Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:35:43.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Jérôme Danguy  and
Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
Jérôme Danguy
Affiliation:
Université libre de Bruxelles (Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, ECARES), FNRS Research Fellow
Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
Affiliation:
Université libre de Bruxelles (Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, ECARES, DULBEA and CEB), Bruegel Senior Fellow
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For more than 40 years, governments and professional associations have acted, voted or lobbied against the implementation of the Community Patent (COMPAT, officially called the EU Patent). The econometric results and simulations presented in this paper suggest that, thanks to its attractiveness in terms of market size and a sound renewal fee structure, the COMPAT would drastically reduce the relative patenting costs for applicants while generating more income for the European Patent Office and most National Patent Offices. The loss of economic rents (€400 million would be lost by patent attorneys, translators and lawyers) and the drop of controlling power by national patent offices elucidate further the observed resistance to the Community Patent.

Keywords

patent systemscommunity patentpatenting costrenewal feesmaintenance rate
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , 25 April 2011 , pp. 1 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2011

References

Archontopoulos, E., Guellec, D., Stevnsborg, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., and van Zeebroeck, N.. 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), pp. 103-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudry, M. and Dumont, B.. 2006. Patent Renewals as Options: Improving the Mechanism for Weeding Out Lousy Patents, Review of Industrial Organisation, 28, pp. 41-62.Google Scholar
Baudry, M. and Dumont, B.. 2009. A Bayesian Real Option Approach to Patents and Optimal Renewal Fees, LEMNA Working Paper 2009/09.Google Scholar
Cornelli, F. and Schankerman, M.. 1999. Patent Renewals and R&D Incentives, RAND Journal of Economics, 30(2), pp. 197-213.Google Scholar
de Rassenfosse, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2007. Per un pugno di dollari: A first look at the price elasticity of patents, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), pp.588-604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rassenfosse, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2011. On the Price Elasticity of Demand for Patents, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rassenfosse, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2009. A Policy Insight into the R&D-Patent Relationship, Research Policy, 38(5), pp. 779-792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC. 2008. European Council working document 8928/08, made available by the European Commission (DG Internal Market).Google Scholar
Gans, J.S., King, S.P. and Lampe, R.. 2004. Patent Renewal Fees and Self-Funding Patent Offices, Topics on Theoretical Economics, 4(1), Article 6.Google Scholar
Ginarte, J.C. and Park, W. G.. 1997. Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study, Research Policy, 26(3), pp. 283-301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guellec, D. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2007. The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 250 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harhoff, D. 2009. Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Unified and Integrated European Patent Litigation System, Final Report, Tender No MARKT/2008/06/D, 84 pages.Google Scholar
Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Reichl, B. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2009. Patent Validation at the Country Level – the Role of Fees and Translation Costs, Research Policy, 38(9), pp. 1423-1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2008. Languages, Fees and the International Scope of Patenting, CEPR Discussion Paper 7241.Google Scholar
Lazaridis, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2007. The riguour of EPO’s patentability criteria: An insight into the “induced withdrawals”, World Patent Information, 29(4), pp. 317-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemley, M.. 2001. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, Northwestern University Law Review, 95(4).Google Scholar
Mejer, M. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B.. 2011. Economic incongruities in the European Patent Systems, European Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming DOI: 10.1007/s10657-011-9221-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, W.G.. 2008. International Patent Protection: 1960-2005, Research Policy, 37(4), pp.761-766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schankerman, M. and Pakes, A. 1986. Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period, The Economic Journal, 96(384), pp. 1052-1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scotchmer, S. 1999. On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System, RAND Journal of Economics, 30(2), pp. 181-196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2009. Lost property: The European patent system and why it doesn’t work, Bruegel Blueprint, 72 pages.Google Scholar
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and François, D.. 2009. The cost factor in patent systems, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9(4), pp. 329-355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Mejer, M.. 2010. The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe, European Journal of Law and Economics, 29(2), pp. 211-237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and van Zeebroeck, N.. 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, pp. 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zeebroeck, N. 2008. Long live patents: the increasing life expectancy of patent applications and its determinants, Working Papers CEB 08-040, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB).Google Scholar
van Zeebroeck, N. 2009. From patent renewals to applications survival: do portfolio management strategies play a role in patent length?, Working Papers CEB 09-028, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB).Google Scholar
van Zeebroeck, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., and Guellec, D.. 2009. Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants, Research Policy, 38(6), pp. 1006-1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar