Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets

References

• Bessen JE, Meurer MJ (2008) Patent Failure (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Choi JP (2005) Live and let live: A tale of weak patents. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 3(2–3):724–733.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ (2011) Entry and patenting in the software industry. Management Sci. 57(5):915–933.Link, Google Scholar
• Du Plessis M, Van Looy B, Song X, Magerman T (2009) Data production methods for harmonized patent indicators: Assignee sector allocation. Working paper, Eurostat, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
• European Patent Office (2004) Annual report 2004. Accessed June 22, 2015, http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/annual-report/2004.html.Google Scholar
• European Patent Office (2008) Annual report 2008. Accessed June 22, 2015, http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/annual-report/2008.html.Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Merges RP (2004) Incentives to challenge and to defend patents: Why litigation won’t reliably fix patent office errors and why administrative patent review might help. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 19(3):943–970.Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (2003) To promote innovation: The proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (2011) The evolving IP marketplace: Aligning patent notice and remedies with competition. Report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M (2010) Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND J. Econom. 41(3):427–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Harhoff D, Verspagen B (2008) The value of European patents. Eur. Management Rev. 5(2):69–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham S, Harhoff D (2014) Separating patent wheat from chaff: Would the U.S. benefit from adopting a patent post-grant review? Res. Policy 43(9):1649–1659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham S, Vishnubhakat S (2013) Of smart phone wars and software patents. J. Econom. Perspectives 27(1):67–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham S, Hall BH, Harhoff D, Mowery DC (2003) Post-issue patent quality control: A comparative study of U.S. patent re-examinations and European patent oppositions. Cohen WM, Merrill SA, eds. Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (National Academies Press, Washington, DC), 74–119.Google Scholar
• Grujić J, Eke B, Cabrales A, Cuesta JA, Sánchez A (2012) Three is a crowd in iterated prisoner’s dilemmas: Experimental evidence on reciprocal behaviour. Scientific Reports 2:638.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH (2005) A note on the bias in Herfindahl-type measures based on count data. Revue d’Économie Industrielle 110(2):149–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Harhoff D (2004) Post grant review systems at the U.S. patent office: Design parameters and expected impact. Berkeley Law Tech. J. 19(3):989–1016.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Helmers C, von Graevenitz G, Rosazza-Bondibene C (2013) A study of patent thickets. Report, Intellectual Property Office, Newport, Wales, UK.Google Scholar
• Harhoff D (2009) Economic cost-benefit analysis of a unified and integrated European patent litigation system. Report, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/patent/studies/litigation_system_en.pdf.Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Reitzig M (2004) Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants: The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 22(4):443–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Wagner S (2009) The duration of examination at the European patent office. Management Sci. 55(12):1969–1984.Link, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM, Vopel K (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. Rev. Econom. Statist. 81(3):511–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holland PW, Leinhardt S (1976) Local structure in social networks. Heise DR, ed. Sociological Methodology (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 1–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Lerner J (2004) Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Johnson DKN, Popp D (2003) Forced out of the closet: The impact of the American Inventors Protection Act on the timing of patent disclosure. RAND J. Econom. 34(1):96–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2001) Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):129–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004a) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114(495):441–465.Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004b) Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? J. Law Econom. 47(1):45–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lei Z, Wright B (2009) Why weak patents? Rational ignorance or pro-“customer” tilt? Working paper, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
• Lemley M (2001) Rational ignorance at the patent office. Northwestern University Law Rev. 95(4):1495–1529.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND J. Econom. 25(2):319–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin J, Levin R (2003) Benefits and costs of an opposition process. Cohen WM, Merrill SA, eds. Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (National Academies Press, Washington, DC),121–144.Google Scholar
• Magerman T, Grouwels J, Song X, Van Looy B (2009) Data production methods for harmonized patent indicators: Patentee name harmonization. Working paper, Eurostat Luxembourg.Google Scholar
• Milo R, Shen-Orr S, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Chklovskii D, Alon U (2002) Network motifs: Simple building blocks of complex networks. Sciencee 298(5594):824–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mnookin RH (2003) Strategic barriers to dispute resolution: A comparison of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. J. Institutional Theor. Econom. 159(1):199–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noel M, Schankerman M (2013) Strategic patenting and software innovation. J. Indust. Econom. 61(3):481–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• OECD (1994) Using patent data as science and technological indicators. Patent Manual, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
• Peeters B, Song X, Callaert J, Grouwels J, Van Looy B (2009) Harmonizing harmonized patentee names: An exploratory assessment of top patentees. Working paper, Eurostat, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting. Jaffe A, Lerner J, Stern S, eds. Innovation Policy and the Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 119–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2011) How to measure patent thickets: A novel approach. Econom. Lett. 111(1):6–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2013) Incidence and growth of patent thickets: The impact of technological opportunities and complexity. J. Indust. Econom. 61(3):521–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Hoisl K, Hall B, Harhoff D, Giuri P, Gambardella A (2007) The strategic use of patents and its implications for enterprise and competition policies. Report, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
• Ziedonis RH (2004) Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Sci. 50(6):804–820.Link, Google Scholar