Advertisement

The choice of examiner patent citations for refusals: evidence from the trilateral offices

  • Tetsuo Wada
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Utilizing a novel methodology based on international family-to-family patent citation data, this paper directly compares X/Y patent citations (i.e., those cited as grounds for rejections, equivalent to “blocking patents” in the US) between major patent offices. Remarkable discrepancies between the offices were revealed, despite the common patentability criteria of novelty and inventive step to generate citations. This paper then introduces a simple cosine similarity measurement between a family of X/Y patent citations and all citations added globally to the same original application. How the discrepancies of X/Y patent citations at the European Patent Office (EPO) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) relate to the characteristics of applications and longitudinal aspects of office actions were also examined. X/Y patent citations from both the EPO and USPTO commonly show that the range of patent application classes is positively correlated with divergent reasons for refusal, suggesting that costly examinations lead to diversified X/Y patent citations. One novel methodological feature of this paper is that examiner citations across jurisdictions are comparable if we employ family-to-family citations and common criteria for the X/Y citation category. Furthermore, unlike the normal citation-generating process where a citing document adds citations to prior art only once, this paper represents the first attempt to analyze a citation network with multiple citing opportunities from separate parties. We find that the variance of citation linkages has a negative relationship with the ease in which different citers evaluate prior art in the same way, thereby providing a new perspective on the notion of breadth in citation impact.

Keywords

Examiner citation X/Y citations DOCDB patent family Family-to-family citations Blocking patents Trilateral offices Triadic patent 

Mathematics Subject Classification

91D30 

JEL Classification

K29 O33 O34 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present study is an extended version of an article presented at the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan (China), 16–20 October 2017 (Wada 2017). This study was conducted as a part of a project for the Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society (RISTEX) and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST). This study also benefited from a research project, “Study on Industrial Innovation Capability and Innovation Infrastructure,” undertaken at the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI). The author is grateful for helpful comments and support from Setsuko Asami, Stuart Graham, Alan Marco, Sadao Nagaoka, Yoshimi Okada, Alfons Palangkaraya, Andrew Toole, the seminar participants at RIETI, and the audience at the 12th Annual Conference of the European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP).

References

  1. Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cotropia, C. A., Lemley, M. A., & Sampat, B. (2013). Do applicant patent citations matter? Research Policy, 42(4), 844–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), 1892–1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dernis, H., & Khan, M. (2004). Triadic patent families methodology. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2004/02. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Frakes, M. D., & Wasserman, M. F. (2017). Is the time allocated to review patent applications inducing examiners to grant invalid patents? Evidence from micro-level application data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(3), 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham, S. J. H., Marco, A. C., & Miller, R. (2015). The USPTO patent examination research dataset: A window on the process of patent examination. Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business Research Paper, No. WP 43.Google Scholar
  7. Hegde, D., & Sampat, B. (2009). Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Economics Letters, 105(3), 287–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaffe, A. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.Google Scholar
  9. Jensen, P. H., Palangkaraya, A., & Webster, E. (2005). Disharmony in international patent office decisions. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 15, 679.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, J. M., Younge, K. A., & Marco, A. C. (2017). Patent citations reexamined: New data and methods. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2714954. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  11. Lemley, M. A., & Sampat, B. (2012). Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(3), 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lu, Q., Myers, A. F., & Beliveau, S. (2017). USPTO patent prosecution research data: Unlocking office action traits. USPTO Economic Working Paper, No. 10.Google Scholar
  13. Marco, A. C., Sarnoff, J. D., & deGrazia, C. (2016). Patent claims and patent scope. USPTO Economic Working Paper, 2016-04.Google Scholar
  14. Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30(1), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thompson, N., & Kuhn, J. (2017). Does winning a patent race lead to more follow-on innovation? SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2899088. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  16. Wada, T. (2016). Obstacles to prior art searching by the trilateral patent offices: Empirical evidence from International Search Reports. Scientometrics, 107(2), 701–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wada, T. (2017). The choice of examiner citations for refusals: Evidence from the trilateral offices. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017: The 16th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 950–957). Wuhan University, China.Google Scholar
  18. Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Webster, E., Jensen, P. H., & Palangkaraya, A. (2014). Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle. RAND Journal of Economics, 45, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Webster, E., Palangkaraya, A., & Jensen, P. H. (2007). Characteristics of international patent application outcomes. Economics Letters, 95, 362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2017). World intellectual property indicators 2017. WIPO Publication, No. 941E/17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsGakushuin UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations