Search

This paper delves into the proliferation of non-practicing entities (NPEs), a hot topic in academia and public policy, especially in the United States. The common belief is that Europe is less exposed to NPEs due to a robust patent system, higher enforcement costs, and smaller damage awards. Yet, using a new database of NPE patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO), the study uncovers that NPEs activity in Europe is arising: they own nearly 20,000 EPO patents, primarily in Electrical Engineering. Moreover, we contribute the literature investigating the heterogeneity of the NPE business model and its relationship with the characteristics and use of the patents they target. Our econometric analysis provides threefold original evidence. First, NPEs with higher propensity for litigation (i.e. "Litigation" NPEs) acquire patents with higher infringement risk but similar technological quality than practicing entities. Second, patent aggregators (i.e. "Portfolio" NPEs) and technology companies (i.e. "Technology" NPEs) acquire higher-quality patents compared to those acquired by practicing entities. Third, patent acquisitions by "Litigation" NPEs and "Portfolio" NPEs reduce the subsequent use of protected technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patent monetisation is an important source of revenues worldwide. This activity is increasingly carried out by patent assertion entities (PAE), which are at the origin of about 40% of infringement actions filed in the United States. This paper uses an original database of US patents reporting PAE patent acquisitions. We document two key empirical facts about the presence of PAEs in the market for patents. First, PAEs build large patent portfolios and contribute significantly to patent transfers in the US. Second, their impact on follow-on innovation is, on average, negative. With a series of dynamic diff-in-diffs analyses, we estimate a significant post-transfer drop in forward citations received by patents acquired by PAEs. This drop is not immediate but takes some years to materialise. Heterogeneity tests show that our results are driven by acquisitions of old and highly cited patents, as well as by patent acquisitions by large patent aggregators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 20 years, European universities have increased their propensity to retain title of their faculty's inventions, but evidence on the value of such patents is at best mixed. Based on a longitudinal sample of Italian academic patents (patents over faculty's inventions), assigned either to universities or firms, we find that the lower value of university-owned patents, versus firm-owned ones, is owing to lower Technological Importance of the inventions and less effective Exploitation of the related patents. Lack of experience in managing patented inventions explains our results for Technological Importance, but not for Exploitation. Both are unrelated to the presence of a technology transfer office. Our study suggests caution in pushing universities to expand their patent portfolios and in using university-owned patents as indicators of technology-transfer activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many patent assertion entities (PAEs) hide behind multiple unknown subsidiaries or shell companies with obscure ownership. Meanwhile, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), like many other patent offices, does not impose a strict time period for recording the change of ownership of a patent, allowing the holder to gain an advantage by controlling the timing of its ownership disclosure. In this paper, we study to which extent PAEs delay the recording of the U.S. patent reassignments of patents that they will subsequently use in infringement patent lawsuits. On average, PAEs notify the change of ownership more quickly than producing firms, but this is not the case for the patents that they will litigate relatively far in time. In particular, the correlation between the recording lag of the patent transaction and the litigation spell is higher when the patent acquirer is a PAE (than when it is a producing firm) or when the acquirer will litigate the patent in the Eastern District of Texas, famously home to opportunistic litigations. Finally, we find that transactions involving unknown subsidiaries of PAEs are recorded at the USPTO significantly later than those involving PAE parent companies or their known subsidiaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the transfer of professors' inventions is typically performed by an intermediary set up by the university (the technology transfer office), other forms of transfer do coexist in reality. To clarify this situation and its consequences, we develop a model that endogenizes a professor's decision regarding the form of transfer for her invention in which intermediation by the transfer office is only one of two options, the other one being a transfer carried out by the professor herself. The intermediary can reach more potential licensees of the invention, whereas the professor is usually better at mitigating information asymmetry through signaling. In the semiseparating equilibrium of the game, promising technologies are likely to be cherry‐picked and transferred by the professor. This prediction that the transfer mode is influenced by invention quality is tested and confirmed, as are several other predictions, on our sample of 446 UK academic inventors. Specific care is taken to control for other mechanisms of IP assignment, such as those derived from consulting and sponsored research. Insights in terms of policy are drawn from this new perspective focusing on alternative transfer channels, match quality, and information asymmetry rather than on moral hazard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intellectual property regimes governing university inventions were quite diverse in Europe at the end of the 1990s. Several European countries maintained the so-called professor's privilege, an exception to employment law whereby university researchers were allowed to retain the ownership of academic inventions. The 2000s were characterised by convergence towards a more homogeneous system, in which university administrations took control of IP management. We investigate the impact of the reform and we observe a decline in the technological importance and the value of the patents owned and managed by universities in the countries abolishing the professor's privilege. On the contrary, by differentiating the academic patents by type of ownership, we find that the technological importance of academic patents owned by companies has instead increased. Our study produces some new results that may alert policymakers to the possible unintended consequences of the university ownership model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies international knowledge flows looking at: (i) patent citations that track codified knowledge and (ii) technological collaborations between inventors that gauge knowledge transmitted through face to face contacts. It uses a gravity model for 13 countries ( Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China, South Africa, Mexico, the USA, the UK, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and Canada) using EPO data. In the case of tacit knowledge flows it shows that intellectual property rights ( IPRs) reinforcement has no effect and that sharing a common legal origin and technological proximity are more important than geographical distance. In the case of codified knowledge flows IPRs reinforcement has a positive effect only when applicants' citations are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the importance of early-career characteristics of academic inventors and how they affect their patenting activity. Using a novel dataset on 555 UK academic inventors, we find that the quality of the first invention is the best predictor for subsequent participation in the patenting process. We further find evidence for a positive training effect whereby researchers who were trained at universities that had already established commercialisation units patent more. In addition, researchers who gained their first patenting experience in industry are able to benefit from stronger knowledge flows and receive more citations than their purely academic peers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]