IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/randje/v54y2023i3p416-442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO

Author

Listed:
  • Cesare Righi
  • Timothy Simcoe

Abstract

Continuations allow inventors to add new claims to old patents, leading to concerns about unintended infringement and holdup. We study how continuations are used in standard essential patent (SEP) prosecution. Difference in differences estimates suggest that continuation filings increase by 80%–121% after a standard is published. This effect is larger for applicants with licensing‐based business models and for patent examiners with a higher allowance rate. Claim language is more similar for SEPs filed after standard publication, and late‐filing is positively correlated with litigation. These findings suggest widespread use of continuations to draft patents that are infringed by already‐published standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2023. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 54(3), pages 416-442, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:randje:v:54:y:2023:i:3:p:416-442
    DOI: 10.1111/1756-2171.12446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12446
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1756-2171.12446?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    2. Josh Feng & Xavier Jaravel, 2020. "Crafting Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Patent Assertion Entities, Litigation, and Innovation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 140-181, January.
    3. Jean Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 1998. "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 223-246.
    4. Marc Rysman & Timothy Simcoe, 2008. "Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1920-1934, November.
    5. Leonid Kogan & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Noah Stoffman, 2017. "Technological Innovation, Resource Allocation, and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(2), pages 665-712.
    6. Iain M. Cockburn & Samuel Kortum & Scott Stern, 2002. "Are All Patent Examiners Equal? The Impact of Examiner Characteristics," NBER Working Papers 8980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    8. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    9. Stuart J.H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Richard Miller, 2018. "The USPTO Patent Examination Research Dataset: A window on patent processing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 554-578, September.
    10. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    11. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    12. Carmen Matutes & Pierre Regibeau & Katharine Rockett, 1996. "Optimal Patent Design and the Diffusion of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 60-83, Spring.
    13. 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.
    14. Bekkers, Rudi & Catalini, Christian & Martinelli, Arianna & Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2023. "Disclosure rules and declared essential patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    15. Justus Baron & Kirti Gupta, 2018. "Unpacking 3GPP standards," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 433-461, September.
    16. Timothy Simcoe, 2012. "Standard Setting Committees: Consensus Governance for Shared Technology Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 305-336, February.
    17. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    18. Timothy S. Simcoe & Stuart J.H. Graham & Maryann P. Feldman, 2009. "Competing on Standards? Entrepreneurship, Intellectual Property, and Platform Technologies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 775-816, September.
    19. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2021. "Knowledge spillovers, peer effects, and telecommuting: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Alan C. Marco & Richard D. Miller, 2019. "Patent Examination Quality and Litigation: Is There a Link?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 65-91, January.
    21. 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.
    22. Sun, Liyang & Abraham, Sarah, 2021. "Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 175-199.
    23. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:49-50:p:08 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Jeffrey M. Kuhn & Neil C. Thompson, 2019. "How to Measure and Draw Causal Inferences with Patent Scope," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 5-38, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Schuett, Florian & Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2023. "Essentiality Checks for Standard Essential Patents," Other publications TiSEM 94ab0818-65ab-4135-8fa6-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1820, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Timothy Simcoe & Cesare Righi, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Davide Cannito & Cesare Righi & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing Patent Applications at the USPTO," Working Papers 1382, Barcelona School of Economics.
    4. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1855, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    5. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2020. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," NBER Working Papers 27686, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    7. deGrazia, Charles A.W. & Pairolero, Nicholas A. & Teodorescu, Mike H.M., 2021. "Examination incentives, learning, and patent office outcomes: The use of examiner’s amendments at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    8. Nilsen, Øivind A. & Raknerud, Arvid, 2024. "Dynamics of first-time patenting firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    9. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    10. Juranek, Steffen & Otneim, Håkon, 2021. "Using machine learning to predict patent lawsuits," Discussion Papers 2021/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    11. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    12. de Grazia, Charles A.W. & Giczy, Alexander V. & Pairolero, Nicholas A., 2024. "Procrastination or incomplete data? An analysis of USPTO examiner search activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(7).
    13. Deng, Xin & Li, Qian Cher & Mateut, Simona, 2022. "Participation in setting technology standards and the implied cost of equity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    14. Eduardo Melero & Neus Palomeras & David Wehrheim, 2020. "The Effect of Patent Protection on Inventor Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5485-5504, December.
    15. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    16. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    17. Justus Baron & Tim Pohlmann, 2018. "Mapping standards to patents using declarations of standard‐essential patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 504-534, September.
    18. Wen, Wen & Forman, Chris & Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L, 2022. "The effects of technology standards on complementor innovations: Evidence from the IETF," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    19. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    20. Lorenz Brachtendorf & Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff, 2023. "Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 132-157, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:randje:v:54:y:2023:i:3:p:416-442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/randdus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.