[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v68y2020i4p489-512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of the grant lag and the surrender lag of horticultural crop plant breeders’ rights applications: Survival analysis with competing risks

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Meng
  • Richard Carew
  • Wojciech J. Florkowski
Abstract
Obtaining a Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) certificate provides horticultural institutions the exclusive right to produce and reproduce new varieties, which directly motivate new plant variety innovations. This study investigates how the grant and surrender lag of PBR certificates is influenced by the crop type and applicant characteristics using the Canadian Food Inspection Agency horticultural crop PBR application data for the period 1992–2014. Results from the Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model reveal that the grant lag and surrender lag of Canadian PBR applications significantly vary by the country of origin of the applicant, whether the applicant is a public institution or private company/individual, horticultural crop types, and the decades when applications are filed. The policy implications of the results provide useful information to stakeholders of the Canadian Plant Breeders’ Rights System regarding how the lifespan of PBRs is influenced by crop type and applicant characteristics. L'obtention d'un certificat de protection des obtentions végétales (POV) confère aux institutions horticoles le droit exclusif de produire et de reproduire de nouvelles variétés, ce qui motive directement les innovations en matière de variétés végétales. Cette étude examine comment le délai de délivrance et de remise des certificats de droit d'obtenteur est influencé par le type de culture et les caractéristiques du demandeur en utilisant les données de demande de POV des cultures horticoles de l'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments (ACIA) pour la période 1992–2014. Les résultats du modèle de risque de sous‐distribution Fine and Grey révèlent que le délai de subvention et le délai de cession des demandes canadienne de POV varient considérablement selon le pays d'origine du demandeur, que le demandeur soit une institution publique ou une entreprise privée/un particulier, selon les types de cultures horticoles et la décennie où les demandes ont été déposées. Les implications politiques des résultats fournissent des informations utiles aux intervenants du système canadien de protection des obtentions végétales sur la façon dont la durée de vie des POV est influencée par le type de culture et les caractéristiques des demandeurs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Meng & Richard Carew & Wojciech J. Florkowski, 2020. "Determinants of the grant lag and the surrender lag of horticultural crop plant breeders’ rights applications: Survival analysis with competing risks," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 489-512, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:68:y:2020:i:4:p:489-512
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12257
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12257?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshifumi Nakata & Xingyuan Zhang, 2012. "A survival analysis of patent examination requests by Japanese electrical and electronic manufacturers," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 31-54, October.
    2. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(1), January.
    3. Schankerman, Mark & Pakes, Ariel, 1986. "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries during the Post-1950 Period," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(384), pages 1052-1076, December.
    4. Campi, Mercedes & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2015. "Intellectual property protection in plant varieties: A worldwide index (1961–2011)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 951-964.
    5. Danielle Lewensohn & Charlotta Dahlborg & Jan Kowalski & Per Lundin, 2015. "Applying patent survival analysis in the academic context," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 197-212.
    6. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    7. Liegsalz, Johannes & Wagner, Stefan, 2013. "Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 552-563.
    8. Roger Svensson, 2013. "Publicly-funded R&D programs and survival of patents," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(10), pages 1343-1358, April.
    9. Popp David & Juhl Ted & Johnson Daniel K.N., 2004. "Time In Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-45, November.
    10. Alston, Julian M. & Venner, Raymond J., 2002. "The effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act on wheat genetic improvement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 527-542, May.
    11. Ying Xie & David Giles, 2011. "A survival analysis of the approval of US patent applications," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(11), pages 1375-1384.
    12. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Post-Print hal-01589260, HAL.
    13. Srinivasan, Chittur S., 2012. "Modelling Economic Returns to Plant Variety Protection in the UK," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(2), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Han, Aaron & Hausman, Jerry A, 1990. "Flexible Parametric Estimation of Duration and Competing Risk Models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(1), pages 1-28, January-M.
    15. Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Wagner, 2009. "The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1969-1984, December.
