IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v93y2011i3p1063-1075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Misclassification between Patent Offices: Evidence from a Matched Sample of Patent Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Alfons Palangkaraya

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne, Australia)

  • Elizabeth Webster

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne, Australia)

  • Paul H. Jensen

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne, Australia)

Abstract

In this paper, we estimate the extent of misclassification in patent examination decisions between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), that is, applications that are incorrectly refused a patent or incorrectly granted a patent. Using a proxy for inventive step as the predictor of the correct decision, we find that the probability that a “true grant” application is refused is 6.1%, while the probability that a “true refusal” application is granted is 9.8%. However, we find no evidence of an increasing trend of granting “bad” patents at the EPO and JPO. © 2011 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Misclassification between Patent Offices: Evidence from a Matched Sample of Patent Applications," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 1063-1075, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:93:y:2011:i:3:p:1063-1075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00111
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:tpr:restat:v:93:y:2011:i:3:p:1063-1075. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.