Corporate science in the patent system: An analysis of the semiconductor technology
Corporate scientific publications are often presented as a strategic means for firms to create prior art with the objective to prevent others from patenting related inventions. This presumes that corporate publications enter the pool of prior art which is relevant to judge the novelty of patent applications at the patent office and that corporate science has the power to block patent applications. This paper analyses for the first time whether the presumed mechanism behind corporate publications as a means to preempt patents works. With a focus on the semiconductor technology, our results show that scientific publications by corporations challenge the novelty of patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) significantly more than other pieces of prior art. Detailed information from the EPO patent examination procedure allows us to show that corporate publications threaten the novelty of patent applications if combined with other pieces of prior art like patents rather than as standalone documents. This supports the claim that corporate scientific publishing can be an effective means for firms to protect their freedom to operate if used as a complementary part of a firm's overall IP protection strategy.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Stuart J. H. Graham & Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff & David C. Mowery, 2003.
"Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions,"
- Stuart J. H. Graham & Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff & David C. Mowery, 2002. "Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions," NBER Working Papers 8807, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Graham, Stuart J. H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8bs830w9, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Graham, Stuart J. H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-Examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2qt097bd, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Henderson, Rebecca. & Cockburn, Iain., 1994. "Measuring competence? : exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research," Working papers 3712-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Ponce, Carlos J., 2011.
"Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 418-434.
- Carlos Ponce, 2003. "Knowledge Disclosure as Intellectual Property Rights Protection," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000550, David K. Levine.
- Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & George Lazaridis, 2007.
"The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: an insight into the induced withdrawals,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/6189, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Lazaridis, George & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2007. "The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the "induced withdrawals"," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 317-326, December.
- George Lazaridis & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2007. "The rigour of EPO's patentability criteria: An insight into the "induced withdrawals"," Working Papers CEB 07-007.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 401-24.
- Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
- Deng, Yi, 2005.
"The Effects of Patent Regime Changes: A Case Study of the European Patent Office,"
Departmental Working Papers
0512, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
- Deng, Yi, 2007. "The effects of patent regime changes: A case study of the European patent office," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 121-138, February.
- Joachim Henkel & Stefanie Pangerl, 2008. "Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study," DRUID Working Papers 08-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
- Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
- Baker, Scott & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2005. "Disclosure as a Strategy in the Patent Race," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 173-94, April.
- Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, June.
- Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin & Schneider, Cédric, 2011.
"“Wacky” patents meet economic indicators,"
Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 131-134.
- Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Francesco Lissoni & Fabio Montobbio, 2008. "Inventorship and Authorship in Patent-Publication Pairs: an Enquiry into the Economics of Scientific Credit," KITeS Working Papers 224, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Nov 2008.
- Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-51, Spring.
- Criscuolo, Paola & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1892-1908, December.
- Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
- Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2009. "Why Challenge the Ivory Tower? New Evidence on the Basicness of Academic Patents-super-," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 488-499, November.
- Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010.
"International Knowledge Diffusion and Home-bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?,"
Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, 09.
- Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2009. "International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect. Do USPTO and EPO patent citations tell the same story?," KITeS Working Papers 015, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Feb 2009.
- Julien Pénin, 2007. "Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview Of The Evidence And Economic Motivations," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 326-347, 04.
- Alexander Jerak & Stefan Wagner, 2006. "Modeling probabilities of patent oppositions in a Bayesian semiparametric regression framework," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 513-533, June.
- Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Wagner, 2009. "The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1969-1984, December.
- De Fraja, Giovanni, 1993. "Strategic spillovers in patent races," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 139-146, March.
- Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
- Colin Webb & Hélène Dernis & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2005. "Analysing European and International Patent Citations: A Set of EPO Patent Database Building Blocks," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2005/9, OECD Publishing.
- Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2004.
"Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants--the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 443-480, April.
- Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2002. "Determinants of Opposition Against EPO Patent Grants - The Case of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals," CEPR Discussion Papers 3645, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin & Schneider, Cédric, 2009. "Why challenge the ivory tower? New evidence on the basicness of academic patents," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-029, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
- Dominique Guellec & Catalina Martinez & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2009.
"Pre-Emptive Patenting: Securing Market Exclusion and Freedom of Operation,"
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers
2009/8, OECD Publishing.
- Dominique Guellec & Catalina Martinez & Pluvia Zuniga, 2012. "Pre-emptive patenting: securing market exclusion and freedom of operation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 1-29, October.
- Sampat, Bhaven N. & Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2003. "Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1371-1390, November.
- Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1982. "A Dynamic Game of R and D: Patent Protection and Competitive Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 671-88, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:84:y:2012:i:1:p:118-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.