Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Strategic Use of Continuations at The USPTO

Righi, Cesare; Simcoe, Timothy

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3627775

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, firms intentionally file their patent applications late in the standard‐setting process to tailor the patent claims to draft versions of the standard. Likewise, firms try to change the claims of already pending patents to ensure that a given standard technology falls within their scope of protection (Berger et al, 2012; Righi & Simcoe, 2020).…”

Section: Institutional Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Institutional Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Brachtendorf

Gaessler

Harhoff

2022

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a "top-down" approach to calculating royalties, the share of SEPs of a given standard held by a company affects directly the amount of royalties received. Moreover,Righi and Simcoe (2020) find that a majority of SEPs issue from continuation applications filed after standard publication and, "[c]onsistent with opportunistic behavior by patentees," additionally observe a large increase in SEP continuations immediately after standards are finalized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Do Standard-Essential Patent Owners Behave Opportunistically? Evidence from U.S. District Court Dockets

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do owners of standard-essential patents (SEPs) "holdup" companies that produce standard-compliant products?To explore this question, we use detailed information from the dockets of all U.S. patent cases filed 2010-2019 that assert or challenge SEPs to construct measures of opportunistic conduct by SEP licensors, including actions that took place before the lawsuit was filed. We find evidence of opportunistic behavior by the SEP enforcer in at least 75% of SEP assertions in court, and we analyze various factors that determine which opportunistic behaviors SEP enforcers rely on. We also show that opportunistic behavior can affect case outcomes, although the effect on settlement is ambiguous. Some behaviors increase the likelihood of a settlement, while others decrease it.

show abstract

Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Strategic Use of Continuations at The USPTO

Cited by 2 publications

References 51 publications

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Truly standard‐essential patents? A semantics‐based analysis

Do Standard-Essential Patent Owners Behave Opportunistically? Evidence from U.S. District Court Dockets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About