Bruegel.
  8. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Didier François, 2009. "The Cost Factor in Patent Systems," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 329-355, December.
  9. Guellec, Dominique & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "The Economics of the European Patent System: IP Policy for Innovation and Competition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199216987.
  10. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2008. "A Policy Insight into the R&D-Patent Relationship," CEPR Discussion Papers 6716, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  11. Jérôme Danguy & Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2010. "The R&D‐Patent relationship: An Industry Perspective," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2010-038, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  12. Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Legros, 2008. ""Essential" Patents, FRAND Royalties and Technological Standards," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2008-010, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  13. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2008. "On the Price Elasticity of Demand for Patents," Working Papers ECARES 2008_031, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  14. Archontopoulos, Eugenio & Guellec, Dominique & Stevnsborg, Niels & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2006. "When Small is Beautiful: Measuring the Evolution and Consequences of the Voluminosity of Patent Applications at the EPO," CEPR Discussion Papers 5970, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  15. Park, Walter G., 2008. "International patent protection: 1960-2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 761-766, May.
  16. Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring.
  17. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "Per un Pugno di Dollari: A first Look at the Price Elasticity of Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 6499, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  18. Lazaridis, George & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the "induced withdrawals"," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 317-326, December.
  19. Mejer, Malwina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2008. "The London Agreement and the Cost of Patenting in Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 7033, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  20. Claessens, Stijn & Laeven, Luc, 2002. "Financial Development, Property Rights and Growth," CEPR Discussion Papers 3295, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  21. 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.
  22. Graham, Stuart J. H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-Examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2qt097bd, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  23. Pierre M. Picard & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Patent Office Governance and Patent System Quality," CREA Discussion Paper Series 11-06, Center for Research in Economic Analysis, University of Luxembourg.
  24. Franzoni, Chiara & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2010. "The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 200-213, March.
  25. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Iain M. Cockburn & Samuel Kortum & Scott Stern, 2002. "Are All Patent Examiners Equal? The Impact of Examiner Characteristics," NBER Working Papers 8980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. Burk, Dan L. & Lemley, Mark, 2003. "Policy Levers in Patent Law," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt4qr081sg, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
  28. 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.
  29. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent “Quality Control:†A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt7931q79x, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  30. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
  31. Keith E. Maskus, 2006. "Reforming U.S. Patent Policy: Getting the Incentives Right," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 127-153, October.
  32. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8vg425vj, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  33. Deepak Hegde & David C. Mowery & Stuart J. H. Graham, 2009. "Pioneering Inventors or Thicket Builders: Which U.S. Firms Use Continuations in Patenting?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1214-1226, July.
  34. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:8440. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.