IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v36y2015i8p1186-1204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quest for expansive intellectual property rights and the failure to disclose known relevant prior art

Author

Listed:
  • H. Kevin Steensma
  • Mukund Chari
  • Ralph Heidl

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="smj2279-abs-0001"> Expansive patent portfolios may be used by firms to fence off technological space for commercialization, impede the commercialization efforts of competitors, and enhance bargaining power in cross-licensing negotiations. Low quality patents with claims that overlap those of other patents contribute to these portfolios and patent strategies. By failing to disclose known relevant prior art during the patenting process, inventors and their firms may be granted low quality patents with intellectual property claims which would not otherwise have been granted. We find that the failure of inventors to disclose known relevant prior art increases as they gain experience with the patenting process. Such failure is also greater among inventors employed by relatively small, poorly performing firms that rely on outsourced legal counsel during the application process. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • H. Kevin Steensma & Mukund Chari & Ralph Heidl, 2015. "The quest for expansive intellectual property rights and the failure to disclose known relevant prior art," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(8), pages 1186-1204, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:36:y:2015:i:8:p:1186-1204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/smj.2279
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    2. Markus Reitzig & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 765-789, July.
    3. Marco Ceccagnoli, 2009. "Appropriability, preemption, and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 81-98, January.
    4. David J. Teece, 2008. "Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 11, pages 265-296, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Ryan Lampe, 2012. "Strategic Citation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 320-333, February.
    6. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne Zucker & Marilynn Brewer, 1996. "Social networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 428-443, August.
    7. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    8. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    9. Todd R. Zenger & William S. Hesterly, 1997. "The Disaggregation of Corporations: Selective Intervention, High-Powered Incentives, and Molecular Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 209-222, June.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Kyle J. Mayer & Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson, 2012. "Firm-Specific, Industry-Specific, and Occupational Human Capital and the Sourcing of Knowledge Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1311-1329, October.
    12. Mayer, David M. & Kuenzi, Maribeth & Greenbaum, Rebecca & Bardes, Mary & Salvador, Rommel (Bombie), 2009. "How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-13, January.
    13. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2010. "When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 399-416, May.
    14. Atal, Vidya & Bar, Talia, 2010. "Prior art: To search or not to search," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 507-521, September.
    15. Greg Linden & Deepak Somaya, 2003. "System-on-a-chip integration in the semiconductor industry: industry structure and firm strategies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(3), pages 545-576, June.
    16. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    17. Jared Harris & Philip Bromiley, 2007. "Incentives to Cheat: The Influence of Executive Compensation and Firm Performance on Financial Misrepresentation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 350-367, June.
    18. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    19. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jurgen Poesche & Taina Pihlajarinne & Anette Alén-Savikko & Timo Nyberg & Ilkka Kauranen, 2019. "Decentralized Production: The Need for Social Norms-Based Intellectual Property?," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Wang, Pengfei & Van De Vrande, Vareska & Jansen, Justin J.P., 2017. "Balancing exploration and exploitation in inventions: Quality of inventions and team composition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1836-1850.
    3. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2021. "The prevalence of weak patents in the United States: A new method to identify weak patents and the implications for patent policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Ji Youn (Rose) Kim & H. Kevin Steensma, 2017. "Employee mobility, spin-outs, and knowledge spill-in: How incumbent firms can learn from new ventures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(8), pages 1626-1645, August.
    5. Leyva-de la Hiz, Dante I. & Bolívar-Ramos, María Teresa, 2022. "The inverted U relationship between green innovative activities and firms’ market-based performance: The impact of firm age," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    7. Lee, Jangwook & Chung, Jiyoon, 2022. "Women in top management teams and their impact on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    2. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2021. "The prevalence of weak patents in the United States: A new method to identify weak patents and the implications for patent policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Why weak patents? Testing the examiner ignorance hypothesis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 43-56.
    4. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    5. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    6. Morricone, Serena & Munari, Federico & Oriani, Raffaele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan, 2017. "Commercialization Strategy and IPO Underpricing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1133-1141.
    7. Mukund Chari & H. Kevin Steensma & Charles Connaughton, 2020. "Previous and Prospective Career Mobility, Client Capture, and Compromised Professional Judgment: The Withholding of Known Relevant Prior Art by Patent Lawyers on Behalf of Their Clients," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 489-507, March.
    8. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing Patent Applications at the USPTO," Working Papers 1382, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Zhang, Gupeng & Xiong, Libin & Duan, Hongbo & Huang, Dujuan, 2020. "Obtaining certainty vs. creating uncertainty: Does firms’ patent filing strategy work as expected?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    10. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    11. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1855, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    12. Corinne Langinier & Philippe Marcoul, 2016. "The Search of Prior Art and the Revelation of Information by Patent Applicants," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 49(3), pages 399-427, November.
    13. Kim, Bongsun & Kim, Eonsoo & Miller, Douglas J. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2016. "The impact of the timing of patents on innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 914-928.
    14. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    15. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    16. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    17. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2020. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," NBER Working Papers 27686, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    19. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    20. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:36:y:2015:i:8:p:1186-1204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.