Do applicant patent citations matter?

Cotropia, Christopher Anthony; Lemley, Mark A.; Sampat, Bhaven N.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.003

Cited by 122 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such system allows the Patent Office to tap external knowledge and capability for improving examination process. It may also help redress potentially myopic behaviors of examiners who tend to stick to the literature they identify, as pointed out by Cotropia et al (2013). At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that an outsourcing can backfire if the examiners are not strongly motivated for making correct decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the outsourcing of prior art search increase the efficiency of patent examination? Evidence from Japan

Yamauchi

Nagaoka

2015

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the outsourcing of prior art search increase the efficiency of patent examination? Evidence from Japan

Yamauchi

Nagaoka

2015

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In almost all cases, the cited AMC articles are typically listed with many other references, suggesting they are part of a broader body of knowledge rather than “magic bullets” that enabled the citing innovation . Finally, even though they are an improvement on patent–patent citations, patent–publication citations are sometimes inserted for legal reasons, as part of firm patent strategies, or discovered only during the patent examination process . Much like citations in scientific articles, citations to publications in articles are noisy indicators of knowledge flows or intellectual influence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations in Life Science Patents to Publicly Funded Research at Academic Medical Centers

Sampat

Pincus

2015

Clinical Translational Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The contributions of Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) to biomedical innovation have been difficult to measure because of the challenges involved in tracing knowledge flows from their origin to their uses. Methods The authors examined patent citation linkages between AMC research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and patents. In prospective analyses, they examine the extent to which articles resulting from NIH grants to AMCs awarded between 1990 and 1995 were cited in drug and medical patents. The authors then examine the extent to which these patents are associated with marketed drugs. In retrospective analyses, they examine the share of drugs approved between 2000 and 2009 that have citation links to NIH-funded AMC research. Results The prospective analyses show over a third of AMC grants resulted in publications that were cited in patents. Most the patents are drug and biotechnology patents, and are assigned to private firms. Patents citing NIH-funded AMC publications were associated with 106 new FDA approved drugs, half of which are new molecular entities and a quarter of which are priority NMEs. The retrospective analyses showed that about half of the new molecular entities approved over the 2000–2009 period had citations links to NIH-funded AMC research. Conclusions There are strong links between articles from NIH-funded AMC research and private sector medical patenting, including drugs. More research is needed to better understand the types of links the citations represent and their implications for public policy.

show abstract

“…99 Patent law, by contrast, punishes anyone who practices the claimed invention, even independent inventors. 100 A number of scholars have suggested that patent law should adopt some form of independent invention or prior user rights defense.…”

Section: Policy Implications: Independent Invention and Prior Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Is Patent Enforcement Efficient

Lemley

Feldman

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional justifications for patents are all based on direct or indirect contribution to the creation of new products. Patents serve the social interest if they provide not just invention, but innovation the world would not otherwise have. Non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) as well as product-producing companies can sometimes provide such innovation, either directly, through working the patent or transferring technology to others who do, or indirectly, when others copy the patented innovation. The available evidence suggests, however, that patent licensing demands and lawsuits from NPEs are normally not cases that involve any of these activities. Some scholars have argued that patents can be valuable even without technology transfer because the ability to exclude others from the market may drive commercialization that would not otherwise occur. We demonstrate that even if various commercialization theories can sometimes justify patent protection, they cannot justify most NPE lawsuits or licensing demands.

show abstract

Do applicant patent citations matter?

Cited by 122 publications

References 11 publications

Does the outsourcing of prior art search increase the efficiency of patent examination? Evidence from Japan

Does the outsourcing of prior art search increase the efficiency of patent examination? Evidence from Japan

Citations in Life Science Patents to Publicly Funded Research at Academic Medical Centers

Is Patent Enforcement Efficient

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About