The effect of technological impact upon patent renewal decisions

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 181-197

  Thomas, Patrick ^a  

^a CHI Research Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 0032812975     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095373299107492     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. M. Schankerman & A. Pakes, 'Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period', The Economic Journal, 96, 1986, pp. 1052-1076.
2. M. Trajtenberg, 'A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations', Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 1990, pp. 172-187.
3. M. Carpenter, F. Narin & P. Woolf, 'Citation Rates to Technologically Important Patents', World Patent Information, 4, 1981, pp. 160-163.
4. A. Breitzman & F. Narin, 'A Case for Patent Citation Analysis in Litigation', The Law Works, 3, 1996, pp. 10-11 & 26-27.
5. M. Albert, D. Avery, P. McAllister & F. Narin, 'Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of Industrially Important Patents', Research Policy, 20, 1991, pp. 251-259.
6. D. Harhoff, F. Narin, F. Scherer & K. Vopel, 'Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions', The Review of Economics and Statistics, In Press.
7. A. Pakes, 'Patents as Options: Some Intimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks', Econometrica, 54, 1986, pp. 755-784.
8. M. Schankerman & A. Pakes, op. cit., Ref. 1.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. J. Schmookler, 'Comment', in: R. Nelson (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: NBER Conference Series 13 (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1962).
12. A. Pakes & M. Simpson, 'Patent Renewal Data', Brookings Papers: Microeconomics, 1989, pp. 331-410.
13. A. Klevorick, R. Levin, R. Nelson & S. Winter, 'On the Sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities', Research Policy, 24, 1995, pp. 185-205.
14. M. Trajtenberg, op. cit., Ref. 2.
15. M. Albert et al., op. cit., Ref. 5.
16. Z. Deng, B. Lev & F. Narin, 'Science and Technology Indicators as Predictors of Stock Performance', Financial Analysts Journal, In Press.
17. J. Lanjouw, A. Pakes & J. Putnam, 'How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data', NBER Working Paper 5741, 1996.
18. A. Pakes & M. Schankerman, 'The Rate of Obsolescence of Patents, Research Gestation Lags, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources', in: Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D Patents and Productivity (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1984).
19. A. Pakes, op. cit., Ref. 7.
20. M. Schankerman & A. Pakes, op. cit., Ref. 1.
21. A suggested alternative explanation was the establishment in 1982 of a specialized appellate court more favorable to patent owners, which would increase the value of holding patents. However, this should not affect the analysis, since renewal decisions made regarding all patents in both cohorts occurred at least 2 years after this court was established.