Ref. Ares(2012)1471488 - 11/12/2012 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe Tender MARKT/2009/11/D Contract Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union 2009/S 147-214675 of 04/08/2009 March 2011 Authors: Giuseppe Scellato* (Coordinator) Mario Calderini* Federico Caviggioli* Chiara Franzoni* Elisa Ughetto* Evisa Kica1 Victor Rodriguez1 * Politecnico di Torino, DISPEA, IP Finance Institute, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy. 1 Twente University, School of Management and Governance, Department of Legal and Economic Governance Studies, Institute for Governance Studies, Centre for European Studies, P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. DG MARKT PATQUAL Disclaims: This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. 2 DG MARKT PATQUAL Definitions and abbreviations: ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation DKPTO Danish Patent and Trademark Office DPMA German Patent and Trademark Office ECLA European Patent Classification EESR Extended European Search Report EPC European Patent Convention EPN European Patent Network EPO European Patent Office EQMS European Quality Management System EQS European Quality System ESOP European Search Opinion EU European Union HPO Hungarian Patent Office INPI Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property IPC International Patent Classification IPEA International Preliminary Examining Authority ISA International Search Authority ISO International Organisation for Standardisation JPO Japan Patent Office NBPR National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland NPO National Patent Office OAPI Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle PCT Patent Co-operation Treaty PPH Patent Prosecution Highway PQS Product Quality Standard PRV Swedish Patent and Registration Office QMS Quality Management System SIPO Slovenian Intellectual Property Office SIS Supplementary International Searches SPTO Spanish Patent and Trademark Office UKIPO UK Intellectual Property Office UPP Utilisation Pilot Project USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office WOISA Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority 3 DG MARKT PATQUAL Index Disclaims: ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions and abbreviations: ........................................................................................................................ 3 Index ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 16 1.1 Objectives and scope of the study .................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Defining patent quality ........................................................................................................................ 19 1.3 Patent quality and the characteristics of the European Patent System ........................ 20 1.3.1 The relative costs of European patents ......................................................................... 21 1.3.2 The patent enforcement system in Europe .................................................................. 21 1.4 Review of previous studies on patent quality ............................................................................ 22 2 The survey to the users of the European Patent System ........................................... 24 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Structure of the questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Dissemination of the questionnaire ................................................................................................ 25 2.3.1 Additional contacts ................................................................................................................ 26 2.4 Results from the survey to companies ........................................................................................... 26 2.4.1 The characteristics of the sample of respondents .................................................... 26 2.4.2 Usage of the patent system - The determinants of patent quality ...................... 29 2.4.3 Filing strategies in Europe .................................................................................................. 41 2.4.4 Relevance of patent costs .................................................................................................... 42 2.4.5 The quality of the patent system – the search and examination process ........ 45 2.4.6 The quality of the patent system – the enforcement of granted patents ......... 47 2.4.7 Proposal for the improvement of the quality of the European patent system 49 2.5 Results from the survey to Universities and Public Research Organisations .............. 51 2.5.1 The characteristics of the sample of respondents .................................................... 52 2.5.2 Usage of the patent system - The determinants of patent quality ...................... 53 2.5.3 Filing strategies in Europe .................................................................................................. 55 2.5.4 Relevance of patent costs .................................................................................................... 55 2.5.5 The quality of the patent system – the search and examination process ........ 56 2.5.6 The quality of the patent system – the enforcement of granted patents ......... 57 2.5.7 Proposal for the improvement of the quality of the European patent system 58 2.6 Summary of findings .............................................................................................................................. 59 3 An empirical assessment of EPO patent quality through an analysis of opposition cases .............................................................................................................................. 62 3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 62 3.2 The opposition procedure ................................................................................................................... 62 3.3 Previous studies of patent oppositions and research setting ............................................. 63 3.4 Data sources .............................................................................................................................................. 65 3.5 Analysis of opposition trends and characteristics ................................................................... 65 4 DG MARKT PATQUAL 3.5.1 Opposition trends in the years 2000-2008 .................................................................. 65 3.5.2 Sectoral differences in opposition trends ..................................................................... 67 3.5.3 Characteristics of opposed patents ................................................................................. 70 3.5.4 Oppositions and priority countries ................................................................................. 74 3.5.5 Oppositions and duration of the patent granting process ..................................... 75 3.6 Analysis of opposition outcomes ...................................................................................................... 75 3.6.1 Trends in opposition outcomes in the years 2000-2008 ....................................... 75 3.7 Econometric analysis ............................................................................................................................ 78 3.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 87 4 Cost-benefit analysis of the international initiatives to improve patent quality 89 4.1 Introduction and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 89 4.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 90 4.3 International Initiatives to Improve Patent Quality .............................................................. 91 4.3.1 Strengthening the Duty of Disclosure and Codes of Conduct ............................... 91 4.3.2 IP5 Work-Sharing Initiative ............................................................................................... 94 4.3.3 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) ................................................................................ 95 4.3.4 Shift from First-to-Invent to First-to-File ..................................................................... 96 4.3.5 US Patent Training Academy ............................................................................................. 97 4.4 Cost and Benefit