IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v53y2024i7s0048733324000829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procrastination or incomplete data? An analysis of USPTO examiner search activity

Author

Listed:
  • de Grazia, Charles A.W.
  • Giczy, Alexander V.
  • Pairolero, Nicholas A.

Abstract

Frakes and Wasserman (2020) finds evidence that United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners disproportionately receive credit for examination activities at the end of production periods and interprets this behavior as systemic examiner procrastination. Using newly assembled micro data on the timing of USPTO examiner activities, our results show examiner work effort more closely resembles a uniform distribution over the production period, indicating consistent workflow and not procrastination. The assembled data better track the precise timing of examiner work activities than the data used in Frakes and Wasserman (2020), explaining the differences in our results. While Frakes and Wasserman (2020) conduct a thorough analysis of the markers and consequences of “end-loading”, its use of an inadequate proxy for examination activity (i.e., Office action count dates) leads to incorrect conclusions about the examination process (i.e., widespread examiner procrastination).

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:7:s0048733324000829
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000829
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105033?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    3. Charlotta Mellander & José Lobo & Kevin Stolarick & Zara Matheson, 2015. "Night-Time Light Data: A Good Proxy Measure for Economic Activity?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Lusardi, Annamaria, 1997. "Precautionary saving and subjective earnings variance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 319-326, December.
    5. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2021. "Knowledge spillovers, peer effects, and telecommuting: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Whalen, Ryan, 2018. "Boundary spanning innovation and the patent system: Interdisciplinary challenges for a specialized examination system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1334-1343.
    7. 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.
    8. Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Why weak patents? Testing the examiner ignorance hypothesis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 43-56.
    9. Nagaoka, Sadao & Yamauchi, Isamu, 2022. "Information constraints and examination quality in patent offices: The effect of initiation lags," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Shu, Tao & Tian, Xuan & Zhan, Xintong, 2022. "Patent quality, firm value, and investor underreaction: Evidence from patent examiner busyness," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 1043-1069.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Fischer, Carolyn, 1999. "Read This Paper Even Later: Procrastination with Time-Inconsistent Preferences," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-20, Resources for the Future.
    15. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2020. "Procrastination at the Patent Office?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Magnus Henrekson & Tino Sanandaji, 2020. "Measuring Entrepreneurship: Do Established Metrics Capture Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(4), pages 733-760, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Jacquelyn Pless & Cameron Hepburn & Niall Farrell, 2020. "Bringing rigour to energy innovation policy evaluation," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 284-290, April.
    20. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    21. 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.
    22. Andrew B. Jackson, 2018. "Discretionary Accruals: Earnings Management ... or Not?," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(2), pages 136-153, June.
    23. Sun, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2022. "Citations backward and forward: Insights into the patent examiner's role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    24. Ryo Nakajima & Michitaka Sasaki & Ryuichi Tamura, 2020. "Examining Patent Examiners: Present Bias, Procrastination and Task Performance," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2020-015, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    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. 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. Sun, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2022. "Citations backward and forward: Insights into the patent examiner's role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    3. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2023. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 54(3), pages 416-442, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    7. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing Patent Applications at the USPTO," Working Papers 1382, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2021. "Knowledge spillovers, peer effects, and telecommuting: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Nagaoka, Sadao & Yamauchi, Isamu, 2022. "Information constraints and examination quality in patent offices: The effect of initiation lags," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    16. 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).
    17. Tetsuo Wada, 2024. "Experience effects of patent examiners: an empirical study of the career length and citation patterns on triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6333-6348, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Tetsuo Wada, 2018. "The choice of examiner patent citations for refusals: evidence from the trilateral offices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 825-843, November.
    20. Petit, Elise & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Gimeno-Fabra, Lluis, 2023. "Are patent offices substitutes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Procrastination; Patent policy; USPTO; Patent quality;
    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
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:eee:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:7:s0048733324000829. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.