Scientometrics

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 319–338 | Cite as

A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals

  • Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
  • Nicolas van Zeebroeck
Article

Abstract

The renewal of patents and their geographical scope for protection constitute two essential dimensions in a patent’s life, and probably the most frequently used patent value indicators. The intertwining of these dimensions (the geographical scope of protection may vary over time) makes their analysis complex, as any measure along one dimension requires an arbitrary choice on the second. This paper proposes a new indicator of patent value, the scope-year index, combining the two dimensions. The index is computed for patents filed at the EPO from 1980 to 1996 and validated in its member states. It shows that the average value of patent filings has increased in the early eighties but has constantly decreased from the mid-eighties until the mid nineties, despite the institutional expansion of the EPO. This result sheds a new and worrying light on the worldwide boom in patent filings.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archontopoulos, E., D. Guellec, N. Stevnsborg, B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, N. Van Zeebroeck (2007), When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO, Information Economics and Policy, 19(2): 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bessen, J. (2006), The Value of U.S. Patents by Owner and Patent Characteristics. Research On Innovation Working Paper. Available at http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patval.pdf
  3. Cornelli, F., M. Schankerman (1999), Patent renewals and R&D incentives, The RAND Journal of Economics, 30(2): 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deng, Y. (2007), The effects of patent regime changes: A case study of the European Patent Office, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25: 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gambardella, A., D. Harhoff, B. Verspagen (2006), The Value of Patents. Presented at the EPIP Conference, Munich, September 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (2000), Applications, grants and the value of patent, Economic Letters, 69(1): 109–114.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (2002), The value of patents and patenting strategies: countries and technology areas patterns, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(2): 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (2007), The European patent system at the crossroad, Chapter 8, In: Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (Eds), The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 216–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, N. Van Zeebroeck (2007), Patent as a market instrument, Chapter 4, In: Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (Eds), The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harhoff, D., F. Narin, F. Scherer, K. Vopel (1999), Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3): 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harhoff, D., F. Scherer, K. Vopel (2003), Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights, Research Policy, 32(8): 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harhoff, D., K. Hoisl, B. Reichl, B. Van Pottelsberghe (2007), Patent Validation at the Country Level — The Role of Fees and Translation Costs, CEPR Working Paper No. 6565.Google Scholar
  13. Kortum, S., J. Lerner (1999), What is behind the recent surge in patenting, Research Policy, 28(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lanjouw, J. (1993), Patent Protection: of What Value and for How Long? NBER Working Paper, 4475: 78.Google Scholar
  15. Lanjouw, J., A. Pakes, J. Putnam (1996), How to count patents and value intellectual property: Uses of patent renewal and application data, NBER Working Paper, 5741: 33.Google Scholar
  16. Lanjouw, J., M. Schankerman (1997), Stylised facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership, NBER Working Paper, 6297: 43.Google Scholar
  17. Lanjouw, J. (1998), Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value, Review of Economic Studies, 65(4): 671–710.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanjouw, J., M. Schankerman (1999), The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators, NBER Working Paper, 7345: 39.Google Scholar
  19. Lemley M. (2001), Rational ignorance at the Patent Office, The Berkeley Law & Economics Working Papers, Volume 2000, 2, Article 5, FALL.Google Scholar
  20. Pakes, A. (1986), Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European Patent Stocks, Econometrica, 54(4): 755–784.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pakes, A., M. Schankerman (1984), The rate of obsolescence of knowledge, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources, NBER Working Paper, 0346.Google Scholar
  22. Pakes, A., M. Simpson (1989), Patent renewal data. Brookings papers on economic activity, Microeconomics, 331–401.Google Scholar
  23. Reitzig, M. (2004), Improving patent valuations for management purposes — validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7): 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sapsalis, E., B. Van Potteslberghe De La Potterie (2007), The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2): 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schankerman, M., A. Pakes (1986), Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period, The Economic Journal, 96(384): 1052–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schankerman, M. (1998), How valuable is patent protection? Estimates by technology field, The RAND Journal of Economics, 29(1): 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stevnsborg, N., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (2007), Patenting procedures and filing strategies at the EPO, Chapter 6, In: Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (Eds), The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trajtenberg, M. (1990), A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations, The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1): 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. (2007), Hot ‘patent’ issues: Quantitative evidence, Chapter 7, In: Guellec, D., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie (Eds), The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 184–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B., D. François (2006), The cost factor in patent systems, CEPR Discussion Paper, 5944.Google Scholar
  31. Van Zeebroeck N., B. Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, D. Guellec (2006), Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants, CEPR Discussion Paper, 5971.Google Scholar
  32. Van Zeebroeck N. (2007a), The Puzzle of Patent Value Indicators, ULB, CEB Working Paper 07-023.Google Scholar
  33. Van Zeebroeck N. (2007b), Patents Only Live Twice: A Patent Survival Analysis in Europe, ULB, CEB Working Paper 07-028.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nicolas van Zeebroeck
    • 4
  1. 1.ECARES (U.L.B.)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.BruegelBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.CEPRLondonUK
  4. 4.Solvay Business School, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB)Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations