Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders: which firms use continuations in patenting?
The continuations procedure within the U.S. patent system has been criticized for enabling firms to manipulate the patent review process for strategic purposes. Changes during the 1990s in patent procedures affected the incentives of applicants to exploit the continuations process, and additional re...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge, Mass.
National Bureau of Economic Research
2007
|
| Series: | Working paper series / National Bureau of Economic Research
13153 |
| Online Access: | Volltext |
| Summary: | The continuations procedure within the U.S. patent system has been criticized for enabling firms to manipulate the patent review process for strategic purposes. Changes during the 1990s in patent procedures affected the incentives of applicants to exploit the continuations process, and additional reforms in continuations currently are being considered. Nonetheless, little is known about applicants' use of the three major types of continuations -- the Continuation Application (CAP), the Continuations-In-Part (CIP), and Divisions -- to alter the term and scope of patents. This paper analyzes patents issued from the three types of continuations to U.S. firms during 1981 - 2004 (with priority years 1981 - 2000), and links their frequency to the characteristics of patents, assignees and industries. We find that CIPs are disproportionately filed by R&D-intensive, small firms that patent heavily, and are more common in chemical and biological technologies. Patents resulting from CIP filings contain more claims and backward citations per patent on average, and cover relatively "valuable" inventions. In contrast, CAPs cover less valuable patents from large, capital-intensive firms that patent intensively, particularly in computer and semiconductor patents. We also analyze the effects of the 1995 change in patent term on continuation applications and find that the Act reduced the use of continuations overall, while shifting the output of CAPs toward "less important" patents. |
| Item Description: | Literaturverz. S. 37 - 39 |
| Physical Description: | 62 S. graph. Darst. 22 cm |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000zcb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023593062 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20080327000000.0 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 070907s2007 xxud||| |||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)255724887 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBV534871933 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 044 | |a xxu |c XD-US | ||
| 049 | |a DE-521 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hegde, Deepak |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)133433323 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders |b which firms use continuations in patenting? |c Deepak Hegde ; David C. Mowery ; Stuart Graham |
| 264 | 1 | |a Cambridge, Mass. |b National Bureau of Economic Research |c 2007 | |
| 300 | |a 62 S. |b graph. Darst. |c 22 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Working paper series / National Bureau of Economic Research |v 13153 | |
| 500 | |a Literaturverz. S. 37 - 39 | ||
| 520 | 8 | |a The continuations procedure within the U.S. patent system has been criticized for enabling firms to manipulate the patent review process for strategic purposes. Changes during the 1990s in patent procedures affected the incentives of applicants to exploit the continuations process, and additional reforms in continuations currently are being considered. Nonetheless, little is known about applicants' use of the three major types of continuations -- the Continuation Application (CAP), the Continuations-In-Part (CIP), and Divisions -- to alter the term and scope of patents. This paper analyzes patents issued from the three types of continuations to U.S. firms during 1981 - 2004 (with priority years 1981 - 2000), and links their frequency to the characteristics of patents, assignees and industries. We find that CIPs are disproportionately filed by R&D-intensive, small firms that patent heavily, and are more common in chemical and biological technologies. Patents resulting from CIP filings contain more claims and backward citations per patent on average, and cover relatively "valuable" inventions. In contrast, CAPs cover less valuable patents from large, capital-intensive firms that patent intensively, particularly in computer and semiconductor patents. We also analyze the effects of the 1995 change in patent term on continuation applications and find that the Act reduced the use of continuations overall, while shifting the output of CAPs toward "less important" patents. | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mowery, David C. |d 1952- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)124787444 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Graham, Stuart J. H. |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)131980351 |4 aut | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Online-Ausgabe |
| 810 | 2 | |a National Bureau of Economic Research <Cambridge, Mass.> |t NBER working paper series |v 13153 |w (DE-604)BV002801238 |9 13153 | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13153.pdf |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016908392 | ||
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1804138252224954368 |
|---|---|
| adam_txt | |
| any_adam_object | |
| any_adam_object_boolean | |
| author | Hegde, Deepak Mowery, David C. 1952- Graham, Stuart J. H. |
| author_GND | (DE-588)133433323 (DE-588)124787444 (DE-588)131980351 |
| author_facet | Hegde, Deepak Mowery, David C. 1952- Graham, Stuart J. H. |
| author_role | aut aut aut |
| author_sort | Hegde, Deepak |
| author_variant | d h dh d c m dc dcm s j h g sjh sjhg |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023593062 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)255724887 (DE-599)GBV534871933 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02857nam a2200349zcb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023593062</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20080327000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">070907s2007 xxud||| |||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)255724887</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBV534871933</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">xxu</subfield><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-521</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hegde, Deepak</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)133433323</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders</subfield><subfield code="b">which firms use continuations in patenting?</subfield><subfield code="c">Deepak Hegde ; David C. Mowery ; Stuart Graham</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cambridge, Mass.