The organizational advantage in early inventing and patenting: Empirical evidence from interference proceedings

[1]  Timo Fischer,et al.  The coincidence of patent thickets—A comparative analysis , 2015 .

[2]  Véronique Ambrosini,et al.  Configuring absorptive capacity as a key process for research intensive firms , 2015 .

[3]  Diego H. Useche.  Are patents signals for the IPO market? An EU–US comparison for the software industry , 2014 .

[4]  Andre O. Laplume,et al.  Matching technology strategy with knowledge structure , 2014 .

[5]  Andre O. Laplume,et al.  Influence of intellectual property, foreign investment, and technological adoption on technology entrepreneurship , 2013 .

[6]  Wilfred Dolfsma,et al.  Government policy and technological innovation—a suggested typology , 2013 .

[7]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  The Emergence of Openness: How and Why Firms Adopt Selective Revealing in Open Innovation , 2013 .

[8]  David B. Yoffie,et al.  The New Patent Intermediaries: Platforms, Defensive Aggregators and Super-Aggregators , 2013 .

[9]  Peter Neuhäusler.  The use of patents and informal appropriation mechanisms—Differences between sectors and among companies , 2012 .

[10]  D. Levine,et al.  The Case Against Patents , 2012 .

[11]  Toke Reichstein,et al.  Licensing-in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant-back clause and technological unfamiliarity , 2012 .

[12]  Deepak Somaya.  Patent Strategy and Management , 2012 .

[13]  Chinho Lin,et al.  The alliance innovation performance of R&D alliances—the absorptive capacity perspective , 2012 .

[14]  Catherine Beaudry,et al.  Collaboration spaces in Canadian biotechnology: A search for gatekeepers , 2012 .

[15]  Indrit Troshani,et al.  Investigating the use of information technology in managing innovation: A case study from a university technology transfer office , 2012 .

[16]  David S. Abrams,et al.  Poisoning the Next Apple? How the America Invents Act Harms Inventors , 2012 .

[17]  Joseph D. Matal.  A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II , 2012 .

[18]  Joshua Lerner,et al.  Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It , 2011 .

[19]  C. M. Chang,et al.  New organizational designs for promoting creativity: A case study of virtual teams with anonymity and structured interactions , 2011 .

[20]  Krsto Pandza,et al.  Collaborative diversity in a nanotechnology innovation system: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme , 2011 .

[21]  F. Jell,et al.  Contributing to Markets for Technology? A Comparison of Patent Filing Motives of Individual Inventors, Small Companies and Universities , 2011 .

[22]  Mark A. Lemley.  The Myth of the Sole Inventor , 2011 .

[23]  T. Pohlmann,et al.  Typology of the Patent Troll Business , 2011 .

[24]  Ana Pérez-Luño,et al.  How does the combination of R&D and types of knowledge matter for patent propensity? , 2011 .

[25]  V. Chiesa,et al.  The Open Innovation Journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm , 2011 .

[26]  Annapoornima M. Subramanian,et al.  An empirical examination of the science-technology relationship in the biotechnology industry , 2010 .

[27]  Z. Ács,et al.  Intellectual Property Protection and the Formation of Entrepreneurial Growth Aspirations , 2010 .

[28]  D. Simonton.  Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. , 2010, Physics of life reviews.

[29]  Chiara Franzoni,et al.  The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure , 2010 .

[30]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Lone Inventors as Source of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality? , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[31]  J. Henkel,et al.  Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology - An Empirical Analysis of Trolls' Patent Acquisitions , 2010 .

[32]  Kuen-Hung Tsai,et al.  Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective , 2009 .

[33]  Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen,et al.  The availability, strength and efficiency of appropriability mechanisms - protecting investments in knowledge creation , 2009, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[34]  Z. Acs,et al.  Intellectual Property Rights and the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship , 2008 .

[35]  Sai Yayavaram,et al.  Decomposability in Knowledge Structures and Its Impact on the Usefulness of Inventions and Knowledge-base Malleability , 2008 .

[36]  Mark A. Lemley.  Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying? , 2007 .

[37]  Samson Vermont,et al.  Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement , 2006 .

[38]  Mark Fichman,et al.  Today's Edisons or Weekend Hobbyists: Technical Merit and Success of Inventions by Independent Inventors , 2004 .

[39]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Are the U.S. Patent Priority Rules Really Necessary? , 2003 .

[40]  Deepak Somaya.  Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation , 2003 .

[41]  R. Katila,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION , 2002 .

[42]  R. Katila.  New Product Search Over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime? , 2002 .

[43]  M. Schemper,et al.  A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[44]  S. Bell,et al.  Organizing for new product development speed and the implications for organizational stress , 2002 .

[45]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data , 2001 .

[46]  David A. Hounshell,et al.  The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry , 2000 .

[47]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .

[48]  M. Tushman,et al.  Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for schumpeterian innovation , 1998 .

[49]  J. Mahon,et al.  Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Research Methods on Findings of First-Mover Advantage , 1997 .

[50]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention , 1997 .

[51]  Teck-Hua Ho,et al.  New product development: the performance and time-to-market tradeoff , 1996 .

[52]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[53]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics, and History , 1994 .

[54]  D. Firth.  Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates , 1993 .

[55]  Robert A. Peterson,et al.  First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Research Propositions , 1992 .

[56]  Francis Narin,et al.  Globalization of Research, Scholarly Information, and Patents–Ten Year Trends , 1991 .

[57]  Thomas J. Prusa,et al.  Are new firms an important source of innovation?: Evidence from the PC software industry , 1991 .

[58]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[59]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[60]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[61]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D , 1988 .

[62]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[63]  S. Macdonald.  The distinctive research of the individual inventor , 1986 .

[64]  Christopher A. Voss.  Multiple independent invention and the process of technological innovation , 1984 .

[65]  David Lamb,et al.  Multiple discovery: The pattern of scientific progress , 1984 .

[66]  D. Newbery,et al.  Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly , 1982 .

[67]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? , 1979 .