This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Applicant and Examiner Citations in US Patents: An Overview and Analysis

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Juan Alcacer () (Harvard Business School, Strategy Unit)
Michelle Gittelman () (Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University)
Bhaven Sampat () (Malman School of Public Health, Columbia University)
Abstract

Researchers studying innovation increasingly use indicators based on patent citations. However, it is well known that not all citations originate from applicants--patent examiners contribute to citations listed in issued patents--and that this could complicate interpretation of findings in this literature. In 2001 the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) began reporting examiner and applicant citations separately. In this paper, we analyze the prior art citations of all patents granted by the USPTO in 2001-2003. We show that examiner citations account for 63 per cent of all citations on the average patent, and that 40 per cent of patents have all citations added by examiners. We use multivariate regression and analysis of variance to identify the determinants of examiner shares. Examiner shares are highest for non-US applicants and in electronics, communications, and computer-related fields. However, most of the variation is explained by firm-specific variables, with the largest patent applicants having high examiner shares. Moreover, a large number of firms are granted patents that contain no applicant prior art. Taken together, our findings suggest that heterogeneity in firm-level patenting practices, in particular by high-volume applicants, has a strong influence on the data. This suggests that analysis of firm-level differences in patenting strategies is an important topic for future research.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-016.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: (EXAMPLE - Revised version, 2007)
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Harvard Business School in its series Harvard Business School Working Papers with number 09-016.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 43 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hbs:wpaper:09-016

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163
Phone: 617.495.6000
Web page: http://www.hbs.edu/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Soebagio Notosoehardjo).

Related research
Keywords: Technology; patents; patent examiners; prior art; citations;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-95, October.
  2. David Popp & Ted Juhl & Daniel K.N. Johnson, 2004. "Time In Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 0(1). [Downloadable!]
  3. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. John Allison & Mark Lemley & Kimberly Moore & Derek Trunkey, 2003. "Valuable Patents," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series 1090, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics. [Downloadable!]
  5. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, December.
  6. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-32, Nov.-Dec.. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  7. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Michael S. Fogarty, 2000. "Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: Evidence from a Survey of Inventors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 215-218, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? It is the publishers that input data about their publications, as there is no staff at RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-23.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.