, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 189–202 | Cite as

The international preliminary examination of patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty — a proxy for patent value?

  • Christian SternitzkeEmail author


One way to achieve international patent protection is to file patents via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The application process therein can be divided into two phases, those represented by chapters I and II of the PCT. According to the literature, patent applications filed via chapter II of the Treaty tend to be more valuable. The results presented in this paper suggest that in general this assumption is not justified. The analyses further revealed that for practitioners seeking fast patent protection at the European Patent Office (EPO) via the PCT, the choice should be chapter II of the PCT, with the EPO as preliminary examination authority.


Patent Application European Patent European Patent Office International Patent Classification Patent Family 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., Mcallister, P. (1991), Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents, Research Policy, 20: 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., Trunkey, R. D. (2003), Valuable patents. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-31., (30 Jan 2005).
  3. Brandi-Dohrn, M., Gruber, S., Muir, I. (1998), Europäisches und internationales Patentrecht: Einführung zum Europäischen Patentübereinkommen und Patent Cooperation Treaty, Praxis des Gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes und Urheberrechts. Beck, München.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., Woolf, P. (1981), Citation rates to technologically important patents, World Patent Information, 3: 160–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cremers, K. (2004), Determinants of patent litigation in Germany. Discussion paper / ZEW Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH,, (28 Jan 2006).
  6. DTI/OST Technology Group & IPC Subclass Mapping. Http://Www.Ipaustralia.Gov.Au/Pdfs/Statistics/Technology%20Groups.Doc, (June 27, 2006).
  7. Ernst, H. (1996), Patentinformationen für die strategische Planung von Forschung und Entwicklung, Betriebswirtschaftslehre für Technologie und Innovation. DUV, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  8. Ernst, H. (1998), Patent portfolios for strategic RD planning, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15: 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ernst, H. (1999), Evaluation of dynamic technological developments by means of patent data. In: K. Brockhoff & al. (Eds), The dynamics of innovation: strategic and managerial implications, Springer, pp. 105–132.Google Scholar
  10. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1999), Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation, Research Policy, 28: 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guellec, D., Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. (2000), Applications, grants and the value of patent, Economics Letters, 69: 109–114.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guellec, D., Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. (2002), The value of patents and patenting strategies: countries and technology areas patterns, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11: 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., Vopel, K. (1999), Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions, Review of Economics and Statistics, 81: 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harhoff, D., Reitzig, M. (2004), Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants — the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22: 443–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., Vopel, K. (2003), Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights, Research Policy, 32: 1343–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lanjouw, J. O., Schankerman, M. (2001), Symposium on the patent system and innovation — Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition, Rand Journal of Economics, 32: 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nunn, H., Oppenheim, C. (1980), A patent-journal citation network on prostaglandin, World Patent Information, 2: 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reitzig, M. (2002), Die Bewertung von Patentrechten: eine theoretische und empirische Analyse aus Unternehmenssicht, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. DUV, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  19. Reitzig, M. (2004a), Improving patent valuations for management purposes: validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales, Research Policy, 33: 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reitzig, M. (2004b), Technical Quality, Market Potential, and the Value of Inventions. What Do Patent Indicators Really Measure? Copenhagen Business School Working Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Schmoch, U. (1999), Patent indicators — Impact of international patent applications on patent indicators, Research Evaluation, 8: 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PATON — Ladespatentzentrum ThüringenTechnische Universität IlmenauIlmenauGermany
  2. 2.Universität Bremen, Forschungsgruppe Innovation und KompetenztransferBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations