Pioneering inventors or thicket builders: Which u.s. firms use continuations in patenting?

Management Science

Volumn 55, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1214-1226

  Hegde, Deepak ^a   Mowery, David C ^b   Graham, Stuart J H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Intellectual property rights; Patents; Research and development

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; PATENT POLICIES; PATENTS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; RESEARCH;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 68349105095     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1016     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella. 2001. Markets for Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Barr, R. 2007. Executive Director of Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Berkeley School of Law. Interview by D. Hegde and S. Graham, September 25.
3. Biotechnology Industry Organization. 2006. In response to call for "Comments on proposed changes to practice for continuing applications, requests for continued examination practice, and applications containing patentably indistinct claims, notice of proposed rulemaking by the USPTO," May 2. Accessed May 5, 2007, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/ comments/fpp-continuation/bio.pdf.
4. Blount, S. 1999. The use of delaying tactics to obtain submarine patents and amend around a patent that a competitor has designed around. J. Patent Trademark Office Soc. 81(1) 11-32.
5. Cheng, S., J. S. Long. 2007. Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociol. Methods Res. 35(4) 583-600.
6. Clark. D. 2007. Patent business: Intel and Micron load up on patents. Wall Street Journal (March 13) C10.
7. Cohen, W., R. Nelson, J. Walsh. 2001. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why firms patent and why they do not in the American manufacturing sector. NBER Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
8. Federal Register. 2006. Proposed rules. 71(1, January 3) 48-52.
9. Federal Register. 2007. Rules and regulations. 72(161, August 21) 46716-46723.
10. Graham, S., D. C. Mowery. 2004. Submarines in software? Continuations in U. S. software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 13(5) 443-456.
11. Hall, B. H. 2005. Exploring the patent explosion. J. Tech. Transfer 30 35-48.
12. Hall, B. H., R. Ziedonis. 2001. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U. S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1) 101-128.
13. Hall, B. H., R. Ziedonis. 2007. An empirical analysis of patent litigation in the semiconductor industry. Working paper prepared for the 2007 American Economic Association annual meeting, Chicago, 4-7 January.
14. Hall, B. H., A. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg. 2001. The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
15. Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, R. Henderson. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. 108 577-598.
16. Lamoreaux, N. R., K. L. Sokoloff. 2001. Market trade in patents and the rise of a class of specialized inventors in the 19th-century United States. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(2) 39-44.
17. Lemley, M. A., K. Moore. 2004. Ending abuse of patent continuations. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 84(1) 63-123.
18. Levin, R. C., A. K. Klevorick, R. R. Nelson, S. G. Winter. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity 1987(3) 783-820.
19. Merges, R. P. 1997. Patent Law and Policy. Michie, Charlottesville, VA.
20. Merges, R. P., P. S. Menell, M. A. Lemley. 2003. Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age. Aspen Publishers, New York.
21. Popp, D., T. Juhl, D. Johnson. 2004. Time in purgatory: Examining the grant lag for U. S. patent applications. Topics Econom. Analysis Policy 4(1) article 29.
22. Quillen, C. D., Jr., O. H. Webster. 2001. Continuing patent applications and performance of the U. S. Patent Office. Federal Circuit Bar J. 11(1) 1-21.
23. Shapiro, C. 2001. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, S. Stern, eds. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 119-150.
24. Somaya, D. 2003. Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management J. 24 17-38.
25. U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. 2008a. Comments on proposed changes to practice for continuing applications, requests for continued examination practice, and applications containing patentably indistinct claims, notice of proposed rulemaking. Accessed June 2, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/ opla/comments/fpp-continuation/continuation-comments.html.
26. U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. 2008b. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 8th ed. Washington, DC. Accessed April 21, 2009, http://www.uspto. gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm.
27. Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.