</subfield><subfield code="b">National Bureau of Economic Research</subfield><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">62 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">graph. Darst.</subfield><subfield code="c">22 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Working paper series / National Bureau of Economic Research</subfield><subfield code="v">13153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Literaturverz. S. 37 - 39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The continuations procedure within the U.S. patent system has been criticized for enabling firms to manipulate the patent review process for strategic purposes. Changes during the 1990s in patent procedures affected the incentives of applicants to exploit the continuations process, and additional reforms in continuations currently are being considered. Nonetheless, little is known about applicants' use of the three major types of continuations -- the Continuation Application (CAP), the Continuations-In-Part (CIP), and Divisions -- to alter the term and scope of patents. This paper analyzes patents issued from the three types of continuations to U.S. firms during 1981 - 2004 (with priority years 1981 - 2000), and links their frequency to the characteristics of patents, assignees and industries. We find that CIPs are disproportionately filed by R&D-intensive, small firms that patent heavily, and are more common in chemical and biological technologies. Patents resulting from CIP filings contain more claims and backward citations per patent on average, and cover relatively "valuable" inventions. In contrast, CAPs cover less valuable patents from large, capital-intensive firms that patent intensively, particularly in computer and semiconductor patents. We also analyze the effects of the 1995 change in patent term on continuation applications and find that the Act reduced the use of continuations overall, while shifting the output of CAPs toward "less important" patents.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mowery, David C.</subfield><subfield code="d">1952-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)124787444</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Graham, Stuart J. H.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)131980351</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Erscheint auch als</subfield><subfield code="n">Online-Ausgabe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">National Bureau of Economic Research <Cambridge, Mass.></subfield><subfield code="t">NBER working paper series</subfield><subfield code="v">13153</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV002801238</subfield><subfield code="9">13153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13153.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016908392</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV023593062 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T22:41:31Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:25:14Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016908392 |
| oclc_num | 255724887 |
| open_access_boolean | 1 |
| owner | DE-521 |
| owner_facet | DE-521 |
| physical | 62 S. graph. Darst. 22 cm |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateSearch | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| publisher | National Bureau of Economic Research |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Working paper series / National Bureau of Economic Research |
| spelling | Hegde, Deepak Verfasser (DE-588)133433323 aut Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? Deepak Hegde ; David C. Mowery ; Stuart Graham Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2007 62 S. graph. Darst. 22 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Working paper series / National Bureau of Economic Research 13153 Literaturverz. S. 37 - 39 The continuations procedure within the U.S. patent system has been criticized for enabling firms to manipulate the patent review process for strategic purposes. Changes during the 1990s in patent procedures affected the incentives of applicants to exploit the continuations process, and additional reforms in continuations currently are being considered. Nonetheless, little is known about applicants' use of the three major types of continuations -- the Continuation Application (CAP), the Continuations-In-Part (CIP), and Divisions -- to alter the term and scope of patents. This paper analyzes patents issued from the three types of continuations to U.S. firms during 1981 - 2004 (with priority years 1981 - 2000), and links their frequency to the characteristics of patents, assignees and industries. We find that CIPs are disproportionately filed by R&D-intensive, small firms that patent heavily, and are more common in chemical and biological technologies. Patents resulting from CIP filings contain more claims and backward citations per patent on average, and cover relatively "valuable" inventions. In contrast, CAPs cover less valuable patents from large, capital-intensive firms that patent intensively, particularly in computer and semiconductor patents. We also analyze the effects of the 1995 change in patent term on continuation applications and find that the Act reduced the use of continuations overall, while shifting the output of CAPs toward "less important" patents. Mowery, David C. 1952- Verfasser (DE-588)124787444 aut Graham, Stuart J. H. Verfasser (DE-588)131980351 aut Erscheint auch als Online-Ausgabe National Bureau of Economic Research <Cambridge, Mass.> NBER working paper series 13153 (DE-604)BV002801238 13153 http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13153.pdf kostenfrei Volltext |
| spellingShingle | Hegde, Deepak Mowery, David C. 1952- Graham, Stuart J. H. Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? |
| title | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? |
| title_auth | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? |
| title_exact_search | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? |
| title_full | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? Deepak Hegde ; David C. Mowery ; Stuart Graham |
| title_fullStr | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? Deepak Hegde ; David C. Mowery ; Stuart Graham |
| title_full_unstemmed | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders which firms use continuations in patenting? Deepak Hegde ; David C. Mowery ; Stuart Graham |
| title_short | Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders |
| title_sort | pioneers submariners or thicket builders which firms use continuations in patenting |
| title_sub | which firms use continuations in patenting? |
| url | http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13153.pdf |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV002801238 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hegdedeepak pioneerssubmarinersorthicketbuilderswhichfirmsusecontinuationsinpatenting AT mowerydavidc pioneerssubmarinersorthicketbuilderswhichfirmsusecontinuationsinpatenting AT grahamstuartjh pioneerssubmarinersorthicketbuilderswhichfirmsusecontinuationsinpatenting |