Are Prior Art Citations Determinative of Patent Approval?: An Empirical Analysis of the Strategy Behind Citing Prior Art

26 Pages Posted: 3 Feb 2015

See all articles by Jake Richardson

Jake Richardson

Gunderson Dettmer et al., LLP; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), School of Law, Students; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Anderson School of Management, Students

Date Written: October 28, 2014

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of prior art citation by inventors upon examiner citations and upon the time to patent approval. Using two discrete datasets comprised of extensive filing data, this analysis presents conclusions regarding the impact of applicant citations on filing, and uses these conclusions to extrapolate to a broader analysis of filing strategy with respect to prior art citation.

Specifically, applicants who systematically under-cite prior art stand to benefit. Though the time from filing to approval does not vary greatly with applicant citations, the time spent by the examiner on filling in prior art does. As such, applicants who cite less stand to have less time spent by the examiner during the application process on substantive evaluation, than on researching prior art.

Keywords: Patent, Empirical, Citation, Prior Art, Examiner, under-cite

Suggested Citation

Richardson, James, Are Prior Art Citations Determinative of Patent Approval?: An Empirical Analysis of the Strategy Behind Citing Prior Art (October 28, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2557716 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2557716

James Richardson (Contact Author)

Gunderson Dettmer et al., LLP

1200 Seaport Blvd
Redwood Shores, CA 94063
United States

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), School of Law, Students ( email )

Los Angeles, CA
United States

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Anderson School of Management, Students ( email )

Los Angeles, CA
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
48
Abstract Views
459
PlumX Metrics