The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure

Research Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 200-213

  Franzoni, Chiara ^a,b   Scellato, Giuseppe ^a,b  

^a POLITECNICO DI TORINO   (Italy)

^b Laboratorio R Revelli Collegio Carlo Alberto   (Italy)

Author keywords

Academic patenting; Grace period; Knowledge dissemination; Patent system

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION; LEGAL SYSTEM; NOVEL METHODOLOGY; PATENT LAWS; PATENT REGULATIONS; PATENT SYSTEM; TRANSACTION COST;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 76049090617     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T., 2009. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research. Journal of Industrial Economics 57 (4), 637-676.
2. Bagley M. Academic discourse and proprietary rights: putting patents in their proper place. Boston College Law Review 47 (2006) 217-274
3. Bessen J. The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy 37 (2008) 932-945
4. Bessen, J., Meurer, M., 2005. The patent litigation explosion. Working Paper Series, Law and Economics N. 18, Boston University School of Law.
5. Burke P., and Reitzig M. Measuring patent assessment quality-analyzing the degree and kind of (in)consistency in patent offices' decision making. Research Policy 36 9 (2007) 1404-1430
6. Buzzacchi L., and Scellato G. Patent litigation insurance and R&D incentives. International Review of Law and Economics 28 (2008) 272-286
7. Calderini M., Franzoni C., and Vezzulli A. If star scientists do not patent: the effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy 36 (2007) 303-319
8. Dasgupta P., and David P.A. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23 (1994) 487-521
9. Ducor P. Intellectual property: Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289 (2000) 873-875
10. Feldman M.P., Colaianni A., and Liu C.K. Lessons from the commercialization of the Cohen-Boyer patents: The Stanford University Licensing Program. Handbook of Best Practices (2007) 22 (Chapter 17).
11. Franzoni, C., Simpkins, C.L., Li, B., Ram, A., 2009. Using content analysis to investigate the research paths chosen by scientists over time. Scientometrics, published online.
12. Halpern S., Nard C., and Port K. Fundamentals of United States Property Law: Copyright, patent Trademark (2007), Kluwer Law International, Cambridge, MA
13. Harhoff D., and Reitzig M. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 22 (2004) 443-480
14. Heller M.A., and Eisenberg R.S. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280 (1998) 698-701
15. Jensen R.A., Thursby J.G., and Thursby M.C. Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (2003) 1271-1300
16. Lanjouw J.O., and Schankeman M.M. Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal 114 (2004) 441-465
17. Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., 2008. Inventorship and authorship in patent-publication pairs: an enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Working Paper CESPRI/KITeS, number 224.
18. MIT Technology Licensing Office (MIT-TLO), 2009. Protecting Your Ability to Get a patent: What Counts as a Bar to patenting (internet document downloaded 24.11.09) http://web.mit.edu/tlo/www/community/preserving_patent_rights.html#patent_bars.
19. Merges R.P., and Duffy J. Patent Law and Policy. Cases and Materials. Third ed. (2002), LexisNexis, Dayton, OH
20. Moussa, F., 2009. Statement in Favor of the Grace Period, International Federation of Inventors' Assocations (IFIA) (internet document, downloaded 20.11.09) http://www.invention-ifia.ch/byFaragMoussa_GracePeriod.htm.
21. Murray F., and Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (2009) 648-687
22. Palangkaraya A., Jensen P., and Webster E. Applicant behaviour in patent examination request lags. Economics Letters 101 (2008) 243-245
23. Polanyi M. The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva I 1 (1962) 54-73
24. Reucounas E. The Debate Regarding the Grace Period in International Patent Law: A Reminder, in ALLEA Biennial Yearbook 2006 (2006), New Persectives in Academia, Amsterdam
25. Sapsalis E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B., and Ran N. Academic versus industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy 35 (2006) 1631-1645
26. Stephan P.E., Gurmu S., Sumell A.J., and Black G. Who's patenting in the university? Evidence from a Survey of Doctorate Recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 (2007) 71-99
27. Thorley S., Miller R., Burkill G., Briss C., and Campbell D. Terrel on The Law of Patents. 16th ed. (2006), Sweet and Maxwell, London
28. Thursby J., and Thursby M.C. Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy 22 (2004) 162-178
29. Thursby J.G., and Thursby M.C. University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 4 (2007) 620-639
30. Walsh J.P., Cho C., and Cohen W.M. Patents, where excludability matters: material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy 36 (2007) 1184-1203
31. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 1984. Committee of Experts on the grace period for public disclosure of an invention before filing an application, Geneva, May 7-11.