The quality factor in patent systems

In this paper, Bruegel senior Fellow Bruno van Pottelsberghe develops a methodology to compare the quality of examination services in different patent offices. Quality is defined as the extent to which patent offices comply with their patentability conditions in a transparent way. The methodology consists of a two-layer analytical framework encompassing 'legal standards' and their 'operational design', which includes several interdependent components that affect the stringency and transparency of the filtering process.

Economic incongruities in the European patent system

Bruno van Pottelsberghe argues that the consequences of the fragmentation of the European patent system are more dramatic than the mere prohibitive costs of maintaining a patent in force in many jurisdictions. The authors first show that heterogeneous national litigation costs, practices and outcome induce a high level of uncertainty. But also that a high degree of managerial complexity results from systemic incongruities due to easier parallel imports, possible time paradoxes and the de facto paradox of having EU-level competition policy and granting authority, ultimately facing national jurisdictional primacy on patent issues.

The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe

Bruno van Pottelsberghe analyses the potential consequences of the recently ratified London Agreement, which reduces the patent translation requirements in 15 out of 34 EPC Member States. The simulations suggest that the cumulated costs of patenting have been reduced by 20 to 30 percent thanks to the coming into force of the London Agreement, in May 2008. In nominal terms, the total saving for the business sector is about Â?220 million. As well as these substantial cost savings, the authors expect an increase in the demand for patents of eight to 12 percent.

Europe should stop taxing innovation

In this Policy Brief, Bruegel Senior Fellow Bruno van Pottelsberghe makes the argument in favour of a single EU patent system. The author explains that the absence of a one-stop-shop for EU-wide patents hampers innovation and will pose serious challenges to small and medium-sized companies in the face of global competition. This paper analyses how a uniform patent system can sustain long-term competitiveness and boost growth and thereby achieve EU2020 targets. It makes policy recommendations in four key areas of a single patent system - language, complexity, affordability and governance.   

Memo to the New Digital Agenda Commissioner

Senior Resident Fellows Reinhilde Veugelers and Bruno van Pottelsberghe provide recommendations for the term of new Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes in this supplement to Bruegel's Memos to the New Commission: Europe's Economic Priorities 2010-2015. They argue that Kroes should move past a focus on infrastructure and concentrate more on ICT's potential to contribute to growth in the European Union. This should include a focus on emerging ICT products and services to helpl foster an ICT single market and more public support for R&D and innovation, through tailored programmes designed to aid high-risk innovative projects conceived by new ICT companies.

Cost Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent

The creation of a European Community Patent (COMPAT) came a step closer this month when Sweden brokered a preliminary agreement on the issue. In this working paper, Senior Resident Fellow Bruno van Pottelsberghe and Jérôme Danguy use simulations to take a look at the advantages, disadvantages, winners and losers from the creation of the COMPAT. They find that it would drastically reduce the relative patenting costs for applicants while generating more income for the European Patent Office and increased savings for the business sector. They also explain that the lost of economic rents for patent attorneys, translators and lawyers specialised in patent litigation and the drop of controlling power for national patent offices may explain why there has been such resistance to the COMPAT thus far.

Handle with care! Post-crisis growth in the EU

In this policy brief, Jean Pisani-Ferry and Bruno van Pottelsberghe show that although the crisis originated in the US, Europeâ??s outlook has deteriorated faster and more sharply leading to the worst crisis observed during the post-war era. However, the length of the crisis matters at least as much at its depth, and policymakers should not overlook the medium term consequences of their actions.

Lost property: The European patent system and why it doesn't work

In his blueprint, Bruno van Pottelsberghe first looks at the performance of patent arrangements in Europe, especially their cost effectiveness and the consistency of rules and remedies across countries. He then looks at current attempts at global patent cooperation to see if they will help or hinder the emergence of innovation worldwide and in Europe. Using new and hard-hitting data, van Pottelsberghe paints a dark picture of today's patent landscape both in Europe and internationally. It is a tale of failed public cooperation at all levels and of a regime in danger of rampant patent inflation unless minds and resources are focused on tackling the root causes of the problem. This blueprint comes forward with a sequence of concrete, short-, medium- and long-term policy recommendations to this end.

The Economic Impact of Venture Capital

This paper attempts to evaluate the macroeconomic impact of venture capital (VC). We test the assumption that VC is similar in several respects to business R&D performed by large firms and therefore contributes to economic growth through two main channels: innovation and absorptive capacity. The quantitative results, based on a panel of 16 OECD countries from 1990 to 2001, show that the social return of VC is significantly higher than the social return of business or public R&D. An increased VC intensity also makes it easier to absorb the knowledge generated by universities and firms. --Venture Capital,Productivity Growth,Innovation,Absorptive Capacity

International R&D Spillovers: A Re-Examination

Coe and Helpman(1995) have measured the extent to which technology spills over between industrialized countries through the particular channel of trade flows. This paper re-examines two particular features of their study. First, we suggest that their functional form of how foreign R&D affects domestic productivity via imports is probably incorrect. We provide an alternative model which turns out to be more accurate, both theoretically and empirically. Second, we take into account two new potential channels of technology transfer: inward FDI and technology sourcing, as proxied by outward FDI. The empirical results show that outward FDI flows and imports flows are two simultaneous channels through which technology is internationally diffused. Inward FDI flows are not a significant channel of technology transfer. The hypothesis of technology sourcing associated with MNEs activities abroad is therefore confirmed while the widespread belief that inward FDI is a major channel of technology transfer is rejected.