The Patent Examiner Sweepstakes

Abstract

This article presents evidence that patent value varies with random examiner assignment at the U.S. Patent Office. Prior work analyzed firm growth as a function of review by “easy” examiners who grant patents at a high rate. The current research looks past whether a patent is granted and instead focuses on how assignment to an “easy” or “hard” examiner influences the attributes of resultant patents. Focusing on their propensities to reject applications on novelty or obviousness grounds, analysis finds that patents issued by lenient examiners tend to be broader in scope, are more valuable to their owners, and elicit a larger stock market response when granted. Further analysis quantifies the level of variation (“noise”) among examiners. This inquiry finds that the noise level in issuing novelty rejections decreases with examiner experience, while variation among examiners issuing obviousness rejections actually increases with experience. A third line of investigation presents evidence that “stricter” examiners disproportionately reach the correct examination relative to more lenient counterparts. This conclusion is supported by “twin application” analysis comparing outcomes of related U.S. and European applications. Consistent with the literature using this method, the European Patent Office's outcome is considered the “gold standard” for examination, and thus, its decision to grant or deny is assumed correct.