IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/23913.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent Examiner Specialization

Author

Listed:
  • Cesare Righi
  • Timothy Simcoe

Abstract

We study the matching of patent applications to examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Using test statistics originally developed to identify industry agglomeration, we find strong evidence that examiners specialize in particular technologies, even within relatively homogeneous art units. Examiner specialization is more pronounced in the biotechnology and chemistry fields, and less in computers and software. Evidence of specialization becomes weaker, but does not completely disappear, if we condition on technology sub-classes. There is no evidence that certain examiners specialize in applications that have greater importance or broader claims. More specialized examiners have a lower grant rate and produce a larger narrowing of claim-scope during the examination process. We discuss implications for instrumental variables based on examiner characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2017. "Patent Examiner Specialization," NBER Working Papers 23913, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23913
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23913.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2014. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents?: Evidence from Micro-Level Application Data," NBER Working Papers 20337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    4. Stuart J.H. Graham & Galen Hancock & Alan C. Marco & Amanda Fila Myers, 2013. "The USPTO Trademark Case Files Dataset: Descriptions, Lessons, and Insights," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 669-705, December.
    5. Rysman, Marc & Greenstein, Shane, 2005. "Testing for agglomeration and dispersion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 405-411, March.
    6. Tomoya Mori & Koji Nishikimi & Tony E. Smith, 2005. "A Divergence Statistic for Industrial Localization," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(4), pages 635-651, November.
    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. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2020. "Procrastination at the Patent Office?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2020. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," NBER Working Papers 27579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Knowledge Spillovers and Learning in the Workplace: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," NBER Working Papers 24159, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Patrick Gaulé, 2018. "Patents and the Success of Venture‐Capital Backed Startups: Using Examiner Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 350-376, June.
    2. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
    3. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    4. Corinne Langinier & Stéphanie Lluis, 2021. "Departure And Promotion Of U.S. Patent Examiners: Do Patent Characteristics Matter?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 416-434, April.
    5. Bin Yang & Tao Yuan, 2022. "Trademark and IPO underpricing," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 271-296, March.
    6. 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).
    7. Kwon, Seokbeom & Marco, Alan C., 2021. "Can antitrust law enforcement spur innovation? Antitrust regulation of patent consolidation and its impact on follow-on innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(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. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Juranek, Steffen & Otneim, Håkon, 2021. "Using machine learning to predict patent lawsuits," Discussion Papers 2021/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    12. HAMIDOUCHE M’hamed & BOURCHID ABDELKADER Salim, 2020. "Concentration of Economic Activities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 01, March.
    13. Daniel P. Gross, 2023. "The Hidden Costs of Securing Innovation: The Manifold Impacts of Compulsory Invention Secrecy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2318-2338, April.
    14. 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).
    15. Kooli, Maher & Zhang, Aoran & Zhao, Yunfei, 2022. "How IPO firms' product innovation strategy affects the likelihood of post-IPO acquisitions?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    16. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    17. Akcigit, Ufuk & Alp, Harun & Diegmann, André & Serrano-Velarde, Nicolas, 2024. "Committing to grow: Employment targets and firm dynamics," IWH Discussion Papers 17/2023, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), revised 2024.
    18. Po-Hsuan Hsu & Dongmei Li & Qin Li & Siew Hong Teoh & Kevin Tseng, 2022. "Valuation of New Trademarks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 257-279, January.
    19. Cutrini, Eleonora, 2009. "Using entropy measures to disentangle regional from national localization patterns," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 243-250, March.
    20. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H83 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Public Administration
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • L98 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Government Policy
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:23913. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.