IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Corporate science in the patent system: An analysis of the semiconductor technology

  • Malva, Antonio Della
  • Hussinger, Katrin

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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268112001333
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Volume (Year): 84 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 118-135

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:84:y:2012:i:1:p:118-135
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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," Industrial Organization 0303009, EconWPA.
  3. 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.
  4. Carlos Ponce, 2003. "Knowledge Disclosure as Intellectual Property Rights Protection," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000550, David K. Levine.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin & Schneider, Cédric, 2011. "“Wacky” patents meet economic indicators," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 131-134.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1993. "Strategic spillovers in patent races," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 139-146, March.
  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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.