Non-Obviousness and Complementary Innovations

Yann Ménière ()

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This paper explores which patent policy should be applied to complementary innovations that are aggregated into broader technologies. I compare a setting in which complementary innovations must be bundled prior to patenting, with a second setting in which they can be patented separately. The first setting can improve static efficiency by avoiding the costs resulting from the scattering of complementary patents. But it also limits the disclosure of small innovations, which may lead to inefficient R&D cost duplications. A model capturing these effects shows that patenting complementary innovations separately is not efficient when innovations can be developed rapidly. This result justifies the enforcement of a severe "inventive step" or "non-obviousness" requirement in sectors where complementary innovations are frequent.

Keywords: Patent; Complementarity; Innovation; Brevet; R&D; Complementarité (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008-10
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00397192v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in European Economic Review, 2008, 52 (7), pp.1125-1139. ⟨10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.11.002⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00397192v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00397192

DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.11.002

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().