This paper revisits the literature providing empirical evidence that patent offices are biased in favor of their national applicants. If true, this “national bias” would be proof of disrespect of the national treatment principle, deeply rooted in several international patent treaties. Existing investigations are, however, subject to an important limitation: they focus only on grant rates, which in all likelihood is a potentially biased indicator of stringency because it is influenced by economic forces. This paper puts forward an alternative and more robust approach to test the national bias hypothesis, consisting in a detailed analysis of how the patent examination process is carried out for domestic and international applications. Relying on a unique database of 2,400 patent families filed simultaneously in three patent offices (EPO, JPO, and USPTO), the empirical analysis finds no evidence of national bias - in any of the three patents offices - throughout the examination process. These results reopen a debate that seemed to have reached a consensus so far. The lower grant rates of international applications are not caused by a discriminatory bias in the examination procedures but might rather be driven by economic forces that shape the propensity of international applicants to maintain their patent active.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Danguy, J., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2011. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(2): 1–43.
de Rassenfosse, G., Dernis, H., Guellec, D., Picci, L., & van Pottelsberghe de le Potterie, B. 2013. The worldwide count of priority patents: a new indicator of inventive activity. Research Policy, 42(3): 720–737.
de Rassenfosse, G., & Hosseini, R. 2020. Discrimination against foreigners in the U.S. patent system. Journal of International Business Policy, 3: 349–366.
de Rassenfosse, G., Jensen, P.H., Julius T., Palangkaraya, A., & Webster, E. 2019. Are Foreigners Treated Equally Under TRIPS? https://ssrn.com/abstract=3434547.
de Rassenfosse, G., & Raiteri, E. 2016. Technology Protectionism and the Patent System: Strategic Technologies in China. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2803379.
de Saint-Georges, M., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2013. A quality index for patent systems. Research Policy, 42(3): 704–719.
de Rassenfosse, G., Raiteri, E., & Bekkers, R. 2017. Discrimination in the patent system: Evidence from standard-essential patents. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3007699.
Gimeno-Fabra, L., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2020. Decoding patent examination services. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1766183.
Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Reichl, B., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2009. Patent validation at the country level - The role of fees and translation costs. Research Policy, 38(9): 1423–1437.
Kotabe, M. 1992. A Comparative study of US and Japanese patent systems. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1): 147–168.
Liegsalz, J., & Wagner, S. 2013. Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China. Research Policy, 42: 552–563.
Lemley, ML A., & Sampat, B. 2012. Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(3): 817–827.
Petit, E., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Gimeno-Fabra, L. 2021. Are patent offices substitutes? ECARES Working Paper, forthcoming.
Scotchmer, S. 2004. Innovation and incentives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & François, D. 2009. The Cost Factor in Patent Systems. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9 (4): 329–355.
van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2011. Filing strategies and patent value. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(6): 539–561.
Webster, E., Palangkaraya, A., & Jensen, P.H. 2007. Characteristics of international patent application outcomes. Economics Letters, 95: 362–368.
Webster, E., Jensen, P.H., & Palangkaraya, A. 2014. Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle. The RAND Journal of Economics, 45:449–469.
Yang, D., & Sonmez, M. 2018. Global norm of national treatment for patent uncertainties: A longitudinal comparison between the US and China. Journal of World Business, 53(2): 164–176.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Accepted by Suma Athreye, Area Editor, 5 January 2021. This article has been with the authors for two revisions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petit, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. & Gimeno-Fabra, L. Global patent systems: Revisiting the national bias hypothesis. J Int Bus Policy 5, 56–67 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-021-00100-1
- status quo bias
- quantitative comparisons
- multiple regression analysis
- patent examination process
- patent systems
- international trade theory