IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v9y2012i1p1-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Look at Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution to Validity

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald J. Mann
  • Marian Underweiser

Abstract

The article uses two hand‐collected data sets to implement a novel research design for analyzing the precursors to patent quality. Operationalizing patent “quality” as legal validity, the article analyzes the relation between Federal Circuit decisions on patent validity and three sets of data about the patents: quantitative features of the patents themselves, textual analysis of the patent documents, and data collected from the prosecution histories of the patents. The article finds large and statistically significant relations between ex post validity and both textual features of the patents and ex ante aspects of the prosecution history (especially prior art submissions and the existence of internal patent office appeals before issuance). The results demonstrate the importance of refocusing analysis of patent quality on replicable indicators like validity, and the value that more comprehensive collection of prosecution history data can have for improving the output of the patent prosecution process.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald J. Mann & Marian Underweiser, 2012. "A New Look at Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution to Validity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:9:y:2012:i:1:p:1-32
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01245.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01245.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01245.x?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. Olav Sorenson & Jasjit Singh, 2007. "Science, Social Networks and Spillovers," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 219-238.
    2. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    3. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    4. Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 461-464, March.
    5. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
    6. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eleftherios Sapsalis & Ran Navon, 2006. "Academic vs. industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6197, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. 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.
    8. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 465-466, March.
    9. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 450-460, March.
    10. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    11. Hall, Bronwyn H. & MacGarvie, Megan, 2010. "The private value of software patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    12. Juan Alcácer & Wilbur Chung, 2007. "Location Strategies and Knowledge Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 760-776, May.
    13. Peter Thompson, 2006. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Inventor- and Examiner-added Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 383-388, May.
    14. Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Improving patent valuations for management purposes--validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 939-957, September.
    15. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    16. 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.
    17. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Cremers, Katrin & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian, 2014. "Invalid but infringed? An analysis of Germany's bifurcated patent litigation system," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-072, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Davit Khachatryan & Brigitte Muehlmann, 2020. "Measuring the drafting alignment of patent documents using text mining," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    5. Hao Mao & Lauren A. Johnston & Zhifeng Yin, 2019. "The Self-Reported Patent Quality Of Chinese Firms: Motivation Source And Technology Accumulation Effects Analysis," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(04), pages 939-960, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Jiang, Hongxun & Fan, Shaokun & Zhang, Nan & Zhu, Bin, 2023. "Deep learning for predicting patent application outcome: The fusion of text and network embeddings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    8. 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).
    9. Cremers, Katrin & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian & Lefouili, Yassine, 2016. "Invalid but infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 218-242.
    10. Yutaka Niidome, 2017. "The relation of patent description and examination with validity: an empirical study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 159-183, April.
    11. Yutaka Niidome, 2015. "The Factors Related to the Minimum and Maximum Survival of Patents against Challenges to Validity," GRIPS Discussion Papers 14-23, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    12. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    13. Filitz, Rainer & Henkel, Joachim & Tether, Bruce S., 2015. "Protecting aesthetic innovations? An exploration of the use of registered community designs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1192-1206.
    14. Sun, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2022. "Citations backward and forward: Insights into the patent examiner's role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    15. Raphael Zingg & Erasmus Elsner, 2020. "Protection heterogeneity in a harmonized European patent system," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 87-131, August.
    16. Davit Khachatryan & Brigitte Muehlmann, 2017. "Determinants of successful patent applications to combat financial fraud," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1353-1383, June.
    17. Wagner, Stefan & Sternitzke, Christian & Walter, Sascha, 2022. "Mapping Markush," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    18. Joachim Henkel & Hans Zischka, 2019. "How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 195-239, October.

    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. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    2. Hyuk-Soo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae Lee & Ryungha Oh, 2022. "Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: trends in geographic localization, 1976–2015," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 123-147, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Soonwoo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae (Simon) Lee, 2014. "International trends in technological progress: stylized facts from patent citations, 1980-2011," CeMMAP working papers 16/14, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Li, Yao Amber, 2014. "Borders and distance in knowledge spillovers: Dying over time or dying with age?—Evidence from patent citations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 152-172.
    6. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    8. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Martin, Ralf & Mohnen, Myra, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60501, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Federico Munari & Maurizio Sobrero, 2011. "Economic and Management Perspectives on the Value of Patents," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. 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.
    11. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.
    12. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    13. Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010. "International Knowledge Diffusion and Home‐bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, September.
    14. Keith Head & Yao Amber Li & Asier Minondo, 2019. "Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 713-727, October.
    15. Hyunha Shin & Dieter F. Kogler & Keungoui Kim, 2024. "The relevance of scientific knowledge externalities for technological change and resulting inventions across European metropolitan areas," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 44(2), pages 193-209, June.
    16. William R. Kerr, 2010. "Breakthrough Inventions and Migrating Clusters of Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Cities and Entrepreneurship, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. William R. Kerr & Scott Duke Kominers, 2015. "Agglomerative Forces and Cluster Shapes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(4), pages 877-899, October.
    18. 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.
    19. NAGAOKA Sadao & NISHIMURA Yoichiro, 2015. "Use of Grace Periods and Their Impact on Knowledge Flow: Evidence from Japan," Discussion papers 15072, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Christian Fisch & Tobias Hassel & Philipp Sandner & Joern Block, 2015. "University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 318-345, April.

    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:wly:empleg:v:9:y:2012:i:1:p:1-32. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.