International patent systems strength 1998–2011

Abstract

In this paper we report on a composite index of international patent systems strength for 48 developing and industrialized countries annually from 1998 to 2011. Building upon earlier indices we develop a conceptual framework informed by transaction cost theory and derive measures which emphasize the importance of enforcement-related aspects of the patent system of countries. Findings reveal harmonization of the regulative aspects of patent protection internationally in the post-TRIPs era but not of overall national patent systems. The index should inform studies on the relationship between national patent systems and a range of international business and other phenomena.

Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: A Panel Analysis

“…Enforcement is important because efficiency and effectiveness of administration and enforcement of IPR rights determines the actual strength of the overall IPR system (Maskus, 2000;Park, 2008). While a strong regulatory IPR framework may exist though enacted laws, these laws may not be effectively administered and enforced (Papageorgiadis et al 2014). …”

“…We proxy for strength of IPR enforcement by using the IPR index of Papageorgiadis et al (2014). This applies transaction cost theory and constructs annual index scores by incorporating enforcement related dimensions of the IPR system.…”

R&D capabilities, intellectual property strength and choice of equity ownership in cross‐border acquisitions: evidence from BRICS acquirers in Europe

“…As Papageorgiadis et al (, p. 586) suggest the index of patent systems strength ‘…places particular emphasis on the effectiveness of enforcement practices, together with the overall administrative functioning of the system as perceived by managers’. This attribute of the index is important for this study since the scores of the book‐law patent protection index of Park () have little variance between European countries, whereas the scores of the index of patent systems strength by Papageorgiadis et al () clearly vary between European countries. In addition, the latest update of the index by Park () provides scores for the year 2005, whereas the latest update of the Papageorgiadis et al () provides annual scores for the years 1998–2014…”

“…Therefore, operating in strong IP institutions can allow firms to achieve stronger R&D performance and higher returns to their R&D investments. The home countries of EMNEs are predominantly characterised by weak IP institutions (Papageorgiadis et al, 2014) and their R&D and innovation positions are generally weaker to those of firms from developed countries (Luo and Tung, 2007). Due to their modest capabilities related to R&D investments and IP management, they do not use IP ligation (and out of court settlements) against potential IP infringers since the difficulty and cost required to identify IP infringements is high and the outcome of IP litigation in countries with weak IP institutions is uncertain (James et al, 2013).…”

“…The published version of the Papageorgiadis et al () dataset makes available annual data for the years 1998–2011. We also used the updated scores of this index for the years 2012–2013 made available by Papageorgiadis et al ().…”