Examiner Citations, Applicant Citations, and the Private Value of Patents

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices (2017, unknown): “In this spirit, Hegde and Sampat (2009) show that examiner citations have a much stronger relationship with renewal probability (a measure of private value) than the number of applicant citations.”
Brain drain or brain bank? The impact of skilled emigration on poor-country innovation (2008, background): “Yet the applicant does not supply all citations; some are added by the patent examiner (Alcacer and Gittelman, 2006; Hegde and Sampat, 2007).”
Knowledge Spillovers from Clean and Dirty Technologies (2014, background): “However, inventors have an incentive not to cite patents unnecessarily as it may reduce their claims to novelty and therefore affect the scope of the monopoly rights granted by the patent (Hegde and Sampat (2009); Sampat (2005)).”
Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis (2009, background): “For example, Alcacer and Gittelman (2006) assess whether pooling inventor and examiner citations gives unbiased estimates of knowledge flows, and Sampat and Hegde (2007) assess whether examiner- or applicant-forward citations accurately predict the private value of patents, as measured by applicant…”