Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 17-38

  Somaya, Deepak ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Firm strategy; Intellectual property; Litigation; Patents

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTERS; DECISION MAKING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; MEDICINE; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; STATISTICS; TRADEMARKS;

PATENT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT; STRATEGIC DETERMINANTS; STRATEGIC STAKES;

STRATEGIC PLANNING;

EID: 0037227367     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.281     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. AIPLA. 1997. Report of economic survey. American Intellectual Property Law Association: Washington, DC.
2. AUTM. 1998. Licensing survey: Fiscal year 1997. Association of University Technology Managers, Inc: Norwalk, CT.
3. Allison J, Lemley MA. 1998. Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents. In Stanford Workshop on Intellectual Property and Industry Competitive Standards: Stanford, CA.
4. Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C. 1995. Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. American Economic Review 85(5): 1337-1343.
5. Bebchuk LA. 1984. Litigation and settlement under imperfect information. Rand Journal of Economics 15(3): 404-415.
6. Bhagat S, Brickley JA, Coles JL. 1994. The costs of inefficient bargaining and financial distress: evidence from corporate lawsuits. Journal of Financial Economics 35(2): 221-247.
7. Bittlingmayer G. 1988. Property rights, progress, and the aircraft patent agreement. Journal of Law and Economics 31(1): 227-248.
8. Boyes WJ, Hoffman DL, Low SA. 1989. An econometric analysis of the bank credit scoring problem. Journal of Econometrics 40(1): 3-14.
9. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh J. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper, no. 7552.
10. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. 1983. The pharmaceutical industry. In Government and Technical Progress, Nelson RR (ed.). Pergamon: New York; 283-360.
11. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. 1990. A new look at the returns and risks to pharmaceutical R&D. Management Science 36: 804-821.
12. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. 1994. Returns on new drug introductions in the 1980s. Journal of Health Economics 13, 383-406.
13. Grindley PC, Teece DJ. 1997. Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review 39(2): 8-41.
14. Hall BH, Ziedonis RM. 2001. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32(1): 101-128.
15. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M. 2000. Market value and patent citations: a first look. NBER working paper no. 7741.
16. Hambrick DC, Mason PA. 1984. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 193-206.
17. Harhoff D, Scherer FM, Vopel K. 1999. Citations, family size, opposition, and the value of patent rights. Working paper. (http://www.inno-tec.de/forschung/harhoff/citation.pdf)
18. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364): 698-701.
19. Henderson R, Orsenigo L, Pisano G. 1999. The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: interactions among scientific, institutional and organizational change. In The Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds). Cambridge University Press: New York; 267-311.
20. Jaffe AB, Fogarty MS, Banks BA. 1998. Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. Journal of Industrial Economics 46(2): 183-205.
21. Kitch EW. 1977. The nature and function of the patent system. Journal of Law and Economics 20: 265-290.
22. Kortum S, Lerner J. 1999. What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy 28(1): 1-22.
23. Lanjouw JO, Lerner J. 1998. The enforcement of intellectual property rights: a survey of the empirical literature. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique (49-50): 223-246.
24. Lanjouw JO, Lerner J. 2001. Tilting the table? The use of preliminary injunctions. Journal of Law and Economics 44(2): 573-603.
25. Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M. 1997. Stylized facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership. NBER working paper, no. 6297.
26. Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M. 1998. Patent suits: do they distort research incentives? CEPR working paper, no. 2042.
27. Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M. 1999. The quality of ideas: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER working paper, no. 7345.
28. Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics 32(1): 129-151.
29. Lerner J. 1995. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics 38(2): 463-495.
30. Levin RC, Klevorick AK, Nelson RR, Winter SG. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (3): 783-820.
31. Linden G, Somaya D. 2000. System-on-a-chip integration in the semiconductor industry: industry structure and firm strategies. Haas School of Business CCC working paper (available online at: ssrn.com).
32. Lippman S.A, Rumelt, RP. 1982. Uncertain imitability: an analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics 13(2): 418-438.
33. Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C, Babcock L. 1993. Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies 22(1): 135-159.
34. Mansfield E. 1986. Patents and innovation: an empirical study. Management Science 32(2): 173-181.
35. Meng C-L, Schmidt P. 1985. On the cost of partial observability in the bivariate probit model. International Economic Review 26(1): 71-85.
36. Merges RP. 1996. Contracting into liability rules: intellectual property rights and collective rights organizations. California Law Review 84(5): 1293-1393.
37. Merges RP. 1998. Intellectual property rights, input markets, and the value of intangible assets. Working paper, Boalt School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.
38. Merges RP, Nelson RR. 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Journal 90(4):839-916.
39. Meurer MJ. 1989. The settlement of patent litigation. Rand Journal of Economics 20(1): 77-91.
40. Nies HW. 1993. Ten years of patent law development under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. IIC: International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 24(6): 797-802.
41. P'ng IPL. 1983. Strategic behavior in suit, settlement, and trial. Bell Journal of Economics 14(2): 539-550.
42. Priest GL, Klein B. 1984. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13: 1-55.
43. Rivette KG, Kline D. 2000. Discovering hidden value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review 78(1): 54-66.
44. Rumelt RP. 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In Competitive Strategic Management, Lamb RB (ed.). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 556-570.
45. Scherer FM, Harhoff D. 2000. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 29: 559-566.
46. Schweizer U. 1989. Litigation and settlement under two-sided incomplete information. Review of Economic Studies 56: 163-178.
47. Scotchmer S. 1991. Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives 3: 29-41.
48. Siegelman P, Waldfogel J. 1999. Toward a taxonomy of disputes: new evidence through the prism of the Priesst/Klein Model. Journal of Legal Studies 28(1): 101-130.
49. Somaya D. 2000. The duration of patent litigation: firm strategies and litigation tactics in computers and research medicines. Working paper, R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.
50. Somaya D, Teece DJ. 2000. Combining inventions in multi-invention products: organizational choices, intellectual property rights, and public policy. Haas School of Business CCC working paper (available online at: www.ssrn.com).
51. Spier K, Spulber D. 1993. Suit settlement and trial: a theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 55-81.
52. Stefanadis C. 1997. Downstream vertical foreclosure and upstream innovation. Journal of Industrial Economics 45(4): 445-456.
53. Taylor DS. 1992. The sinking of the United States electronics industry within Japanese patent pools. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 26(1): 181-212.
54. Teece DJ. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15(6): 285-305.
55. Teece DJ. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review 40(3): 55-79.
56. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509-533.
57. Trajtenberg M. 1990a. Economic Analysis of Product Innovation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
58. Trajtenberg M. 1990b. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics 21 (1): 172-187.
59. Von Hippel E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.
60. Waldfogel J. 1995. The selection hypothesis and the relationship between trial and plaintiff victory. Journal of Political Economy 103(2): 229-260.
61. Waldfogel J. 1998. Reconciling asymmetric information and divergent expectations theories of litigation. Journal of Law and Economics 41(2): 451-476.
62. Wiersema MF, Bantel KA. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal 35(1): 95-121.