Pioneering Inventors or Thicket Builders: Which U.S. Firms Use Continuations in Patenting?

References

• Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A.Markets for Technology (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barr R. Executive Director of Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Berkeley School of Law. (2007) . Interview by D. Hegde and S. Graham, September 25Google Scholar
• Biotechnology Industry Organization In response to call for “Comments on proposed changes to practice for continuing applications, requests for continued examination practice, and applications containing patentably indistinct claims, notice of proposed rulemaking by the USPTO,” May 2. (2006) . Accessed May 5, 2007, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/fpp_continuation/bio.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Blount S. The use of delaying tactics to obtain submarine patents and amend around a patent that a competitor has designed around. J. Patent Trademark Office Soc. (1999) 81(1):11–32Google Scholar
• Cheng S., Long J. S. Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociol. Methods Res. (2007) 35(4):583–600Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark D. Patent business: Intel and Micron load up on patents. Wall Street Journal (2007) March 13):C10Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Nelson R., Walsh J. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why firms patent and why they do not in the American manufacturing sector. (2001) . NBER Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Federal Register Proposed rules. (2006) 71(1, January 3):48–52Google Scholar
• Federal Register Rules and regulations. (2007) 72(161, August 21):46716–46723Google Scholar
• Graham S., Mowery D. C. Submarines in software? Continuations in U.S. software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Econom. Innovation New Tech. (2004) 13(5):443–456Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H. Exploring the patent explosion. J. Tech. Transfer (2005) 30:35–48Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Ziedonis R. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(1):101–128Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Ziedonis R. An empirical analysis of patent litigation in the semiconductor industry. (2007) . Working paper prepared for the 2007 American Economic Association annual meeting, Chicago, 4–7 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. (2001) . NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. (1993) 108:577–598Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamoreaux N. R., Sokoloff K. L. Market trade in patents and the rise of a class of specialized inventors in the 19th-century United States. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(2):39–44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley M. A., Moore K. Ending abuse of patent continuations. Boston Univ. Law Rev. (2004) 84(1):63–123Google Scholar
• Levin R. C., Klevorick A. K., Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity (1987) 1987(3):783–820Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merges R. P.Patent Law and Policy (1997) (Michie, Charlottesville, VA) Google Scholar
• Merges R. P., Menell P. S., Lemley M. A.Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (2003) (Aspen Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Popp D., Juhl T., Johnson D. Time in purgatory: Examining the grant lag for U.S. patent applications. Topics Econom. Analysis Policy (2004) 4(1). article 29Google Scholar
• Quillen C. D., Webster O. H. Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. Patent Office. Federal Circuit Bar J. (2001) 11(1):1–21Google Scholar
• Shapiro C., Jaffe A., Lerner J., Stern S. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy (2001) 1(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 119–150Google Scholar
• Somaya D. Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management J. (2003) 24:17–38Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Comments on proposed changes to practice for continuing applications, requests for continued examination practice, and applications containing patentably indistinct claims, notice of proposed rulemaking. (2008a) . Accessed June 2, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/fpp_continuation/continuation_comments.htmlGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeManual of Patent Examining Procedure (2008b) 8th ed.(Washington, DC). Accessed April 21, 2009, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htmGoogle Scholar
• Wooldridge J. M.Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2002) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar