IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v55y2009i7p1214-1226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pioneering Inventors or Thicket Builders: Which U.S. Firms Use Continuations in Patenting?

Author

Listed:
  • Deepak Hegde

    () (Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720)

  • David C. Mowery

    () (Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720; and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Stuart J. H. Graham

    () (College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

Abstract

Why do firms use continuations in the prosecution of their patents? Motivated by the widespread use of continuations by U.S. firms and the prominence of this procedure in U.S. patent policy debates, we investigate the influence of corporate and patent characteristics on the use of continuations. We employ novel data on applicants and their filings of three types of continuations--the continuation application (CAP), the continuations in part (CIP), and divisions--during 1981-2000 to distinguish among the motives for continuing patents. We find that CIPs are disproportionately filed by research and development-intensive firms that patent heavily, and that these continuations are more common in chemical and biological technologies. Patents issuing from CIPs cover relatively important inventions and their use appears consistent with a strategy of protecting "pioneering inventions." In contrast, CAPs and divisions are associated with less important patents assigned to capital-intensive firms, particularly in computer and semiconductor fields, and appear to be used in defensive patenting strategies. We analyze the effects of the 1995 change in patent term, and find that the act reduced continuations overall and shifted the output of continuations toward less important patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Deepak Hegde & David C. Mowery & Stuart J. H. Graham, 2009. "Pioneering Inventors or Thicket Builders: Which U.S. Firms Use Continuations in Patenting?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1214-1226, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:55:y:2009:i:7:p:1214-1226
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1016
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    2. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005. "Exploring the Patent Explosion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 35-48, January.
    3. Simon Cheng & J. Scott Long, 2007. "Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(4), pages 583-600, May.
    4. Stuart Graham & David Mowrey, 2004. "Submarines in software? continuations in US software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 443-456.
    5. Kenneth L. Sokoloff & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2001. "Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the 19th-Century United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 39-44, May.
    6. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    2. William R. Kerr, 2010. "Breakthrough Inventions and Migrating Clusters of Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Cities and Entrepreneurship, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jarle Moen, 2005. "Is Mobility of Technical Personnel a Source of R&D Spillovers?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 81-114, January.
    4. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    5. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Michele Cincera, 2005. "Firms' productivity growth and R&D spillovers: An analysis of alternative technological proximity measures," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 657-682.
    7. Rajneesh Narula & Grazia D. Santangelo, 2007. "Location and R&D Alliances in the European ICT Industry," DRUID Working Papers 07-05, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    8. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1992. "Ivory Tower Versus Corporate Lab: An Empirical Study of Basic Research and Appropriability," NBER Working Papers 4146, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Amore, Mario Daniele & Schneider, Cédric & Žaldokas, Alminas, 2013. "Credit supply and corporate innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 835-855.
    10. Enrique Schroth & Dezsö Szalay, 2010. "Cash Breeds Success: The Role of Financing Constraints in Patent Races," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 14(1), pages 73-118.
    11. Jennifer Hunt & Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, 2010. "How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 31-56, April.
    12. Mukherjee, Abhiroop & Singh, Manpreet & Žaldokas, Alminas, 2017. "Do corporate taxes hinder innovation?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 195-221.
    13. Thomas Doring & Jan Schnellenbach, 2006. "What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth?: A survey of the literature," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 375-395.
    14. William R. Kerr, 2010. "The Agglomeration of U.S. Ethnic Inventors," NBER Chapters, in: Agglomeration Economics, pages 237-276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1105-1106, October.
    17. Godinho, Manuel Mira & Ferreira, Vítor, 2012. "Analyzing the evidence of an IPR take-off in China and India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 499-511.
    18. No, Angela, 2008. "Cities and Growth: Knowledge Spillovers in the Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies," The Canadian Economy in Transition 2008018e, Statistics Canada, Economic Analysis Division.
    19. Yi Deng, 2005. "The Value of Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations Data," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 374, Society for Computational Economics.
    20. Martin Andersson & Olof Ejermo, 2002. "Knowledge Production in Swedish Functional Regions 1993-1999," KITeS Working Papers 139, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Feb 2003.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:55:y:2009:i:7:p:1214-1226. 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: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.