Filing strategies and patent value

Economics of Innovation and New Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 539-561

  van Zeebroeck, Nicolas ^a   de la Potterie, Bruno van Pottelsberghe ^a,b  

^a SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT   (Belgium)

^b BRUEGEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Filing strategies; Patent quality; Patent systems; Patent value

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953004608     PISSN: 10438599     EISSN: 14768364     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10438591003668646     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Allison, J., and M. Lemley. 1998. Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents. AIPLA Quarterly Journal 26, no. 3: 187-275.
2. Archontopoulos, E., D. Guellec, N. Stevnsborg, B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and N. van Zeebroeck. 2007. When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Information Economics and Policy 19, no. 2: 103-132.
3. Calderini, M., and G. Scellato. 2004. Intellectual property rights as strategic assets: The case of European patent opposition in the telecommunications industry. CESPRI Working Paper 158.
4. Cameron, A., and P. Trivedi. 1986. Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics 1, no. 1: 29-53.
5. Carpenter, M., M. Cooper, and F. Narin. 1980. Linkage between basic research literature and patents. Research Management 3: 30-35.
6. Dernis, H., D. Guellec, and B. van Pottelsberghe. 2001. Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. OECD STI Review 27: 129-146.
7. Dernis, H., and M. Khan. 2004. Triadic patent families methodology. OECD STI Working Paper 2004/2.
8. EPO. 2006. EPO worldwide patent statistical database (PATSTAT). European Patent Office, April.
9. Graham, S., B. Hall, D. Harhoff, and D. Mowery. 2002. Post-issue patent 'quality control': A comparative study of US patent re-examinations and European oppositions. NBER Working Paper 8807.
10. Graham, S., and D. Mowery. 2004. Submarines in software? Continuations in US software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13, no. 5: 443-456.
11. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2000. Applications, grants and the value of patents. Economics Letters 69, no. 1: 109-114.
12. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2001. The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy 30, no. 8: 1253-1266.
13. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2002. The value of patents and patenting strategies: Countries and technology areas patterns. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11, no. 2: 133-148.
14. Guellec, D., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2007. The economics of the European patent system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Hall, B., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2001. The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498.
16. Hall, B., and R. Ziedonis. 2001. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32, no. 1: 101-128.
17. Harhoff, D. 2006a. Patent constructionism: Exploring the microstructure of patent portfolios. Presentation prepared for the EPO/OECD conference on Patent Statistics for Policy Decision Making, 23-24 October, in Vienna, Austria.
18. Harhoff, D. 2006b. Patent citations datafile. LMU.
19. Harhoff, D., and B. Hall. 2002. Intellectual property strategy in the global cosmetics industry. LMU Working Paper.
20. Harhoff, D., and M. Reitzig. 2004. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants - the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22, no. 4: 443-480.
21. Harhoff, D., F. Scherer, and K. Vopel. 2002. Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights. Research Policy 32, no. 8: 1343-1363.
22. Harhoff, D., G. von Graevenitz, and S. Wagner. 2007. European patent thickets: Do they exist, do they matter? Paper presented at the Second EPIP Conference, September 2007, in Lund, Sweden.
23. Hegde, D., S. Graham, and D. Mowery. 2009. Pioneers, submariners, or thickets: Which firms use continuations in patenting and why? Management Science 55, no. 7: 1214-1226.
24. Jaffe, A., and J. Lerner. 2004. Innovation and its discontents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25. Jerak, A., and S. Wagner. 2003. Modeling probabilities of patent oppositions in a Bayesian semiparametric regression framework. LMU Working Paper.
26. Kortum, S., and J. Lerner. 1999. What is behind the recent surge in patenting. Research Policy 28, no. 1: 1-22.
27. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 1997. Stylised facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. NBER Working Paper 6297.
28. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 1999. The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working Paper 7345.
29. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics 32, no. 1: 129-151.
30. Lazaridis, G., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2007. The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the 'induced withdrawals'. World Patent Information 29, no. 4: 317-326.
31. Lerner, J. 1994. The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics 25, no. 2: 319-333.
32. Narin, F., E. Noma, and R. Perry. 1987. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy 16, nos 2/4: 143-155.
33. Noel, M., and M. Schankerman. 2006. Strategic patenting and software innovation. CEPR Working Paper 5701.
34. OECD. 2004. Triadic patent families. OECD, January.
35. Palomeras, N. 2003. Sleeping patents: Any reason to wake up? IESE Working Paper 506.
36. Priest, G., and B. Klein. 1984. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 8: 1-56.
37. Reitzig, M. 2004a. Improving patent valuations for management purposes - validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy 33, nos 6-7: 939-957.
38. Reitzig, M. 2004b. What do patent indicators really measure? A structural test of 'novelty' and 'inventive step' as determinants of patent profitability. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004, in Elsinore, Denmark.
39. Sapsalis, E., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2007. The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16, no. 2: 139-157.
40. Saragossi, S., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2003. What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer 28, no. 1: 47-51.
41. Scherer, F.M., and D. Harhoff. 2000. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 29, nos 4/5: 559-566.
42. Schneider, C. 2006. The determinants of patent applications outcomes - does experience matter? CEBR, Copenhagen Business School Working Paper.
43. Stevnsborg, N., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2007. Patenting procedures and filing strategies. In The economics of the European patent system, ed. D. Guellec and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 155-83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Tong, X., and J. Frame. 1994. Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy 23, no. 2: 133-141.
45. Trajtenberg, M. 1990. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics 21, no. 1: 172-187.
46. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. and N. van Zeebroeck. 2008. A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals. Scientometrics 75, no. 2: 319-338.
47. van Zeebroeck, N. 2007. Patents only live twice: A patent survival analysis in Europe. CEBWorking Paper.
48. van Zeebroeck, N. 2008. Essays on the empirical analysis of patent systems. PhD diss., Université Libre de Bruxelles. http://theses.ulb.ac.be/ETD-db/collection/available/ULBetd-02042008-170122/
49. van Zeebroeck, N. 2011. The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 20, no. 1: 33-62.
50. van Zeebroeck, N., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2011. The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. doi: 10.1080/10438591003668638
51. van Zeebroeck N., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and D. Guellec. 2009. Claiming more: The increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Research Policy 38, no. 6: 1006-1020.
52. van Zeebroeck, N., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and W. Han. 2006. Issues in measuring the degree of technological specialisation with patent data. Scientometrics 66, no. 3: 481-492.
53. Wagner, S. 2004. Business method patents in Europe and their strategic use - evidence from franking device manufacturers. LMU Working Paper.
54. Webb, C., H. Dernis, D. Harhoff, and K. Hoisl. 2005. Analysing European and international patent citations: A set of EPO patent database building blocks. OECD STI Working Paper 2005/9.
55. Webster, E., A. Palangkaraya, and P. Jensen. 2007. Characteristics of international patent application outcomes. Economics Letters 95, no. 3: 362-368.