The Strategic Use of Patents and Its Implications for Enterprise and Competition Policies, Report ENTR/05/82 for DG Enterprise, European Commission

This report was commissioned as a study into the strategic use of patents. In the course of its case investigations and legislative reviews the European Commission became aware of changes in the use of intellectual property, in particular the use of patents. It was noted that firms’ uses of intellectual property are becoming increasingly strategic. This raised concerns about the implications of firms’ patenting behaviour for enterprise and competition policy. The following report contains a comprehensive review of patenting behaviour, the extent to which patenting is becoming more strategic and the implications this has for competition and enterprise policies .

[1]  B. Noveck.  "Peer to Patent": Collective Intelligence, Open Review, and Patent Reform , 2006 .

[2]  Dietmar Harhoff,et al.  Post Grant Review Systems at the U.S. Patent Office – Design Parameters and Expected Impact , 2004 .

[3]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States , 2002 .

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

[5]  C. A. Heaton.  The Chemical Industry , 1991 .

[6]  Pedro L. Marin,et al.  Innovation and Market Structure: An Empirical Evaluation of the 'Bounds Approach' in the Chemical Industry , 2002 .

[7]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[8]  D. Teece,et al.  Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics , 1997 .

[9]  David C. Mowery,et al.  VERTICAL SPECIALIZATION AND INDUSTRY STRUCTURE IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES , 2004 .

[10]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Racing To Invest? The Dynamics of Competition in Ethical Drug Discovery , 1994 .

[11]  A. Arora,et al.  Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy , 2000 .

[12]  Massimo Motta,et al.  Competition Policy: Theory and Practice , 2004 .

[13]  Samuel Kortum,et al.  What is behind the recent surge in patenting , 1999 .

[14]  Benjamin Klein,et al.  The Selection of Disputes for Litigation , 1984, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[15]  Josh Lerner,et al.  Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors , 1995, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[16]  Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie,et al.  When Small is Beautiful: Measuring the Evolution and Consequences of the Voluminosity of Patent Applications at the Epo , 2006, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[17]  A. Jaffe.  The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process , 2000 .

[18]  Joel Waldfogel,et al.  Toward a Taxonomy of Disputes: New Evidence Through the Prism of the Priest/Klein Model , 1999, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[19]  Lee Branstetter,et al.  Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms , 2001 .

[20]  S. Salop.  The First Principles Approach to Antitrust, Kodak, and Antitrust at the Millennium , 1999 .

[21]  Josh Lerner,et al.  Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years , 2002 .

[22]  Joel Waldfogel,et al.  Reconciling Asymmetric Information and Divergent Expectations Theories of Litigation* , 1998, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[23]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[24]  Robert P. Merges,et al.  Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation Won't Reliably Fix Patent Office Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help , 2004 .

[25]  J. Ordover,et al.  An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation , 1981 .

[26]  Thomas C. Melvin,et al.  European Patent Office , 2002 .

[27]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements , 2001 .

[28]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis.  Don't Fence Me in: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms , 2003, Manag. Sci..

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

[30]  Kenji Suzuki.  Japanese Competition Policy in the 1990s: Remaining Uniqueness in the Policy Network , 2002 .

[31]  Mark D. Janis,et al.  Rethinking Reexamination: Toward a Viable Administrative Revocation System for U.S. Patent Law , 1997 .

[32]  Stuart J. H. Graham,et al.  Submarines in software? continuations in US software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s , 2004 .

[33]  V. Korah.  An introductory guide to EEC competition law and practice , 1978 .

[34]  Michael J. Meurer,et al.  Controlling Opportunistic and Anti-Competitive IntellectualProperty Litigation , 2002 .

[35]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[36]  R. J. Gilgert,et al.  Incorporating Dynamic Efficiency Concerns in Merger Analysis: The Use of Innovation Markets , 1994 .

[37]  Michael E. Porter,et al.  Competition in Japan , 2004 .

[38]  Bronwyn H Hall.  Exploring the Patent Explosion , 2004, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[39]  Cecil D. Quillen,et al.  Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent Office , 2001 .

[40]  Urs Schweizer,et al.  Litigation and Settlement under Two-Sided Incomplete Information , 1989 .

[41]  J. Waldfogel,et al.  The Selection Hypothesis and the Relationship between Trial and Plaintiff Victory , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[42]  A. Arundel,et al.  What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms , 1998 .

[43]  A. Gambardella,et al.  The Market for Patents in Europe , 2006 .

[44]  M. Whinston.  Lectures on Antitrust Economics , 2006 .

[45]  Rona Davis.  INNOVATION MARKETS AND MERGER ENFORCEMENT: CURRENT PRACTICE IN PERSPECTIVE , 2003 .

[46]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Determinants of Opposition against EPO Patent Grants – The Case of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals ∗ , 2002 .

[47]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age , 1997 .

[48]  The Intervention Principle , 2006 .

[49]  D. Encaoua,et al.  Competition Policy and Innovation , 2002 .

[50]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System - eScholarship , 2001 .

[51]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Prospects for Improving U.S. Patent Quality via Postgrant Opposition , 2003, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[52]  Francesco Lissoni,et al.  Policy Options for the Improvement of the European Patent System , 2007 .

[53]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Fun and games : a text on game theory , 1992 .

[54]  Lucian Arye Bebchuk,et al.  Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information , 1984 .

[55]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition , 2001 .

[56]  J. Tirole.  The Theory of Industrial Organization , 1988 .

[57]  Suzanne Scotchmer,et al.  On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System , 1999 .

[58]  Robert Z. Lawrence.  Efficient or Exclusionist: The Import Behavior of Japanese Corporate Groups , 1991 .

[59]  Josh Lerner,et al.  The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature , 1997 .

[60]  Jacques Michel,et al.  Patent citation analysis.A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports , 2001, Scientometrics.

[61]  Suzanne Scotchmer,et al.  Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System? , 2002, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[62]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations , 2003 .

[63]  A. Muthoo.  Bargaining Theory with Applications , 1999 .