Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition

References

• Agrawal A, Cockburn I, Zhang L (2015) Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas. Strategic Management J. 36(7):976–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison JR, Tiller EH (2003) The business method patent myth. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 18:987.Google Scholar
• Ambashi M, Régibeau P, Rockett KE (2019) Grantbacks, territorial restraints, and innovation. Internat. J. Industry Organ. 67:102534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A (1995) Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Econom. Innovative New Tech. 4(1):41–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Ceccagnoli M (2006) Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Sci. 52(2):293–308.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A (2003) Licensing the market for technology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 52(2):277–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A (2010) The market for technology. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 1 (Elsevier, New York), 641–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Cohen W, Lee H, Sebastian D (2023) Invention value, inventive capability and the large firm advantage. Res. Policy 52(1):104650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum C, Schaffer M, Stillman S (2010) ivreg2: Stata module for extended instrumental variables/2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML and k-class regression. Accessed July 30, 2023, http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s425401.html.Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2013) The patent litigation explosion. Loyola University Chicago Law J. 45(2):401–440.Google Scholar
• Breschi S, Lissoni F (2004) Knowledge networks from patent data. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (Springer, Berlin), 613–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bryan KA, Williams HL (2021) Innovation: Market failures and public policies. Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 5 (Elsevier, New York), 281–388.Google Scholar
• Cappelli R, Corsino M, Laursen K, Torrisi S (2023) Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate. Res. Policy 52(6):104785.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung J, Lorenz A, Somaya D (2019) Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access. Res. Policy 48(9):103828.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Cotropia CA, Schwartz DL (2020) The hidden value of abandoned applications to the patent system. Boston College Law Rev. 61:2809.Google Scholar
• Cremers K, Gaessler F, Harhoff D, Helmers C, Lefouili Y (2016) Invalid but infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 131:218–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cremers K, Ernicke M, Gaessler F, Harhoff D, Helmers C, McDonagh L, Schliessler P, et al. (2017) Patent litigation in Europe. Eur. J. Law Econom. 44(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Verspagen B (2008) Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Res. Policy 37(10):1892–1908.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Bettignies J-E, Liu HF, Robinson DT, Gainullin B (2023) Competition and innovation in markets for technology. Management Sci. 69(8):4753–4773.Link, Google Scholar
• Doyle NJ (2016) Confirmation bias and the due process of inter partes review. IDEA 57:29.Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2018) Information processing and commitment. Econom. J. (London) 128(613):1983–2002.Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A (2006) The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management J. 27(12):1141–1158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freilich J, Shahshahani S (2023) Measuring follow-on innovation. Res. Policy 52(9):104854.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friebel G, Koch AK, Prady D, Seabright P (2006) Objectives and incentives at the European patent office. IDEI report, Institut d’Économie Industrielle, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
• Furman JL, Murray FE, Stern S, Williams H (2017) On the shoulders of giants: Colleagues remember Suzanne Scotchmer’s contributions to economics. Standing on the Shoulders of Scotchmer: The Empirical Economics of Cumulative Innovation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 358–363.Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M (2015) Patents and cumulative innovation: Causal evidence from the courts. Quart. J. Econom. 130(1):317–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giarratana MS (2013) general technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Res. Policy 42(2):315–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giuri P, Luzzi A (2007) The market for patents in Europe. Res. Policy 36(8):1163–1183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Hsu DH, Stern S (2008) The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: Evidence from patent grant delays. Management Sci. 54(5):982–997.Link, Google Scholar
• Graham SJ, Harhoff D (2014) Separating patent wheat from chaff: Would the US benefit from adopting patent post-grant review? Res. Policy 43(9):1649–1659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green JR, Scotchmer S (1995) On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND J. Econom. 26(1):20–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guellec D, Martinez C, Zuniga P (2012) Pre-emptive patenting: Securing market exclusion and freedom of operation. Econom. Innovative New Tech. 21(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D (2016) Patent quality and examination in Europe. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(5):193–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Reitzig M (2004) Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants: The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Internat. J. Industry Organ. 22(4):443–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, von Graevenitz G, Wagner S (2016) Conflict resolution, public goods and patent thickets. Management Sci. 62(3):704–721.Link, Google Scholar
• Higham K, De Rassenfosse G, Jaffe AB (2021) Patent quality: Toward a systematic framework for analysis and measurement. Res. Policy 50(4):104215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kitch EW (1977) The nature and function of the patent system. J. Law Econom. 20(2):265–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleibergen F, Paap R (2006) Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. J. Econometrics 133(1):97–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2017) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kowalski SP (2007) Freedom to operate: The preparations. Krattiger A, Mahoney RT, Nelsen L, et al., eds. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (MIHR, Oxford, UK and PIPRA, Davis, CA), 1329.Google Scholar
• Kuhn JM, Thompson NC (2019) How to measure and draw causal inferences with patent scope. Internat. J. Econom. Bus. 26(1):5–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langinier C, Marcoul P (2020) Monetary and implicit incentives of patent examiners. J. Econom. Bus. 110:105906.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? J. Law Econom. 47(1):45–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2005) Probabilistic patents. J. Econom. Perspective 19(2):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leone MI, Reichstein T (2012) Licensing-in fosters rapid invention! The effect of the grant-back clause and technological unfamiliarity. Strategic Management J. 33(8):965–985.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND J. Econom. 25(6):319–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mejer M, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2012) Economic incongruities in the European patent system. Eur. J. Law Econom. 34(1):215–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merges RP, Nelson RR (1994) On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 25(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreira S, Klueter TM, Tasselli S (2020) Competition, technology licensing-in, and innovation. Organ. Sci. 31(4):1012–1036.Link, Google Scholar
• Mullahy J, Norton EC (2022) Why transform Y? A critical assessment of dependent-variable transformations in regression models for skewed and sometimes-zero outcomes. NBER Working Paper No. w30735, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Murray JM (2012) Antitrust and patent license agreements: A new look at the grantback clause in high technology markets. Case Western Reserve J. Law Tech. Internet 3:299.Google Scholar
• Murray FE, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63(4):648–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nagler M, Sorg S (2020) The disciplinary effect of post-grant review: Causal evidence from European patent opposition. Res. Policy 49(3):103915.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Novelli E (2015) An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope. Res. Policy 44(2):493–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat B, Williams HL (2019) How do patents affect follow-on innovation? Evidence from the human genome. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(1):203–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S (1991) Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. J. Econom. Perspective 5(1):29–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licensing, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2003) Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management J. 24(1):17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Andrews D, Stock J, eds., Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(1):285–305.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. Industry Econom. 61(3):521–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watzinger M, Fackler TA, Nagler M, Schnitzer M (2020) How antitrust enforcement can spur innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 consent decree. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 12(4):328–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• WIPO Magazine (2005) IP and business: Launching a new product: Freedom to operate. WIPO (September), https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/05/article_0006.html.Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Zeckhauser R (1996) The challenge of contracting for technological information. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93(23):12743–12748.Crossref, 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