Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp

By Mark A. Lemley, Bhaven N. Sampat. 2008

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40f3d741ce39e3c056c40f4a90b5eabe385719e9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Russell J. Funk
2. Rosemarie H. Ziedonis
3. David H. Hsu
4. Jason Owen-Smith
5. Bhaven N. Sampat
6. Mark A. Lemley
7. Carolin Haeussler
8. Douglas J. Cumming

Citations in the corpus

• Resources as dual sources of advantage: Implications for valuing entrepreneurial‐firm patents (2013, background): “Although data on rejected U.S. applications are unavailable for most years in our sample, Lemley and Sampat (2008) report that only 15–20 percent of U.S. patent applications are rejected by examiners. explained more fully below.”
• A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change (2017, background): “Moreover, the patent examination process has been criticized by observers who argue that the USPTO grants many patents that fail to meet the legal requirements of novelty and nonobviousness (Jaffe and Lerner 2004, Lemley and Sampat 2008).”
• Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes (2012, background): “Our findings may also have significant implications for the industry-specific results we discussed in our prior paper (Lemley & Sampat, 2009).”