Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVON GRAEVENITZ, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorHarhoff, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorWagner, Sen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-23T12:00:15Z
dc.date.issued2013-03-25en_US
dc.identifier.issn1866-3494en_US
dc.identifier.other12-04
dc.identifier.other12-04
dc.identifier.other12-04en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/6622
dc.description.abstractPost-grant validity challenges at patent offices rely on the private initiative of third parties to correct mistakes made by patent offices. We hypothesize that incentives to bring post-grant validity challenges are reduced when many firms benefit from revocation of a patent and when firms are caught up in patent thickets. Using data on opposition against patents at the European Patent Office we show that opposition decreases in fields in which many others profit from patent revocations. Moreover, in fields with a large number of mutually blocking patents the incidence of opposition is sharply reduced, particularly among large firms and firms that are caught up directly in patent thickets. These findings indicate that post-grant patent review may not constitute an effective correction device for erroneous patent grants in technologies affected by either patent thickets or highly dispersed patent ownership.en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.relation.ispartofESMT Working Paperen_US
dc.titleCONFLICT RESOLUTION, PUBLIC GOODS AND PATENT THICKETSen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2139/ssrn.2145590en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusAccepteden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://www.esmt.org/sixcms/detail.php/254057en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record