Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?

Rassenfosse, Gaétan de; Jaffe, Adam B.

doi:10.1111/jems.12219

Cited by 58 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, for reasons of fixed costs, it can be too costly for SMEs to patent in the same way as large firms [53]. These costs can also be different according to the national legal context, for example when they do not benefit from legal adaptations, as used to be the case in Europe with fee schedule payment, compared to Japan and USA, where for many years these entities paid only 50% of the fees [61][62][63][64][65]. Secondly, most manufacturing SMEs cannot afford costly and time-consuming internal or external expert services to defend against patent infringement [19,50].…”

Section: Asymmetries Within Ip Regimes Between Large Multinational Firms and Smesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison

Gadille

Bono

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of SMEs are engaged in open innovation practices, but they do not benefit from open innovation or from patenting in the same way as larger firms do. At the same time SMEs, as territorialized suppliers, play a crucial role within evolving regional specialization. In this context the purpose of our study is to examine how low and medium technology supplier SMEs learn and organize themselves at a territorial level to address the challenge of IP protection in an open innovation paradigm. We used a qualitative method with a longitudinal multi-case study involving 27 companies with a historical lance to compare the territorial dynamics of knowledge protection within clustered supplier SMEs in two European regions. The results show they protect their knowledge by learning how to design, in a direct relationship with clients, customized complex technological products to develop a new organizational matrix of multidisciplinary knowledge that reveals itself difficult to imitate within the clusters. They also cope with other supplier firms across sectors even if they show societal path dependencies in the way to build cooperation. This dynamic has given birth to changing structural relationships among regionally clustered SMEs and between them and large firms.

show abstract

Section: Asymmetries Within Ip Regimes Between Large Multinational Firms and Smesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison

Gadille

Bono

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Renewal fee is also useful indicator of patent value [30]. The variable used herein is the logarithm of the renewal fee at age a in year t log(RFEE).…”

Section: Renewal Feementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Patent Value Indicators with Patent Renewal Information

Pawelec

Kim

et al. 2020

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to fill a research gap of literature by constructing the dynamic model into which both ex ante and ex post patent value indicators are incorporated. A patent renewal model is tested using a large set of Pharmaceutical patents granted by the European Patent Office between 1996 and 2009. We test five ex ante indicators and single ex post indicator including family size, patent backward citations, backward references to non-patent literature, number of claims, number of inventors, renewal fee, patent age, application year, and the ex post indicator forward citations. Empirical findings show that three citation related indicators, family size, and the number of claims are positively associated with patent values, while the number of inventors, renewal fee, patent age, and application year are negatively correlated. In addition, forward citations seem to have persistent learning effects on patent values.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, dependent claims generally specify the precise embodiment of the independent claims such that the scope of each associated independent claim is well-defined. As such, we count these two claim types independently and differently: as independent claims (CIN) and dependent claims per independent claim (CDE) (de Rassenfosse and Jaffe, 2018;Marco et al, 2019). The separation of claims into these two categories is an attempt to roughly distinguish the claims that narrow technological breadth from those that broaden it, and as the total number of claims is simply the sum of the independent and dependent claims, we can only gain information via this separation.…”

Section: B31 Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement

Higham¹,

Rassenfosse²,

Jaffe³

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 'quality' of novel technological innovations is extremely variable, and the ability to measure innovation quality is essential to sensible, evidence-based policy. Patents, an often vital precursor to a commercialised innovation, share this heterogeneous quality distribution. A pertinent question then arises: How should we define and measure patent quality? Accepting that different stakeholders have different views of this concept, we take a multi-dimensional view of patent quality in this work. We first test the consistency of popular post-grant outcomes that are often used as patent quality measures. Finding these measures to be generally inconsistent, we then use a raft of patent indicators that are defined at the time of grant to dissect the characteristics associated with different post-grant outcomes. We find broad disagreement in the relative importance of individual characteristics between outcomes and, further, significant variation of the same across technologies within outcomes. We conclude that measurement of patent quality is highly sensitive to both stakeholder viewpoint and technology type. Our findings bear implications for scholarly research using patent data as well as for policy discussions about patent quality.

show abstract

Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?

Cited by 58 publications

References 58 publications

Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison

Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison

Measuring Patent Value Indicators with Patent Renewal Information

Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About