Strategic Scientific Disclosure: Evidence from the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We examine the impact of technological competition on voluntary innovation disclosure around the enactment of the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (“AIA”). The AIA moves the US patent system from the first‐to‐invent to first‐inventor‐to‐file system and induces a patent race that increases technological competition. Firms that are slow to file a patent are disadvantaged in this race. We find that focal firms with lagging patent classes strategically increase scientific publications in their lagging technology areas in an attempt to block competitors from obtaining a patent. This effect is more pronounced in technology areas where the firm has better information about their relative competitive position (proxied by greater inventor mobility), in technology classes with constraints on increasing patent filing timeliness (proxied by fewer experienced attorneys), and areas characterized by more intense competition. We find that the peers of firms with lagging classes experience greater patent filing rejections for lack of novelty and obviousness reasons after the AIA, suggesting that strategic scientific disclosure is effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".