A New Look at Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution to Validity

The paper uses two hand-collected datasets to implement a novel research design for analyzing the precursors to patent quality. Operationalizing patent "quality" as legal validity, the paper analyzes the relation between Federal Circuit decisions on patent validity and three sets of data about the patents: quantitative features of the patents themselves, textual analysis of the patent documents, and data collected from the prosecution histories of the patents. The paper finds large and statistically significant relations between ex post validity and both textual features of the patents and ex ante aspects of the prosecution history (especially prior art submissions and the existence of internal patent office appeals before issuance). The results demonstrate the importance of refocusing analysis of patent quality on replicable indicators like validity, and the value that more comprehensive collection of prosecution history data can have for improving the output of the patent prosecution process.

[1]  Mark A. Lemley.  An Empirical Study of the Twenty-Year Patent Term , 1994 .

[2]  Robert P. Merges,et al.  Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials , 1997 .

[3]  M. F. Porter,et al.  An algorithm for suffix stripping , 1997 .

[4]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents , 1998 .

[5]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[6]  David Kline,et al.  Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents , 1999 .

[7]  Mark A. Lemley.  Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office , 2001 .

[8]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy , 2002 .

[9]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Valuable Patents - eScholarship , 2003 .

[10]  W. Powell,et al.  The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity , 2003 .

[11]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[12]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Valuable Patents , 2003 .

[13]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations , 2003 .

[14]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Ending Patent Law's Willfulness Game , 2003 .

[15]  Douglas Lichtman,et al.  Rethinking Prosecution History Estoppel , 2003 .

[16]  M. Reitzig.  Improving patent valuations for management purposes--validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales , 2004 .

[17]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 2004 .

[18]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[19]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Science, Social Networks and Spillovers , 2006 .

[20]  R. Levin,et al.  A patent system for the 21st Century , 2005 .

[21]  P. Thompson,et al.  Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment , 2005 .

[22]  Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie,et al.  Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value , 2006 .

[23]  James Bessen.  The Value of U.S. Patents by Owner and Patent Characteristics , 2006 .

[24]  Peter Thompson,et al.  Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Inventor- and Examiner-added Citations , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[25]  J. F. Duffy,et al.  Rethinking Patent Law's Uniformity Principle , 2006 .

[26]  Megan J. MacGarvie,et al.  The Private Value of Software Patents , 2006 .

[27]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity , 2007 .

[28]  Juan Alcácer,et al.  Location Strategies and Knowledge Spillovers , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[30]  Young Back Choi.  Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It , 2007 .

[31]  Ronald J. Mann,et al.  The Disputed Quality of Software Patents , 2007 .

[32]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Applicant and Examiner Citations in US Patents: An Overview and Analysis , 2008 .

[33]  Arti K. Rai,et al.  Growing Pains in the Administrative State: The Patent Office's Troubled Quest for Managerial Control , 2009 .

[34]  Manfred M. Fischer,et al.  Patents, Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers in Europe , 2009 .

[35]  Brian D. Wright,et al.  Why Weak Patents? Rational Ignorance or Pro-'Customer' Tilt? , 2009 .

[36]  Clarisa Long.  The PTO and the Market for Influence in Patent Law , 2009 .

[37]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  The Patent Crisis and How Courts Can Solve It , 2009 .

[38]  L. Fleming,et al.  Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Disentangling the Role of State Borders, Metropolitan Boundaries and Distance , 2010 .

[39]  Alfons Buekens,et al.  Book Review: Assessment of the Performance of Engineered Waste Containment Barriers by National Research Council of the National Academies , 2010 .

[40]  A. Rai,et al.  Who's Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law , 2010 .

[41]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Lone Inventors as Source of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality? , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[42]  著書紹介 米国特許制度の破綻とその対応策 James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats and lawyers put innovators at risk , 2010 .

[43]  Joshua Lerner,et al.  Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It , 2011 .

[44]  Chenyi Zhang,et al.  An Algorithm for , 2011 .

[45]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? , 2012 .