Carrots and Sticks to Create a Better Patent System

Kesan, Jay P.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.305999

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, including a prior art citation increases the probability that the patent will remain valid by reducing the probability that a cited patent can be used to invalidate it (Allison & Lemley, 1998;Kesan, 2002). This is because the inclusion of a citation demonstrates that the examiner was aware of the existing patent and judged that the new invention was a big enough improvement over the cited patent to warrant its own, independent patent.…”

Section: A Citations and The Expected Value Of A Patentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An understanding of applicant citation behavior is important because applicants are currently the only source of prior art disclosures from outside the patent office. Applicants are also more familiar with their inventions than examiners are (Kesan, 2002). Hence, their role in determining patent quality is crucial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, since 1988, the Patent Office has indicated that it will not investigate patents based on violations of the duty to disclose material prior art as it is ill equipped to make such determinations. See Kesan (2002) andKingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 873 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Strategic Citation

Lampe

2012

Review of Economics and Statistics

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates whether patent applicants strategically withhold citations to material prior art. Citation data suggest that applicants withhold between 21% and 33% of relevant citations. Variation in withholdings is explained by patent portfolio size and indicators of patent value. These data also highlight important differences across technology classes. In particular, firms are significantly less likely to withhold a citation when applying for chemical and drug patents. Robustness checks confirm that these results are not explained by inventor and attorney familiarity with citations, patent examiner heterogeneity, or the nationality of the inventor.

show abstract

Section: A Citations and The Expected Value Of A Patentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategic Citation

Lampe

2012

Review of Economics and Statistics

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, others (Kesan, ; Thompson, ; Alcácer, Gittelman, & Sampat, ) have noted that since inventors are more familiar with their inventions than examiners, their role in determining science linkage is crucial. Criscuolo and Verspagen () argue that the knowledge base of a patent will appear to be more localized if measured through inventor/applicant citations.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation

Chambers

Ding

et al. 2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science linkage is a widely used patent bibliometric indicator to measure patent linkage to scientific research based on the frequency of citations to scientific papers within the patent. Science linkage is also regarded as noisy because the subject of patent citation behavior varies from inventors/applicants to examiners. In order to identify and ultimately reduce this noise, we analyzed the different citing motivations of examiners and inventors/ applicants. We built 4 hypotheses based upon our study of patent law, the unique economic nature of a patent, and a patent citation's market effect. To test our hypotheses, we conducted an expert survey based on our science linkage calculation in the domain of catalyst from U.S. patent data (2006-2009) over 3 types of citations: self-citation by inventor/applicant, non-self-citation by inventor/applicant, and citation by examiner. According to our results, evaluated by domain experts, we conclude that the non-self-citation by inventor/applicant is quite noisy and cannot indicate science linkage and that selfcitation by inventor/applicant, although limited, is more appropriate for understanding science linkage.

show abstract

“…1 The patent code requires patents to satisfy certain standards of invention as a condition of accepting monopolies as a necessary evil in inducing firms to undertake R&D. In particular, the U.S. Patent Act of 1952 precludes the granting of patents for subject matter that "was known or used by others" or "would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." 2 However, it is widely recognized that the U.S. Patent Office issues many patents that are invalid or broader than the actual invention specified in the patent application (see, e.g., Merges 1999 andKesan 2002). According to Quillen and Webster's (2001) estimation, grant rates reached a maximum of 97%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Live and Let Live: A Tale of Weak Patents

Choi¹

2005

Jnl of the Euro Econ Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patent protection has gradually expanded over time, and many patents of suspect value are routinely granted owing to the lack of rigorous scrutiny in the examination process. This has resulted in the recent explosion of patents granted and potentially creates a "patent thicket" that hinders future innovation. I investigate the question of whether the litigation process can be relied on to restore competition when an imperfect market outcome is sustained through patents of suspect value. The analysis undertaken in the paper points out the serious lack of private incentives to eliminate patents of suspect value through litigation. I also discuss potential measures to restore the soundness of the patent system. (JEL: O3, L1, L4, D8, K4) E-mail address: choijay@msu.edu 1. See Kitch (1977) for an alternative view of the patent system. The "prospect theory" contends that a major function of the patent system is to maximize the efficiency to technological innovation by enabling the coordination of investments to innovation and eliminating duplicative efforts. 2. 35 U.S.C. Sections 102 and 103. These are called the novelty and the nonobviousness requirements, respectively. 3. The corresponding rates for Europe and Japan were 67% and 64%, respectively.

show abstract

Carrots and Sticks to Create a Better Patent System

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Strategic Citation

Strategic Citation

Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation

Live and Let Live: A Tale of Weak Patents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About