Further to last week’s report on the latest statistics regarding the EPO Boards of appeal, today’s post is about another batch of numbers, this time from the French patent office.
But before getting there, I would like to briefly follow up on last week’s post, with two additional comments.
First, I wondered last week about the extraordinary situation in Board 3.3.02, which is now understaffed to the point of being practically unstaffed. A reader kindly brought to my attention that some cases originally distributed to this board seem to have been transferred to another board. For instance, case T488/16 was transferred to board 3.3.01 in October 2016. This makes sense in order to prevent some appeals from getting lost in limbo. But I still wonder what happened to board 3.3.02 in the first place.
Second, the EPO released another report a few days ago regarding the 2016 statistics. Very informative indeed. Three figures in particular caught my attention.
The first figure is the number of so-called “patent filings“, which reached more than 296,000 in 2016, up by 6.2% since 2015. This indicator is put in the spotlight by the EPO every year, even though it is a rather artificial one, as many others have noted. Indeed, these “patent filings” include both European direct filings and PCT filings (whatever the receiving office is). The latter represent a large portion of the 296,000 filings. Of course not all PCT filings give rise to actual proceedings before the EPO. So, the figure should not be interpreted as meaning that the EPO handled 6.2% more applications in 2016 than in 2015.
This leads us to the second figure, which is the meaningful one, namely the number of so-called “total applications“, i.e. actual applications for a European patent. The number of total applications is the sum of the number of direct filings at the EPO and of PCT applications having entered European regional phase. Well, it turns out that this indicator is actually down by 0.6% relative to 2015, with a total of 159,353 applications.
It would be interesting to compare this number with the number of national filings in the various EPC contracting states in 2016, to see whether fewer patents were requested overall in Europe, or whether some applicants may have decided to favor the national route, for one reason or the other (such as the upcoming advent of the UPC scaring them off).
Last but not least, the third figure, namely the number of patent grants in 2016. This one is nothing short of astounding. There was a 40% increase in patent grants in 2016, up to 95,940. Obviously, this is good news for applicants. But everyone’s concern is that the quality bar may have been lowered to achieve this impressive figure. This would not be good news for third parties – and all applicants that I know of also happen to be third parties. Of course, it is hard to tell whether this concern has any merit or not. There is only so much that stats can tell us.
And now, back to Paris, with another report, issued this time by the Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI). The report, authored by Emmanuelle Fortune and Mickaël Chion, concerns applications published in 2015, i.e. which were mostly filed in 2013-2014.
It focuses in particular on the respective filing strategies of SMEs (fewer than 250 employees and yearly turnover of less than 50 million euros or annual accounts of less than 43 million euros), large entities (more than 4,999 employees and yearly turnover of more than 1.5 billion euros or annual accounts of more than 2 billion euros), and intermediate ones (anything in-between).
Here are a few subjective highlights from the report.
First, the total number of French national applications filed at the INPI has been remarkably stable for a number of years. The total is 15,105 (again, these are the applications actually published in 2015, not those filed in 2015).
Second, the breakdown of French national applications filed by French legal entities, depending on the applicant’s size:
- 22.1% of these applications were filed by SMEs;
- 56.8% were filed by large entities;
- 6.9% were filed by intermediate entities.
The remainder (14.2%) were therefore filed by public research institutions.
Third, the number of (French) applicants having filed at least one national application, in each category. Here the ratio between SMEs and large entities is the opposite:
- 66.9% of applicants were SMEs;
- 14.5% of applicants were large entities;
- 10.8% of applicants were intermediate entities.
If my math is correct, this means 7.8% of applicants were public research institutions.
Fourth, quite logically, the average number of applications per applicant is heavily dependent on the size of the applicant:
- each SME filed 1.4 application on average;
- each large entity filed 16.4 application on average;
- each intermediate entity filed 2.7 application on average.
Again, the report does not address public research institutions. But some simple math makes it possible to conclude that there were 3.2 applications on average for those. I would have expected this number to be much higher.
Yet, on the one hand, the report uses fractions when there are co-applicants, which I think is often the case when public research institutions are involved. To take one example, if the CNRS files an application together with three other partners, this will count as only 0.25 application for the CNRS. This can partly account for the low number of applications per public institution.
And on the other hand, the above average figures probably hide very large discrepancies between individual entities. I assume that some well known actors such as the CNRS, or Peugeot Citroën Automobiles, Renault, L’Oréal and the like file a very large number of applications every year, which necessarily skews up numbers in their respective categories.
The fifth point that I would like to highlight here is the proportion of French applications giving rise to PCT or direct EP extensions:
- 50.8% of applications filed by SMEs gave rise to such an extension;
- 60.8% of applications filed by intermediate entities gave rise to such an extension; and
- 60.8% of applications filed by large entities gave rise to such an extension.
Reconstructing the missing data regarding public research institutions leads me to a very large proportion of 86.7% of applications giving rise to an EP or PCT extension.
I guess possible factors for the lower extension rate among SMEs is the cost of the extensions, and the more local nature of their markets. At the opposite end of the spectrum, public research entities absolutely need to think globally and invest in the long run in their patent applications before they can hopefully get a profit from them. Also they probably tend to only file applications on significant inventions and not on small, incremental ones, as private companies often do for strategic reasons.
The last batch of figures for today, is probably the most interesting one. It relates to the estimated number of applications or patents in force in France, on December 31, 2015.
The total number is 520,068. In understand it includes French patents, French applications, and granted European patents for which at least one renewal fee was paid in France.
So, good luck folks for your freedom-to-operate analyses… The majority are European patents (72.5%), the rest being French national applications / patents.
The breakdown between French applicants and foreign applicants / patentees is also very uneven: 69.4% of applications / patents in force are held by foreign persons or entities (although the vast majority of applications / patents filed via the national route are held by French persons or entities).
Only 4.4% of all patents / applications in force are French patents / applications held by French SMEs. To this number, we should also add the proportion of European patents held by French SMEs. The figure is not provided in the report, but it is likely very low.
This should somewhat put into perspective the often heard assertion that the patent system is good for SMEs. This is certainly true for part of them. But on the other hand, local SME patents are outnumbered by large entities’ filings and foreign filings – at least in this country.
For those readers really interested in numbers, the INPI report contains further data on technological fields, the regional origin of French applicants etc. It is not too much PR-oriented, simply factual and therefore satisfactual (a tribute to a classic song).