Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation

Research Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 179-191

  Sherry, Edward F ^a,b   Teece, David J ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Law and Economics Consulting Group   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Intellectual property; Patent rights; Value of innovation

Indexed keywords

PATENT LITIGATION; PATENT RIGHTS; ROYALTIES; VALUE OF INNOVATION;

COMPETITION; COPYRIGHTS; COSTS; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MANAGERS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; TRADEMARKS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 1242298858     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00088-X     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Allison J., Lemley M. Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents. AIPLA Quarterly Journal. 26:1998;185-275.
2. Besen, S., 1998. Intellectual property. In: Newman, P. (Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, vol. 2, Macmillan Reference Ltd., pp. 348-351.
3. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., Walsh, J., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper no. 7552.
4. Hay, B., Spier, K., 1998. Settlement of litigation. In: Newman, P. (Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, vol. 3, Macmillan Reference Ltd., pp. 442-450.
5. Kalos S., Putnam J. On the incomparability of 'comparables': an economic interpretation of 'infringer's royalties'. Journal of Proprietary Rights. 9(4):1997;2-5.
6. Kessler D., Meites T., Miller G. Explaining deviations from the 50-percent rule - a multimodal approach to the selection of cases for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies. 25:1996;233-259.
7. Lanjouw J. Patent value in the shadow of infringement: simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies. 65:1998;671-710.
8. Lanjouw J., Schankerman M. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics. 32:2001;129-151.
9. Lanjouw J., Pakes A., Putnam J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: the uses of patent renewal and application data. Journal of Industrial Economics. 46:1998;405-432.
10. Levin R., Klevorick A., Nelson R., Winter S. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 3:1987;783-820.
11. Pakes, A.S., Schankerman, M., 1984. The rate of obsolescense of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In: Griliches, Z. (Ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
12. Priest G., Klein B. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies. 22:1984;1-55.
13. Schankerman M. How valuable is patent protection: estimates by technology field. RAND Journal of Economics. 29:1998;77-107.
14. Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy. 15:1986;285-305.
15. Waldfogel J. The selection hypothesis and the relationship between trial and plaintiff victory. Journal of Political Economics. 103:1995;229-260.
16. Waldfogel, J., 1998. Selection of cases for trial. In: Newman, P. (Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, vol. 3, Macmillan Reference Ltd., pp. 419-424.