IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2017-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent Validity Challenges and The America Invents Act

Author

Listed:
  • Talia Bar

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Brendan Costello

    (Yale Law School)

Abstract

Patent reexamination or patent review systems can lower the cost of challenging patent validity and help improve patent quality. We empirically investigate post-grant patent validity challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and how the 2011 America Invents Act affected them. We compare the inter partes reexamination with the inter partes review procedure that replaced it after the reform. To identify the effect of the policy changes, we exploit the fact that patents filed before the act passed, but granted after the new inter partes review system took effect, are not eligible for reexamination in the old system. We find that more patent challenges end with a patentee win after the policy change. Still, at least one patent claim is canceled in more than 60% of the cases. Challenged patents issued to small entities more often had at least one claim canceled compared to other patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Talia Bar & Brendan Costello, 2017. "Patent Validity Challenges and The America Invents Act," Working papers 2017-21, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised May 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2017-21
    Note: Talia Bar is the corresponding author
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2017-21R.pdf
    File Function: Full text (revised version)
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2017-21.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. 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.
    3. Hall, Bronwyn H., 2003. "Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2n24f63d, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2015. "Patents Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," CEPR Discussion Papers 10968, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    6. Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents Rights and Innovation by Small and Large Firms," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 54, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    7. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2013. "The Case against Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    8. Jean Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 1998. "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 223-246.
    9. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2015. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61614, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Abadie, Alberto & Imbens, Guido W., 2011. "Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11.
    11. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patent Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," NBER Working Papers 21769, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    13. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    14. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 317-369.
    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. Bar, Talia & Kalinowski, Jesse, 2019. "Patent validity and the timing of settlements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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. Filippo Mezzanotti, 2021. "Roadblock to Innovation: The Role of Patent Litigation in Corporate R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7362-7390, December.
    2. Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2016. "Across Five Eras: Patent Validity and Infringement Rates in U.S. Courts, 1929–2006," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 454-486, September.
    3. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    6. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    7. Schankerman, Mark & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality : Examination, Fees, and the Courts," Other publications TiSEM fa319822-6e68-4e05-8547-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patent Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," NBER Working Papers 21769, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Stuart J. H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Amanda F. Myers, 2018. "Patent transactions in the marketplace: Lessons from the USPTO Patent Assignment Dataset," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 343-371, September.
    14. Martin Watzinger & Thomas A. Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2020. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 328-359, November.
    15. Heidi L. Williams, 2017. "How Do Patents Affect Research Investments?," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 441-469, September.
    16. Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas A. & Nagler, Markus, 2017. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 4, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    17. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2015. "Patents Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," CEPR Discussion Papers 10968, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kristof Van Criekingen, 2018. "New evidence on determinants of IP litigation: A market-based approach," Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven 621964, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven.
    19. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2020. "The disciplinary effect of post-grant review – Causal evidence from European patent opposition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    20. Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents Rights and Innovation by Small and Large Firms," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 54, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent; Inter Partes Reexamination; Inter Partes Review; The America Invents Act; Post Grant Challenge; Patent Validity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law

    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:uct:uconnp:2017-21. 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: Mark McConnel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuctus.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.