The Cost Factor in Patent Systems

  • Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
  • Didier François
Article

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to assess to what extent the cost of patenting affects the demand for patents. The empirical analysis, which focuses on the patent systems of the USA, Japan, and Europe in 2003, leads to the following methodological and empirical conclusions: (1) for a proper international comparison, the size of the market and the average number of claims included in a patent must be accounted for; (2) when the cost per claim per capita (the 3C-index) is considered, a negative linear relationship appears between the cost of patenting and the number of claims that are filed; (3) after the grant of a patent by the EPO, the translation, validation and transaction costs induced by an effective protection in several European countries witness a highly fragmented and very expensive European market for intellectual property; (4) for a patent designating 13 European countries, the 3C-index is about ten (two) times higher than in the US (Japanese) system (for process and translation costs up to the grant); (5) The European market being more than twice as large as the US market in terms of inhabitants, the 3C-index suggests that there would be a clear justification for higher nominal examination fees at the EPO, that would ensure the pursuit of a rigorous granting process.

Keywords

patents cost elasticity cost per claim per capita patent systems patent fees 

JEL Classification

P14 P51 O34 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the AEA Conference “Innovations and Intellectual Property”, 20–21 of October, 2005, in Paris; at the CESPRI seminar of the Bocconi University (22nd of February, 2006); at the Bocconi conference “Intellectual Property: a key tool for European competitiveness” (23rd of February, 2005). We would like to thank all the participants and more particularly, Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Wolfram Förster, Alfonso Gambardella, Dominique Guellec, Karin Hoisl, Laurent Manderieux, Fabio Montobbio, Marc Nicolas, Bettina Reichl, Henri Serbat, Nicolas van Zeebroeck and three anonymous referees for their constructive remarks.

Disclaimer

This paper was partly written when Bruno van Pottelsberghe was Chief Economist of the European Patent Office. The views expressed in this article are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the EPO or of the ULB.

References

  1. Archontopoulos, E., Guellec, D., Stevensborg, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., and van Zeebroeck, N., “When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO,” Information Economics and Policy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 103–132, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., and Gambardella, A., Markets for technology. MIT Press (Cambridge), p. 338, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. de Rassenfosse, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., “Per un pugno di dollari: A first look at the price elasticity of patents,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 588–604, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dernis, H., Guellec, D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., “Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output,” STI Review, vol. 27, pp. 129–146, 2001 (OECD).Google Scholar
  5. Duguet, E. and Kabla, I., “Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: an econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing,” Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, vol. 49/50, pp. 289–327, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. Grupp, H. and Schmoch, U., “Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: New legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation,” Research Policy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 377–396, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guellec, D. and Martinez, C., Overview of recent trends in patent regimes in United States, Japan and Europe. OECD (Paris), 2003.Google Scholar
  8. Guellec, D. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., “Applications, grants and the value of patents,” Economic Letters, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 109–114, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guellec, D. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., The economics of the European patent system. Oxford University Press (Oxford), p. 250, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall, B. H., Graham, S. H. and Harhoff, D., Prospects for Improving U.S. Patent Quality via Post-grant Opposition, NBER Working Papers, 9731, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Harhoff, D. and Wagner, S., Modelling the duration of patent examination at the European Patent Office, CEPR Discussion Papers, 5283, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Jaffe, A. and Lerner, J., Innovation and its discontents—How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press (Princeton), p. 236, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Lazaridis, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., “The rigour of EPO’s patentability criteria: An insight into the “induced withdrawals”,” World Patent Information, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 317–326, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lemley, M., Rational ignorance at the patent office. The Berkeley Law & Economics Working Papers, 2000(2), p. 40, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. OECD, Compendium of Patent Statistics, OECD, Directorate for Science and Technology, Paris, p. 61, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. Peeters, C. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., “Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 109–135, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quillen, C. and Webster, O., “Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. Patent Office,” Federal Circuit Bar Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. Quillen, C., Webster, O., and Eichmann, R., “Continuing patent applications and performance of the US Patent and Trademark Office—Extended,” Federal Circuit Bar Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 35–55, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. Rivette, K. and Kline, D., Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents. Harvard Business School Press (Boston), p. 221, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. Roland, B., Study on the cost of patenting in Europe, prepared on behalf of the EPO by Roland Berger Market Research (available on the EPO website), 2005.Google Scholar
  21. Stevnsborg, N. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., “Patenting procedures and filing strategies at the EPO, Chapter 6,” in Guellec, D. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (eds.), The Economics of the European Patent System. Oxford (Oxford University Press), pp. 155–183, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tong, X. and Frame, J.D., “Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data,” Research Policy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 133–141, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and van Zeebroeck, N., “A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals,” Scientometrics, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 319–338, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Zeebroeck, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Guellec, D., “Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants,” CEPR Discussion paper 5971, 2006a.Google Scholar
  25. van Zeebroeck, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., and Han, W., “Issues in measuring the degree of technological specialisation with patent data,” Scientometrics, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 481–492, 2006b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Didier François
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Libre de BruxellesSolvay Business SchoolBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.European Centre for Advanced Research in Economics and Statistics (ECARES)Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)LondonUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.BruegelBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB)Solvay Business School, Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Département d’Économie Appliquée (DULBEA)Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations