IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/joibpo/v3y2020i4d10.1057_s42214-020-00070-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmaceutical patent examination outcomes in the Dominican Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Gil Abinader

    (University of Buenos Aires)

Abstract

In the Dominican Republic, the legal provisions requiring the substantive examination of patent applications were enacted 20 years ago, along with the implementation of the TRIPS agreement. Prior to this, the country had a registration system in which all applications that were filed ended up being registered. This offers an opportunity to explore the outcomes of applications in a country that embarked on substantive patent examinations relatively recently. and which has drawn comparatively less attention in academic research related to the rigorousness of patentability criteria. Based on a novel dataset of pharmaceutical patent applications filed in the Dominican Republic between 2000 and 2015, I find that only 16% of them were granted. This seems surprisingly low. However, I also find that grant rates may be influenced by several factors, including some that are not strictly related to patent examination. In particular, some applications may have been disposed of without a grant because their applicants acquired additional knowledge, indicating that the underlying inventions lacked commercial value. This calls for more attention towards other policies – such as legal provisions and institutional arrangements designed to accelerate the speed of patent examination – which could also be determinants of grant rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Gil Abinader, 2020. "Pharmaceutical patent examination outcomes in the Dominican Republic," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 385-407, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:joibpo:v:3:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1057_s42214-020-00070-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s42214-020-00070-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s42214-020-00070-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s42214-020-00070-w?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. Amy Kapczynski & Chan Park & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Polymorphs and Prodrugs and Salts (Oh My!): An Empirical Analysis of “Secondary” Pharmaceutical Patents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2017. "Secondary pharmaceutical patenting: A global perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 693-707.
    3. María José Abud & Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers, 2015. "An Empirical Analysis of Primary and Secondary Pharmaceutical Patents in Chile," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Carlos Correa, 2007. "Guidelines for the Examination of Pharmaceutical Patents: Developing a Public Health Perspective," Working Papers id:1203, eSocialSciences.
    6. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:4:p:405-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Bhaven N Sampat & Kenneth C Shadlen, 2018. "Indian pharmaceutical patent prosecution: The changing role of Section 3(d)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2017. "Coalitions and Compliance: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Patents in Latin America," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199593903.
    9. Yamauchi, Isamu & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2015. "An economic analysis of deferred examination system: Evidence from a policy reform in Japan," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 19-28.
    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. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2017. "Secondary pharmaceutical patenting: A global perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 693-707.
    2. Suma Athreye & Lucia Piscitello & Kenneth C. Shadlen, 2020. "Twenty-five years since TRIPS: Patent policy and international business," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 315-328, December.
    3. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kaplanis, Ioannis, 2020. "The role of international collaborations in securing the patent grant," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Omar Ramon Serrano Oswald & Mira Burri, 2021. "India, Brazil, and public health: Rule‐making through south–south diffusion in the intellectual property rights regime?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 616-633, July.
    5. Bhaven N Sampat & Kenneth C Shadlen, 2018. "Indian pharmaceutical patent prosecution: The changing role of Section 3(d)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    7. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    8. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Slottje, Daniel J. & Millimet, Daniel L. & Buchanan, Michael J., 2007. "Econometric analysis of copyrights," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 303-317, August.
    10. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    11. Per Botolf Maurseth, 2005. "Lovely but dangerous: The impact of patent citations on patent renewal," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 351-374.
    12. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Antoine Schoen, 2019. "Worldwide IP coverage of patented inventions in large pharma firms: to what extent do the internationalisation of R&D and firm strategy matter?," Post-Print hal-01725229, HAL.
    13. David Popp & Jacquelyn Pless & Ivan Haščič & Nick Johnstone, 2020. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Energy Sector," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 175-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Yi Deng, 2003. "A Dynamic Stochastic Analysis of International Patent Application and Renewal Processes," Computing in Economics and Finance 2003 189, Society for Computational Economics.
    15. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    16. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2009. "Market Size And Intellectual Property Protection," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(3), pages 855-881, August.
    17. Nadia Ayari & Szabolcs Blazsek & Pedro Mendi, 2012. "Renewable energy innovations in Europe: a dynamic panel data approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(24), pages 3135-3147, August.
    18. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Einiö, Elias & Martin, Ralf & Nguyen, Kieu-Trang & Reenen, John Van, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D, patents and spillovers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66428, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Roland Kirstein & Birgit Will, 2006. "Efficient compensation for employees' inventions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 129-148, April.

    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:pal:joibpo:v:3:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1057_s42214-020-00070-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    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.