This volume assembles papers commissioned by the National Research Council's Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) to inform judgments about the significant institutional and policy changes in the patent system made over the past two decades. The chapters fall into three areas. The first four chapters consider the determinants and effects of changes in patent "quality." Quality refers to whether patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) meet the statutory standards of patentability, including novelty, nonobviousness, and utility. The fifth and sixth chapters consider the growth in patent litigation, which may itself be a function of changes in the quality of contested patents. The final three chapters explore controversies associated with the extension of patents into new domains of technology, including biomedicine, software, and business methods.

A study of how patents and citation data can serve empirical research on innovation and technological change.

This volume assembles papers commissioned by the National Research Council's Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) to inform judgments about the significant institutional and policy changes in the patent system made over the past two decades. The chapters fall into three areas. The first four chapters consider the determinants and effects of changes in patent "quality." Quality refers to whether patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) meet the statutory standards of patentability, including novelty, nonobviousness, and utility. The fifth and sixth chapters consider the growth in patent litigation, which may itself be a function of changes in the quality of contested patents. The final three chapters explore controversies associated with the extension of patents into new domains of technology, including biomedicine, software, and business methods.

The aim of this paper is, therefore, to identify the sources of persisting discrepancies and seek an alternative explanation of the principal functioning of the patent system, which would better withstand the test of the reality of a modern, knowledge-based economy in which innovation-based competition, not monopoly, prevails. [...] This is then the public-good effect of a patent, by which cumulative research is explicitly allowed, indeed promoted, so that innovators can stand on the shoulders of the giants who precede them, as Scotchmer would say.18 The public-good effect of patents then obviously opens the way for innovation-based competition to take place, provided, however, that the pro- competitive nature of the public-g. [...] The following remark by Cornish is a representative case in point: "For instance, in an internal combustion engine, the idea of putting a cushion of air in the cylinder between the fuel and the piston in order to cushion the explosive effect of ignition was said not in itself to be patentable; but a machine devised to do so was."30 Much the same reasoning was expressed in the U. [...] Despite this indeed laconic, overly simplified and incomplete presentation of the basic principles, it is not difficult to see that the scope of patent protection is itself limited by the law to the extent that the primary benefit of the public-good effect of patents is not adversely affected. [...] The above exposition of the competitive framework of patents and their optimal scope is an extremely simple model, the value of which rests primarily on the originality of the underlying assumptions and not on its sophistication.

"This books shows how and why the ideas of creative individuals promote progress. The insights are based on original archival research regarding over one hundred thousand inventors, patented inventions, and innovation prizes in Europe and the United States during industrialization. This systematic empirical analysis across time and place and institutions provides an extensive microfoundation for understanding technological change and long-run macroeconomic growth. British and French policies favoured "administered innovation systems," in which elites, administrators or panels made key economic decisions about inducement prizes, rewards and the allocation of resources. European institutions generated returns that were misaligned with economic value and productivity, and perpetuated socioeconomic inequality. Europe fell behind when the negative consequences of such top-down administered systems accumulated and reduced comparative advantage. The modern knowledge economy emerged when, for the first time in world history, an intellectual property clause was included in a national Constitution, in the United States. This strong endorsement for open-access property rights and unfettered markets in ideas reflected a revolution in thinking about the sources of creativity and technical progress. U.S. global industrial ascendancy was a direct outcome of its decentralized market-oriented institutions, which fostered diversity in ideas and innovations, the diffusion of information and disruptive technologies, and sustained endogenous growth"--

The U.S. patent system is in an accelerating race with human ingenuity and investments in innovation. In many respects the system has responded with admirable flexibility, but the strain of continual technological change and the greater importance ascribed to patents in a knowledge economy are exposing weaknesses including questionable patent quality, rising transaction costs, impediments to the dissemination of information through patents, and international inconsistencies. A panel including a mix of legal expertise, economists, technologists, and university and corporate officials recommends significant changes in the way the patent system operates. A Patent System for the 21st Century urges creation of a mechanism for post-grant challenges to newly issued patents, reinvigoration of the non-obviousness standard to quality for a patent, strengthening of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, simplified and less costly litigation, harmonization of the U.S., European, and Japanese examination process, and protection of some research from patent infringement liability.

The U.S. patent system is in an accelerating race with human ingenuity and investments in innovation. In many respects the system has responded with admirable flexibility, but the strain of continual technological change and the greater importance ascribed to patents in a knowledge economy are exposing weaknesses including questionable patent quality, rising transaction costs, impediments to the dissemination of information through patents, and international inconsistencies. A panel including a mix of legal expertise, economists, technologists, and university and corporate officials recommends significant changes in the way the patent system operates. "A Patent System for the 21st Century" urges creation of a mechanism for post-grant challenges to newly issued patents, reinvigoration of the non-obviousness standard to quality for a patent, strengthening of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, simplified and less costly litigation, harmonization of the U.S., European, and Japanese examination process, and protection of some research from patent infringement liability.