IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jemstr/v33y2024i3p748-769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent eligibility after Alice: Evidence from USPTO patent examination

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse Frumkin
  • Nicholas A. Pairolero
  • Asrat Tesfayesus
  • Andrew A. Toole

Abstract

In a series of decisions over the last decade, the Supreme Court of the United States altered the classes of inventions that are eligible for patent protection—a body of law called subject matter eligibility. One of the more contentious of these decisions, Alice Corp. versus CLS Bank International (Alice), questioned the patentability of a broad class of inventions involving abstract ideas, particularly in digital technologies. Exploiting a quasinatural experiment, we find that the Alice decision reduced favorable patent eligibility decisions by 31% and significantly and persistently increased legal uncertainty in patent examination by 26% for a broad set of technologies. Our analysis quantifies how legal decisions can limit patent protection and highlights the need for further research on how greater legal uncertainty affects upstream investments supporting invention and downstream innovations fueling growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse Frumkin & Nicholas A. Pairolero & Asrat Tesfayesus & Andrew A. Toole, 2024. "Patent eligibility after Alice: Evidence from USPTO patent examination," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 748-769, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jemstr:v:33:y:2024:i:3:p:748-769
    DOI: 10.1111/jems.12592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12592
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jems.12592?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    2. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A toolkit of policies to promote innovation," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    4. Avinash K. Dixit & Robert S. Pindyck, 1994. "Investment under Uncertainty," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 5474.
    5. Dirk Czarnitzki & Andrew A. Toole, 2011. "Patent Protection, Market Uncertainty, and R&D Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 147-159, February.
    6. Edward F. Sherry & David J. Teece, 2008. "Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 8, pages 151-163, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. 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.
    8. Josh Feng & Xavier Jaravel, 2020. "Crafting Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Patent Assertion Entities, Litigation, and Innovation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 140-181, January.
    9. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Where Does State Street Lead? A First Look at Finance Patents, 1971 to 2000," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 901-930, April.
    10. Daniel F. Spulber, 2015. "How Patents Provide The Foundation Of The Market For Inventions," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 271-316.
    11. Hall, Bronwyn H. & MacGarvie, Megan, 2010. "The private value of software patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    12. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2008. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-1369, September.
    13. Mezzanotti, Filippo & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent policy and American innovation after eBay: An empirical examination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1271-1281.
    14. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
    15. Marco, Alan C. & Sarnoff, Joshua D. & deGrazia, Charles A.W., 2019. "Patent claims and patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    16. 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.
    17. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    18. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Mark A. Lemley & Samantha Zyontz, 2021. "Does Alice Target Patent Trolls?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 47-89, March.
    21. Stuart J.H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Richard Miller, 2018. "The USPTO Patent Examination Research Dataset: A window on patent processing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 554-578, September.
    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. Helmers, Christian & Love, Brian J., 2024. "Patent law reform and innovation: An empirical assessment of the last 20 years," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(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. deGrazia, Charles A.W. & Pairolero, Nicholas A. & Teodorescu, Mike H.M., 2021. "Examination incentives, learning, and patent office outcomes: The use of examiner’s amendments at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    2. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1855, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    4. Davide Cannito & Cesare Righi & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing Patent Applications at the USPTO," Working Papers 1382, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    7. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    8. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1820, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. Timothy Simcoe & Cesare Righi, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    10. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    11. de Grazia, Charles A.W. & Giczy, Alexander V. & Pairolero, Nicholas A., 2024. "Procrastination or incomplete data? An analysis of USPTO examiner search activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(7).
    12. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Eduardo Melero & Neus Palomeras & David Wehrheim, 2020. "The Effect of Patent Protection on Inventor Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5485-5504, December.
    14. 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).
    15. Michael J. Andrews, 2021. "Historical patent data: A practitioner's guide," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 368-397, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2020. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," NBER Working Papers 27686, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Dyer, Travis A. & Glaeser, Stephen & Lang, Mark H. & Sprecher, Caroline, 2024. "The effect of patent disclosure quality on innovation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2).
    19. Bronwyn H Hall, 2019. "Is there a role for patents in the financing of new innovative firms?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(3), pages 657-680.
    20. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jemstr:v:33:y:2024:i:3:p:748-769. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/journals/JEMS/ .

    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.