IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this item

Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes


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

Cited by:

  1. Langinier, Corinne & Lluis, Stéphanie, 2015. "Departure and Promotion of U.S. Patent Examiners: Do Patent Characteristics Matter?," Working Papers 2015-18, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
  2. Davit Khachatryan & Brigitte Muehlmann, 2017. "Determinants of successful patent applications to combat financial fraud," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1353-1383, June.
  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. 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.
  5. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
  6. Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M. & Tur,Elena M., 2014. "Examiner amendments to applications to the european patent office: Procedures, knowledge bases and country specificities," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201406, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 29 Nov 2018.
  7. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2020. "Procrastination at the Patent Office?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
  8. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
  9. Tetsuo Wada, 2020. "When do the USPTO examiners cite as the EPO examiners? An analysis of examination spillovers through rejection citations at the international family-to-family level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1591-1615, November.
  10. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
  11. 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.
  12. Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas & Schnitzer, Monika, 2016. "Antitrust, Patents, and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Bell Labs," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145580, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
  13. Prithwiraj Choudhury & Martine R. Haas, 2018. "Scope versus speed: Team diversity, leader experience, and patenting outcomes for firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 977-1002, April.
  14. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.
  15. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
  16. Joan Farre-Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2017. "What is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," NBER Working Papers 23268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2017. "Secondary pharmaceutical patenting: A global perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 693-707.
  18. Petra Moser & Joerg Ohmstedt & Paul W. Rhode, 2015. "Patent Citations and the Size of the Inventive Step - Evidence from Hybrid Corn," NBER Working Papers 21443, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Ali Gazni & Zahra Ghaseminik, 2019. "The increasing dominance of science in the economy: Which nations are successful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1411-1426, September.
  20. Kempf, Elisabeth & Spalt, Oliver G., 2020. "Litigating Innovation: Evidence from Securities Class Action Lawsuits," CEPR Discussion Papers 14358, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  21. George Ball & Enno Siemsen & Rachna Shah, 2017. "Do Plant Inspections Predict Future Quality? The Role of Investigator Experience," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 534-550, October.
  22. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Jeongsik Lee & Jagadeesh Sivadasan, 2018. "Deadlines, Workflows, Task Sorting, and Work Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1804-1824, April.
  23. Wen-Chi Hung & Cherng G. Ding & Hung-Jui Wang & Meng-Che Lee & Chieh-Peng Lin, 2015. "Evaluating and comparing the university performance in knowledge utilization for patented inventions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1269-1286, February.
  24. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
  25. WADA Tetsuo, 2015. "Cognitive Distances in Prior Art Search by the Triadic Patent Offices: Empirical evidence from international search reports," Discussion papers 15096, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  26. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2020. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Strategic Use of Continuations at the USPTO," NBER Working Papers 27686, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. 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.
  28. Tetsuo Wada, 2018. "The choice of examiner patent citations for refusals: evidence from the trilateral offices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 825-843, November.
  29. Corinne Langinier & Philippe Marcoul, 2019. "Subjective performance of patent examiners, implicit contracts, and self‐funded patent offices," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 251-266, April.
  30. Petra Moser & Joerg Ohmstedt & Paul W. Rhode, 2018. "Patent Citations—An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1926-1940, April.
  31. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 923-952, August.
  32. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Emilio Raiteri, 2020. "Technology protectionism and the patent system: Evidence from China," Working Papers 11, Chair of Innovation and IP Policy.
  33. 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.
  34. John-Paul Ferguson & Gianluca Carnabuci, 2017. "Risky Recombinations: Institutional Gatekeeping in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 133-151, February.
  35. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Elena M. Tur, 2018. "Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1319-1348, December.
  36. Ke, Qing, 2018. "Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 706-717.
  37. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2016. "Procrastination in the Workplace: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," NBER Working Papers 22987, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  38. Bekkers, Rudi & Martinelli, Arianna & Tamagni, Federico, 2020. "The impact of including standards-related documentation in patent prior art: Evidence from an EPO policy change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
  39. Jodi L. Short & Michael W. Toffel & Andrea Read Hugill, 2013. "Monitoring Global Supply Chains," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-032, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2015.
  40. Kim, Yee Kyoung & Oh, Jun Byoung, 2017. "Examination workloads, grant decision bias and examination quality of patent office," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 1005-1019.
  41. Tetsuo Wada, 2016. "Obstacles to prior art searching by the trilateral patent offices: empirical evidence from International Search Reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 701-722, May.
  42. Joan Farre-Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2016. "The Bright Side of Patents," NBER Working Papers 21959, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  43. Dietl, M & Skrok, & Benalcazar, P & Gątkowski, M & Rockett, K, 2017. "Pendency and Thickets," Economics Discussion Papers 19979, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
  44. Jodi L. Short & Michael W. Toffel & Andrea R. Hugill, 2016. "Monitoring global supply chains," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1878-1897, September.
  45. Tong, Tony W. & Zhang, Kun & He, Zi-Lin & Zhang, Yuchen, 2018. "What determines the duration of patent examination in China? An outcome-specific duration analysis of invention patent applications at SIPO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 583-591.
  46. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
  47. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
  48. Bhaven N Sampat & Kenneth C Shadlen, 2018. "Indian pharmaceutical patent prosecution: The changing role of Section 3(d)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
  49. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
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.