    16. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    17. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Henry An & Leslie J. Butler, 2012. "A Discrete-Time Duration Analysis of Technology Disadoption: The Case of rbST in California," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(4), pages 495-515, December.
    19. Alba-Ramirez, Alfonso & Arranz, Jose M. & Munoz-Bullon, Fernando, 2007. "Exits from unemployment: Recall or new job," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 788-810, October.
    20. Russell Thomson, 2015. "The Yield of Plant Variety Protection," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(3), pages 762-785.
    21. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 923-952, August.
    22. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Erratum to: Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1107-1119, August.
    23. Dolton, Peter J & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 1995. "Leaving Teaching in the UK: A Duration Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(429), pages 431-444, March.
    24. Richard Carew, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for the Canola Sector and Publicly Funded Research," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 48(2), pages 175-194, July.
    25. Deepthi Elizabeth Kolady & William Lesser, 2009. "But are they Meritorious? Genetic Productivity Gains under Plant Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 62-79, February.
    26. Tong, Tony W. & Zhang, Kun & He, Zi-Lin & Zhang, Yuchen, 2018. "What determines the duration of patent examination in China? An outcome-specific duration analysis of invention patent applications at SIPO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 583-591.
    27. Christopher, Gandrud, 2011. "Competing risks analysis and deposit insurance governance convergence," MPRA Paper 36087, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    28. Pardey, Philip G. & Koo, Bonwoo & Drew, Jennifer & Nottenburg, Carol, 2012. "The Evolving Landscape of IP Rights for Plant Varieties in the United States, 1930-2008," Staff Papers 119346, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang, Haodong & Zhang, Yumei & Liu, Li, 2024. "Patent priority examination under mission orientation: can speed and quality coexist?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Gupeng & Xiong, Libin & Duan, Hongbo & Huang, Dujuan, 2020. "Obtaining certainty vs. creating uncertainty: Does firms’ patent filing strategy work as expected?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    2. Yang, Haodong & Zhang, Yumei & Liu, Li, 2024. "Patent priority examination under mission orientation: can speed and quality coexist?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Zhu, Kejia & Malhotra, Shavin & Li, Yaohan, 2022. "Technological diversity of patent applications and decision pendency," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    5. Li Yao & He Ni, 2023. "Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 4933-4969, September.
    6. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    7. Liu, Li-jun & Cao, Cong & Song, Min, 2014. "China's agricultural patents: How has their value changed amid recent patent boom?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 106-121.
    8. Tong, Tony W. & Zhang, Kun & He, Zi-Lin & Zhang, Yuchen, 2018. "What determines the duration of patent examination in China? An outcome-specific duration analysis of invention patent applications at SIPO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 583-591.
    9. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 923-952, August.
    10. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    11. Johannes Koenen & Martin Peitz, 2012. "The Economics of Pending Patents," Chapters, in: Joseph E. Harrington Jr & Yannis Katsoulacos (ed.), Recent Advances in the Analysis of Competition Policy and Regulation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(1), January.
    13. Mercedes Campi, 2017. "The effect of intellectual property rights on agricultural productivity," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 327-339, May.
    14. Chen, Wantao & Yu, Xiang & Yang, Wei, 2024. "Is worldwide patent protection converging? A cross-country index of patent protection strength 1990–2020," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    15. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    16. Yagi, Michiyuki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Shadow price of patent stock as knowledge stock: Time and country heterogeneity," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 43-61.
    17. Gupeng, Zhang & Xiangdong, Chen, 2012. "The value of invention patents in China: Country origin and technology field differences," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 357-370.
    18. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Reza Hosseini, 2020. "Discrimination against foreigners in the U.S. patent system," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 349-366, December.
    19. John Haltiwanger & Russell Cooper & Laura Power, 1999. "Machine Replacement and the Business Cycle: Lumps and Bumps," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 921-946, September.
    20. Mercedes Campi & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2021. "Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Development: Evidence from a Worldwide Index of IPRs in Agriculture (1961-2018)," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(4), pages 650-668, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:68:y:2020:i:4:p:489-512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.