Do applicant patent citations matter?

Research Policy

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 844-854

  Cotropia, Christopher A ^a   Lemley, Mark A ^b   Sampat, Bhaven ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^b STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^c Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Citations; Patent examination; Patents

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING; INNOVATION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATIONS; PATENT CITATION; PATENT EXAMINATION; PATENT LAWS; PATENTABILITY; PATENTS; PRIOR ARTS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 84875520268     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alcacer F., M. Gittelman, and B. Sampat Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: an overview and analysis Research Policy 38 2009 415 427
2. J. Allison, and M. Lemley Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal 26 1998 185 275
3. J. Allison, M. Lemley, and J. Walker Extreme value or trolls on top? The characteristics of the most-litigated patents University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158 2009 1 33
4. American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2011. Report of the Economic Survey.
5. C. Buccafusco, and C. Sprigman Valuing intellectual property: an experiment Cornell Law Review 91 2012
6. R. Campbell, and A. Nieves Technology Indicators Based on Patent Data the Case of Catalytic Converters: Phase I Report: Design and Demonstration 1979 Pacific Northwest Laboratories Battelle
7. C. Chien Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: narratives and evidence in the litigation of high-tech patents North Carolina Law Review 87 2009 1571 1615
8. I.M. Cockburn, S. Kortum, and S. Stern Are all patent examiners equal? Examiners, patent characteristics, and litigation outcomes Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy 2003 19 53 (National Academy of Sciences Press)
9. C. Cotropia Modernizing the inequitable conduct doctrine in patent law Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24 2009 723 783
10. European Patent Office, 2012a. European Patent Register. https://register.epo.org (accessed August 2012).
11. European Patent Office, 2012b. Espacenet. http://worldwide.espacenet.com/ (accessed August 2012).
12. J. Farrell, and R. Merges Incentives to challenge and defend patents: why litigation won't reliably fix patent office errors and why administrative patent review might help Berkeley Technology Law Journal 19 2004 943 970
13. S. Graham, and T. Sichelman Why do start-ups patent? Berkeley Technology Law Journal 23 2008 1063 1097
14. B. Hall, A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg Market value and patent citations RAND Journal of Economics 36 2005 16 38
15. D. Harhoff, and M. Reitzig Determinants of opposition against EPO Patent grants - the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals International Journal of Industrial Organization 22 4 2004 443 480
16. D. Hegde, and B. Sampat Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents Economics Letters 105 2009 287 289
17. C.S. Hemphill, and B.N. Sampat Evergreening, patent challenges, and effective market life in pharmaceuticals Journal of Health Economics 31 2012 327 329
18. A. Jaffe, M. Fogarty, and B. Banks Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation Journal of Industrial Economics 46 1998 183 205
19. A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy 2004 MIT Press Cambridge, MA
20. R. Lampe Strategic citation Review of Economics and Statistics 94 1 2012 320 333
21. M. Lemley, and C. Shapiro Patent holdup and royalty stacking Texas Law Review 85 2007 1991 2049
22. M. Lemley, and B. Sampat Is the patent office a rubber stamp? Emory Law Journal 58 2009 181 203
23. M. Lemley, and B. Sampat Examining patent examination Stanford Technology Law Review 2010 2
24. M. Lemley, and B. Sampat Examiner characteristics and the patent grant rate Review of Economics and Statistics 94 3 2012 817 827
25. M. Lemley, and K. Moore Ending abuse of patent continuations Boston University Law Review 84 2004 63 118
26. M. Lemley, D. Lichtman, and B. Sampat What to do about bad patents? Regulation 2005 10
27. M. Lemley Rational ignorance at the patent office Northwestern University Law Review 95 2001 1495 1532
28. D. Lichtman, and M. Lemley Rethinking patent law's presumption of validity Stanford Law Review 60 2007 45 72
29. C.E. Mammen Controlling the 'Plague': reforming the doctrine of inequitable conduct Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24 4 2009 1329 1397
30. M.J. Meurer Patent examination priorities William and Mary Law Review 51 2009 675 709
31. L. Petherbridge, J. Rantanen, and A. Mojibi The federal circuit and inequitable conduct: an empirical assessment Southern California Law Review 84 2012 693
32. D. Popp, T. Juhl, and D. Johnson Time in purgatory: examining the grant lag for U.S. patent applications Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy 4 2004 Art.29
33. R. Rader Always at the margin: inequitable conduct in Flux American University Law Review 59 2010 777 785
34. B. Sampat When do applicants search for prior art? Journal of Law and Economics 53 2010 399 416
35. B.N. Sampat, and A. Ziedonis Patent citations and the economic value of patents H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch, The Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology 2004 Springer New York, NY
36. J. Thomas Collusion and collective action in the patent system: a proposal for patent bounties University of Illinois Law Review 2001 305 352
37. P. Thompson Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: evidence from inventor- and examiner-added citations Review of Economics and Statistics 88 2006 383 389
38. M. Trajtenberg A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations The Rand Journal of Economics 21 1990 172 187
39. S. Tu Luck/unluck of the draw: an empirical study of examiner allowance rates Stanford Technology Law Review 2012 2012 10
40. Wang, D.X., 2010. Constructing and objectivating information: the identification, sourcing and meaning of information in reference lists found in patents. Working Paper, Stanford University.