IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esm/wpaper/esmt-11-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Liegsalz

    (BMW AG)

  • Stefan Wagner

    (ESMT European School of Management and Technology)

Abstract

The number of patent applications filed at the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office SIPO grew tremendously over the last decades and the SIPO has become the world’s third largest patent office by 2009. In this paper, we provide an overview of the institutional background of patent examination in China. Moreover, we empirically analyze the determinants of the grant lags applicants have to expect at the SIPO. The multivariate duration analysis is based on the population of 443,533 patent applications filed at the SIPO between 1990 and 2002. The average grant lag is 4.71 years with considerable variation across 30 different technology areas. Interestingly, we find that Chinese applicants are able to achieve faster patent grants than their non-Chinese counterparts (even after controlling for various other determinants of grant lags). This might be an indication of a differential treatment of Chinese applicants which would be in violation of Art. 3 (National Treatment) and Art. 4 (Most-favored Nation Treatment) of TRIPS that has been signed by China in 2001.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Liegsalz & Stefan Wagner, 2011. "Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-11-06, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    • Handle: RePEc:esm:wpaper:esmt-11-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://static.esmt.org/publications/workingpapers/ESMT-11-06.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raffaele Paci & Stefano Usai, 2000. "Technological Enclaves and Industrial Districts: An Analysis of the Regional Distribution of Innovative Activity in Europe," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 97-114.
    2. Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2003. "Are More Important Patents Approved More Slowly and Should They Be?," Economics Discussion Papers 2850, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    5. Markus Reitzig & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 765-789, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    8. Masaaki Kotabe, 1992. "A Comparative Study of U.S. and Japanese Patent Systems," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 23(1), pages 147-168, March.
    9. Keith E. Maskus, 2004. "Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture and the Interests of Asian-Pacific," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d04-59, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    10. Smith, Pamela J., 1999. "Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 151-177, June.
    11. Maskus, Keith E. & Penubarti, Mohan, 1995. "How trade-related are intellectual property rights?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 227-248, November.
    12. Kamal Saggi, 2002. "Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology Transfer: A Survey," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 17(2), pages 191-235, September.
    13. Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Stefan, 2005. "Modelling the duration of patent examination at the European Patent Office," CEPR Discussion Papers 5283, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants--the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 443-480, April.
    15. John Cantwell & Simona Iammarino, 2000. "Multinational Corporations and the Location of Technological Innovation in the UK Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 317-332.
    16. Braga, C.A.P. & Fink, C. & Sepulveda, C.P., 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development," World Bank - Discussion Papers 412, World Bank.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Wipo, 2009. "World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2009 edition," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2009:941, April.
    20. Lee Branstetter & Raymond Fisman & C. Fritz Foley & Kamal Saggi, 2007. "Intellectual Property Rights, Imitation, and Foreign Direct Investment: Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Papers 13033, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. David Popp & Ted Juhl & Daniel K.N. Johnson, 2003. "Time in Purgatory: Determinants of the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications," NBER Working Papers 9518, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
    23. 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.
    24. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    25. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1987. "Is Western Europe losing the technological race?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 59-85, August.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. Yang, Deli, 2008. "Pendency and grant ratios of invention patents: A comparative study of the US and China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1035-1046, July.
    29. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    30. Bosworth, Derek & Yang, Deli, 2000. "Intellectual property law, technology flow and licensing opportunities in the People's Republic of China," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 453-477, 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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Tong, Tony W. & Zhang, Kun & He, Zi-Lin & Zhang, Yuchen, 2018. "What determines the duration of patent examination in China? An outcome-specific duration analysis of invention patent applications at SIPO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 583-591.
    5. Zhu, Kejia & Malhotra, Shavin & Li, Yaohan, 2022. "Technological diversity of patent applications and decision pendency," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    6. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2009. "From patent renewals to applications survival: do portfolio management strategies play a role in patent length?," Working Papers CEB 09-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    8. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    9. 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.
    10. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "The Financing of Innovative Firms," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 1(1).
    11. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    12. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2009. "Filing strategies and the increasing duration of patent applications," Working Papers CEB 09-005.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    13. Darcy, Jacques & Krämer-Eis, Helmut & Guellec, Dominique & Debande, Olivier, 2009. "Financing technology transfer," EIB Papers 10/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    14. 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.
    15. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Reza Hosseini, 2020. "Discrimination against foreigners in the U.S. patent system," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 349-366, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Juranek, Steffen, 2018. "Investing in legal advice," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 28-46.
    18. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    19. Cédric Schneider, 2011. "The battle for patent rights in plant biotechnology: evidence from opposition fillings," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 565-579, October.
    20. Schneider, Cédric, 2007. "The Determinants of Patent Applications Outcomes - Does Experience Matter?," MPRA Paper 3359, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    patent system; patent examination; State Intellectual Property Office China; duration analysis;
    All these keywords.

    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:esm:wpaper:esmt-11-06. 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: ESMT Faculty Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/emstbde.html .

    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.