Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes

Review of Economics and Statistics

Volumn 94, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 817-827

  Lemley, Mark ^a   Sampat, Bhaven ^b  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873661158     PISSN: 00346535     EISSN: 15309142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00194     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Alcacer, J., and M. Gittleman, "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," this REVIEW 88:4 (2006), 774-779.
2. Alcacer, J., M. Gittleman, and B. Sampat, "Applicant and Examiner Citations to Patents: An Exploration and Overview," Research Policy 38 (2009), 415-427.
3. Allison, J. R., and M. A. Lemley, "Who's Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution," Vanderbilt Law Review 56 (2000), 2099-2174.
4. Cockburn, I., S. Kortum, and S. Stern, "Are All Patent Examiners Equal? Examiners, Patent Characteristics, and Litigation Outcomes," InW. M. Cohen and S. A. Merrill (Eds.), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003).
5. Cohen, W. M., and S. Merrill, Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003).
6. Cotropia, C., M. Lemley, and B. Sampat, "Do Applicant Citations Matter?" working paper (2012).
7. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy," Federal Trade Commission technical report (2003).
8. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "USPTO Has Made Progress in Hiring Examiners, but Challenges to Retention Remain" (2005).
9. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Hiring Efforts Are Not Sufficient to Reduce the Patent Application Backlog" (2007).
10. Jaffe, A. B., and J. Lerner, Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do about It (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).
11. Jensen, P. H., A. Palangkaraya, and E. Webster, "Disharmony in International Patent Office Decisions," Federal Circuit Bar Journal 15 (2006), 679-704.
12. Lemley, M. A., "Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office," Northwestern University Law Review 95 (2001), 1495-1532.
13. Lemley, Mark A., and C. Shapiro, "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2005), 75-98.
14. Lemley, M. A., and K. A. Moore, "Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations," Boston University Law Review 82 (2004), 63-118.
15. Lemley, M. A., and B. Sampat, "Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp?" Emory Law Journal 58 (2009).
16. Lichtman, D., "Rethinking Prosecution History Estoppel," University of Chicago Law Review 71 (2004), 181-208.
17. Merges, R., "As Many as Six Impossible Patents before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform," Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14 (2001), 577- 615.
18. Norhaus, W., Invention, Growth, and Welfare (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969).
19. Sampat, B., "When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art?" Journal of Law and Economics 53 (2010), 399-416.
20. Thomas, J., "Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties," University of Illinois Law Review 2001(1), 305-353.
21. Webster, E., A. Palangkaraya, and P. H. Jenson, "Characteristics of International Patent Application Outcomes," Economic Letters 95 (2007), 362-368.