On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey-Unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of "being infringed"

Research Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 134-154

  Reitzig, Markus ^a   Henkel, Joachim ^b,c   Heath, Christopher ^d  

^a LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c CEPR   (United Kingdom)

^d EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Damage award; Infringement; Patent; Patent shark; Patent troll

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

DAMAGE AWARD; PATENT SHARK; PATENT TROLL;

STRATEGIC PLANNING;

EID: 33846343211     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Agrawal, A., Garlappi, L., 2002. Public sector science and the strategy of the commons. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.
2. Arora A., Fosfuri A., and Gambardella A. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
3. Arora A., and Ceccagnoli M. Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms' incentives for technology licensing. Management Science 52 2 (2006) 293-308
4. Arrow K.J. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R. (Ed). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (1962), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
5. Bekkers R., Duysters G., and Verspagen B. Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: the case of GSM. Research Policy 31 7 (2002) 1141-1161
6. Bessen, J., Meurer, M., in press. Patent Litigation with Endogenous Disputes, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings.
7. Blair R.D., and Cotter T.F. Rethinking patent damages. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 10 (2001) 1-93
8. Blind K., Edler J., Frietsch R., and Schmoch U. Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy 35 (2006) 655-672
9. Brinkhof J. The enforcement of patent rights in the Netherlands. International Review of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 706-722
10. Casucci G. The enforcement of patent rights in Italy. International Review of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 692-705
11. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552.
12. Crampes C., and Langinier C. Litigation and settlement in patent infringement cases. RAND Journal of Economics 33 (2002) 258-274
13. Cornish W., and Llewelyn D. The enforcement of patents in the United Kingdom. International Review of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 627-645
14. Edison, T., 1898. Interview in Scientific American 78 (2): 19. Reprinted on the www at http://www.myoutbox.net/posa78n.htm, accessed on January 4, 2006.
15. Gallini N. Patent policy and costly imitation. RAND Journal of Economics 23 (1992) 52-63
16. Gallini N.T., and Scotchmer S. Intellectual property: when is it the best incentive system?. In: Jaffe A., Lerner J., and Stern S. (Eds). Innovation Policy and the Economy vol. 2 (2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
17. Gilbert R., and Shapiro C. Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1990) 106-112
18. Graham, S., 2004. Continuation, Complementarity, and Capturing Value: Three Studies Exploring Firms'Complementary Uses of Appropriability Mechanisms in Technological Innovation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
19. Grossman G., and Helpman E. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (1991), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
20. Hall, B., Ham Ziedonis, R., 2001. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, Rand Journal of Economics 32, 101-128.
21. Hall B.H., and Harhoff D. Post-grant reviews in the U.S. patent system-design choices and expected impact. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 19 1 (2004) 1-29
22. Heath C. The enforcement of patent rights in Japan. International Review of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 749-770
23. Heath C., Henkel J., and Reitzig M. Patent Indemnification Rules-and International Legal Comparison (2005), Munich/Copenhagen, Mimeo
24. Henkel, J., von Hippel, E., 2003. Welfare Aspects of User Innovation, Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
25. Kash D., and Kingston W. Patents in a world of complex technologies. Science and Public Policy 28 1 (2001) 11-22
26. Klemperer P. How broad should the scope of patent protection be?. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1990) 113-130
27. Kortum S., and Lerner J. What is behind the recent surge in patenting?. Research Policy 28 1 (1999) 1-22
28. Lanjouw J.O., and Lerner J. Tilting the table? The predatory use of preliminary injunctions. The Journal of Law and Economics XLTV (2001) 573-603
29. Lanjouw, J.O., 1994. Economic consequences of a changing litigation environment: the case of patents. NBER Working Paper 4835.
30. Lanjouw, J.O., Shankerman, M., 1997. Stylized facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership, N NBER Working Paper 6297.
31. Lemley, M., 2000. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, Berkeley Program in Law and Economics Working Paper Series, 19.
32. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. Rand Journal of Economics 25 2 (1994) 319-333
33. Lowe R., and Ziedonis A. Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Science 52 2 (2006) 173-186
34. Maloney D. The Enforcement of patent rights in the United States. International Review of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 723-748
35. Marshall H. The enforcement of patent rights in Germany. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 646-676
36. Macdonald S. When means becomes ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation. Information Economics and Policy 16 (2004) 135-158
37. Merges R.P., and Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90 (1990) 839-916
38. Mowery D., Nelson R., Sampat B., and Ziedonis A. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy 30 (2001) 99-119
39. Nelson R. The simple economics of basic research. Journal of Political Economy 67 (1959) 297-306
40. Nordhaus W.D. Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change (1969), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
41. Petit L. The enforcement of patent rights in France. International Review of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law 31 (2000) 669-691
42. Quillen, C.D., Webster, O., 2000. Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent Office, Mimeo.
43. Reitzig M. The private values of "Thickets" and "Fences"-towards and updated picture of the use of patents across industries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13 5 (2004) 457-476
44. Schankerman M., and Scotchmer S. Damages and injunctions in the protection of intellectual property. RAND Journal of Economics 32 (2001) 199-200
45. Schmookler J. Invention and Economic Growth (1966), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
46. Singh J. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science 51 5 (2005) 756-770
47. Sorenson, O., Singh, J., Fleming, L., 2005. Science, Social Networks, and Spillovers. Working Paper, London Business School.
48. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 (1986) 285-305
49. Ziedonis R. Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategy of firms. Management Science 50 6 (2004) 804-820