(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
The Determinants of Patent Applications Outcomes - Does Experience Matter?
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/3359.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Determinants of Patent Applications Outcomes - Does Experience Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Schneider, Cédric

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to study the determinants of the outcomes of patent applications (withdrawal, refusal or grant). The application process at the European Patent Office is modelled in three stages, using a Trivariate Probit model with double selectivity correction in order to test whether the applicants ?patenting history has an effect on the outcome of the current application. I investigate the behavior of the applicant after the patent office has established the "state of the art", a precondition to an invention being patentable. The main results are (i) firms with large patents portfolios act following a "trial and error" strategy, by applying for large numbers of patents and thereafter waiting for the patent office?s final decision when the expected probability of grant is high, (ii) the technological importance of a patent is a crucial determinant of a successful application grant, (iii) a withdrawal is to be regarded as an expected refusal, since applicants tend to withdraw their applications when there is evidence that the inventions cannot be considered to be novel or to involve an inventive step.

Suggested Citation

  • Schneider, Cédric, 2007. "The Determinants of Patent Applications Outcomes - Does Experience Matter?," MPRA Paper 3359, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:3359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3359/1/MPRA_paper_3359.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8625/1/MPRA_paper_8625.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    4. Vopel, Katrin & Scherer, Frederic M. & Narin, Francis & Harhoff, Dietmar, 1997. "Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 97-27, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. van Dijk, Theon & Duysters, Geert, 1998. "Passing the European Patent Office: evidence from the data-processing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 937-946, December.
    6. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:4:p:405-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Colin Webb & Hélène Dernis & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2005. "Analysing European and International Patent Citations: A Set of EPO Patent Database Building Blocks," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2005/9, OECD Publishing.
    10. Bronwyn H. Hall & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2003. "Universities as Research Partners," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 485-491, May.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
    14. Jean O. Lanjouw & Ariel Pakes & Jonathan Putnam, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Morten Bennedsen & Kasper M. Nielsen & Francisco Pérez-González & Daniel Wolfenzon, 2006. "Inside the Family Firm: The Role of Families in Succession Decisions and Performance," NBER Working Papers 12356, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Schettino, Francesco & Sterlacchini, Alessandro & Venturini, Francesco, 2013. "Inventive productivity and patent quality: Evidence from Italian inventors," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 1043-1056.
    3. Cédric Schneider, 2009. "External knowledge sourcing: science, market and the value of patented inventions," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 551-560.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    8. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," CEP Discussion Papers dp1205, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eleftherios Sapsalis & Ran Navon, 2006. "Academic vs. industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Working Papers CEB 05-008.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Eleftherios Sapsalis & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007. "The Institutional Sources Of Knowledge And The Value Of Academic Patents," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 139-157.
    8. Paola Giuri & Myriam Mariani & Stefano Brusoni & Gustavo Crespi & Dominique Francoz & Alfonso Gambardella & Walter Garcia-Fontes & Aldo Geuna & Raul Gonzales & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl & Christia, 2005. "Everything you Always Wanted to Know about Inventors (but Never Asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU Survey," LEM Papers Series 2005/20, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2009. "Why Challenge the Ivory Tower? New Evidence on the Basicness of Academic Patents," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 488-499, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Grimaldi, Michele & Cricelli, Livio & Di Giovanni, Martina & Rogo, Francesco, 2015. "The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 286-302.
    14. Wagner, Stefan & Wakeman, Simon, 2016. "What do patent-based measures tell us about product commercialization? Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1091-1102.
    15. Eun Han & So Sohn, 2015. "Patent valuation based on text mining and survival analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 821-839, October.
    16. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    17. 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).
    18. Hsin-Ning Su & Carey Ming-Li Chen & Pei-Chun Lee, 2012. "Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 181-195, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Patent Office; Intellectual Property Rights;

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:pra:mprapa:3359. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.