Disclosure rules and declared essential patents

Catalini, Christian; Martinelli, Arianna; Righi, Cesare; Simcoe, Timothy

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2022.104618

Cited by 15 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, we replicate the study by Bekkers et al (2017) about the (positive) effect of SEP declarations on the number of subsequent patent forward citations. Here, we show that the magnitude of this 'disclosure effect' is considerably larger when focusing on subsets of SEP declarations with high similarity ranks.…”

Section: Validation Results and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Figure 4 shows Poisson estimates for the effect of disclosure on forward citations. Following the econometric approach by Bekkers et al (2017), we indeed observe a negative disclosure effect for the full set of SEPs. However, the estimated effect increases substantially for higher percentiles of SEPs by similarity rank.…”

Section: Replicating the Etsi 'Disclosure Effect'mentioning

confidence: 64%

“…We observe a significantly higher semantic similarity for pairs of SEP-declared patents and related standards than for random pairs. Second, we replicate the study by Bekkers et al (2017) regarding the effect of SEP declarations on the number of subsequent patent forward citations. We show that the magnitude of this 'disclosure effect' is considerably larger when focusing on subsets of SEP declarations with particularly high semantic similarity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…This allows to conclude that the semantic approach is suitable for measuring technological similar-ity between patents and standards. Second, we replicate the study of Bekkers et al (2017) and examine the 'disclosure effect' of SEP declarations on patent forward citations. We build subsamples of SEPs (declared at ETSI) with high semantic similarity to their associated standards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…39 This finding is consistent with the notion that entities with upstream business models rely more on licensing revenues (for which the number of SEPs matters most) than firms with product market activities (cf. Dewatripont and Legros, 2013;Bekkers et al, 2017).…”

Section: Predicting Sep Portfolio Sharesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Brachtendorf

Gaessler

Harhoff

2022

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-essential patents (SEPs) have become a key element of technical coordination in standardsetting organizations. Yet, in many cases, it remains unclear whether a declared SEP is truly standardessential. To date, there is no automated procedure that allows for a scalable and objective assessment of SEP status. This paper introduces a semantics-based method for approximating the standard essentiality of patents. We provide details on the procedure that generates the measure of standard essentiality and present the results of several validation exercises. In a first empirical application we illustrate the measure's usefulness in estimating the share of true SEPs in firm patent portfolios for several mobile telecommunication standards. We find firm-level differences that are statistically significant and economically substantial. Furthermore, we observe a general decline in the average share of presumably true SEPs between successive standard generations.

show abstract

Section: Validation Results and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Replicating the Etsi 'Disclosure Effect'mentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Predicting Sep Portfolio Sharesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Brachtendorf

Gaessler

Harhoff

2022

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Risky business: How standardization as coordination tool in ecosystems impacts firm‐level uncertainty

Toh,

Pyun

2023

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryCoordination challenges generate uncertainties in ecosystems. Past research suggests that standardization mitigates these challenges, reducing ecosystem‐level uncertainty. But how does it affect firm‐level uncertainty over value‐appropriation? We examine heterogeneity in the latter effect. Using 1996–2010 data on standard‐setting in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) ecosystems and a firm‐level uncertainty measure based on stock option implied volatility, we demonstrate that while standardization reduces uncertainty for firms that own part of the standardized components, it heightens uncertainty for firms that do not, especially when they face strong rivals in complementary technologies or have fewer complementary technologies or production assets themselves. Findings stress that coordination tools enhancing ecosystem‐level value‐creation can end up hurting firm‐level value‐appropriation and worsen uncertainty for some firms in the ecosystem that the tools are meant to help.Managerial SummaryIn an ecosystem, a firm faces two types of uncertainty—ecosystem‐level uncertainty over how to coordinate with others on developing interoperable parts, and firm‐level uncertainty over whether it can occupy a viable position to capture value. Standardization, a commonly touted solution, reduces the former but not necessarily the latter. Using 1996–2010 data on standard setting in ICT ecosystems and stock option implied volatility, we show that for non‐standard‐owner firms, standardization in fact worsens the latter, especially when they face strong rivals or lack complementary technologies or production assets in areas complementary to the standard. Thus, tools like standardization meant to solve ecosystem‐level coordination problems can end up raising more doubts on firms' ability to capture value and discouraging firms from participating instead of promoting ecosystem growth.

show abstract

Standardization in the context of transdisciplinarity

Blind

2024

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transdisciplinarity is an integrative approach that includes different scientific disciplines as well as stakeholders and researchers to tackle both societal and scientific challenges. Since standards are jointly developed by science, business, and other stakeholders, standardization can be perceived as a specific mode of transdisciplinarity. In the discussion on knowledge transfer as a further performance dimension for researchers, participation in standardization procedures is now also being considered as a further channel, albeit without a sound conceptual and empirical basis. The paper thus aims to provide a conceptual base of standardization as a transdisciplinary knowledge production mode and transfer channel but also gives an outlook on its empirical implementation. The literature review on transdisciplinarity helps us to put standardization into the context of transdisciplinary research and to present a conceptual model of standardization as transdisciplinary knowledge production and transfer. Further, we present the first methodological approaches for the empirical analysis of the transdisciplinary character of standardization. Finally, we conclude with a summary, a number of recommendations derived from transdisciplinary research for standardization, and an outlook toward future research to be tackled with the proposed methodologies.

show abstract

Disclosure rules and declared essential patents

Cited by 15 publications

References 26 publications

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Risky business: How standardization as coordination tool in ecosystems impacts firm‐level uncertainty

Standardization in the context of transdisciplinarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About