IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ngi/dpaper/14-23.html

The Factors Related to the Minimum and Maximum Survival of Patents against Challenges to Validity

Author

Listed:
  • Yutaka Niidome

    (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies)

Abstract

In order to shed new light on the methodology of empirical studies on factors relating to patent validity, this study uses criteria based on the difference of the scope of protection at the time of grant and after the challenge as the dependent variable, and includes some new and recently studied independent variables related to the patent application and prosecu-tion. Thus, 267 Japanese patents with application dates between October 2001 and De-cember 2004 which were subsequently challenged in invalidation trials were categorized into three outcomes; (1) “complete survival”, (2) “partial survival” and (3)“complete loss”. Groups (1)+(2) and (3), or groups (1) and (2)+(3) were compared using logistic regression analysis to identify factors relating to the minimum and maximum survival of patents, re-spectively. The results showed a different set of variables significantly correlating with the minimum and maximum survival, indicating differences in the qualitative impacts of the variables on patent validity. Policy implications are also considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Yutaka Niidome, 2015. "The Factors Related to the Minimum and Maximum Survival of Patents against Challenges to Validity," GRIPS Discussion Papers 14-23, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:ngi:dpaper:14-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://grips.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=1159&item_no=1&attribute_id=20&file_no=1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronald J. Mann & Marian Underweiser, 2012. "A New Look at Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution to Validity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Bronwyn H. Hall & Stuart Graham & Dietmar Harhoff & David C. Mowery, 2004. "Prospects for Improving US Patent Quality via Postgrant Opposition," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 115-144, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The vulnerability of patent value determinants," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 283-308.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    10. AfDB AfDB, . "Annual Report 2012," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 461.
    11. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    12. Bronwyn H. Hall & Stuart Graham & Dietmar Harhoff & David C. Mowery, 2004. "Prospects for Improving US Patent Quality via Postgrant Opposition," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 115-144, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Yutaka Niidome, 2017. "The relation of patent description and examination with validity: an empirical study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 159-183, April.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    5. Caviggioli, Federico & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa, 2013. "International patent disputes: Evidence from oppositions at the European Patent Office," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1634-1646.
    6. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2021. "The prevalence of weak patents in the United States: A new method to identify weak patents and the implications for patent policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2014. "Separating patent wheat from chaff: Would the US benefit from adopting patent post-grant review?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1649-1659.
    11. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2009. "Business And Financial Method Patents, Innovation, And Policy," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(4), pages 443-473, September.
    12. 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).
    13. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2006. "Can Post-Grant Reviews Improve Patent System Design? A Twin Study of US and European Patents," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 38, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    14. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    15. Valentin J. Schmitt, 2025. "Disentangling patent quality: using a large language model for a systematic literature review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(1), pages 267-311, January.
    16. Wagner, Stefan & Sternitzke, Christian & Walter, Sascha, 2022. "Mapping Markush," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. de Saint-Georges, Matthis & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "A quality index for patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 704-719.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:ngi:dpaper:14-23. 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: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gripsjp.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.