1 / 26

The quality factor in patent systems

The quality factor in patent systems IV International Seminar on Patents, Innovation and Development November 5-6, 2009, Brasilia. Bruno van Pottelsberghe Professor , ULB (SBS, ECARES) Solvay SA Chair of Innovation Senior Fellow, Bruegel.

keisha
Télécharger la présentation

The quality factor in patent systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The quality factor in patent systems IV International Seminar on Patents, Innovation and Development November 5-6, 2009, Brasilia Bruno van Pottelsberghe Professor, ULB (SBS, ECARES) Solvay SA Chair of Innovation Senior Fellow, Bruegel

  2. Total patent fillings at the USPTO, JPO and EPO, 1980-2007

  3. Patent systems face a boom in filings… • Globalization of markets, • Harmonization of patent systems (PCT,…) • New and dynamic countries in the arena (BRICS) • New technologies (Bio, nano…) • New actors (SMEs, universities) • New management of R&D: open innovation • New strategies (portfolio, thikets, flooding, marketing…) • … and in the size of applications (e.g., # of claims)

  4. Consequence (1): Number of claims in pendency (millions)

  5. Consequence (2): Total prosecuting time needed (million of months) Van Pottelsberghe B. 2009. Bruegel Blueprint.

  6. Backlogs? USA: yesdefinitely, and worrying! JPO: less an issue (compared to the US) EPO: muchless an issue Time frame: a real tendency… Search for the ultimate cause... Hypothesis: design, hence governments !! Design? What are the conditions to grant it?

  7. What is a patent? A patent gives its owner the right to prevent others from commercially using his invention for 20 years in exchange for disclosing the invention

  8.       X  X  X  X Much more patentable subject matters in US... U. S. Europe • Substance • Process • Use • Method of doing business • Software (algorithm) • Theories • Transgenetic animal

  9.       X  X  X  X U. S. Europe • Substance • Process • Use • Method of doing business • Software (algorithm) • Theories • Transgenetic animal The challenge is to identify the relevant state of the art

  10. Much softer novelty conditions in the US...

  11. A timely and high-quality search report is central to the quality of the examination capability

  12. Much less rigorous examination in the US...

  13. Evolution of the number of claims ‘in examination’ per examiner

  14. Much less rigorous examination in the US...

  15. A high-quality examination must be ‘funded’ vs ‘affordability’ for inventors

  16. Patenting cost (10 y, fees and translation costs)

  17. Implications for relative patentingcosts, and demand for patents (3C-index)

  18. What is a patent? A patent gives its owner the right to prevent others from commercially using his invention for 20 years in exchange for disclosing the invention Many patents of dubiousquality: 35 M claims Less patent of higherquality: 8 M claims

  19. Blackberry : Why does quality matter?An all-in-one solutions device 612 M USD for five patents thatshould not have been granted…

  20. Threepolicy implications Qualitymatters, and itis in the hands of policymakers !! International convergence projects: Make sure theyintegratesimilar patent systems: backlogisessentially a US problem ‘Easypolicyleverages’: Fees, number of examiners, theirincentives

  21. References: (cfr. also RePEc website) Archontopoulos E., D. Guellec, N. Stevnsborg, N. van Zeebroeck and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 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. de Rassenfosse G. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007, Per un PugnodiDollari: a first look at the Price Elasticity of Patents, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 588-604. Guellec D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007, The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 250 p. Lazaridis G. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007, The rigour of the EPO patentability criteria: an insight into the "induced withdrawals“, World Patent Information, 29(4), 317-326. de Rassenfosse G., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2009, A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship, Research Policy, 38(5), 2009, 779-792.

  22. References: (cfr. also RePEc website) van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. and N. van Zeebroeck, 2008, A Brief History of Space and Time: the Scope-Year Index as a Patent Value Indicator Based on Families and Renewals, Scientometrics, 75(2), May, 319–338. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. and D. François, 2009, The cost factor in patent systems, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, in press. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. and M. Mejer, 2009, The London Agreement and the relative cost of patenting in Europe, European Journal of Law and Economics, in press. van Zeebroeck N., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie and D. Guellec , 2007, Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants, Research Policy, 38(6), 1006-1020.

  23. Bruno van Pottelsberghe Professor, ULB, Solvay Business School Holder of the Solvay SA Chair of Innovation Senior Fellow, Bruegel bruno.vanpottelsberghe@ulb.ac.be

  24. On the design of patent systems and their implications

More Related