The document "Patent Systems" by Elise Petit and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la

Potterie, part of the "Elgar Encyclopedia on the Economics of Knowledge and

Innovation," explores the complexity and variations within global patent systems
despite their supposed uniformity under international treaties. Here is a summary of
the key points covered in the document:

Introduction

● Global Disparities: Patent applications vary widely across different patent

offices globally. In 2020, the USPTO had 600,000 applications, the JPO had
290,000, the EPO had 180,000, and the CNIPA had 1.5 million.
● Inventive Propensity vs. Patenting Propensity: While the propensity to invent
should be homogeneous, the propensity to patent varies due to different
intellectual property strategies and the choice of patent offices.

Factors Influencing Patent Office Choice

1. Economic Value: The market size that the patent jurisdiction protects.
2. Quality of Examination Services: The signaling effect of patent quality
assessed by different offices.

Heterogeneous Demands for Patents

● Initial Submission and Priority Date: The process starts with submitting a
document at a patent office, defining a priority application associated with a
priority date.
● Publication and Search Reports: Most patent offices publish the application
and a search report 18 months after the priority date.

National Bias and Complementarities

● National Bias: Despite lower grant rates for non-domestic applicants, Petit et
al. (2022) find no evidence of bias in the examination process itself. Lower
grant rates may result from economic factors influencing the applicant's
willingness to maintain the patent.
● Leveraging Work: Patent offices could benefit from each other's prior work.
PCT applications with prior international search reports reduce workload and
improve quality by reducing duplicated efforts.
Patent Systems Comparison

● USPTO, EPO, and JPO: The document includes detailed comparisons of the
USPTO, EPO, and JPO, highlighting differences in grant rates, examination
speed, and treatment of domestic vs. non-domestic applicants.
● PCT Applications: Findings suggest that PCT applications with existing ISRs
(International Search Reports) reduce workload and lead to better-quality
examinations at subsequent patent offices.

Conclusion

● Collaboration Potential: There is potential for increased collaboration among

patent offices to leverage synergies, reduce redundancies, and improve
examination quality.
● Challenges: Different patent offices face varying demands and operate within
different systems, making structural partnerships challenging. The ultimate
objective of a patent office (maximizing innovation incentives vs. granted
patents) impacts examination quality and fees structure.