Typology of the patent troll business

R and D Management

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 103-120

  Pohlmann, Tim ^a   Opitz, Marieke ^b  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874309501     PISSN: 00336807     EISSN: 14679310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/radm.12003     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ann, C. (2009) Patent trolls - menace or myth? Patents and technological progress in a globalized world MPI studies on intellectual property. Competition and Tax Law, 6, 6, 355-364.
2. Ball, G. and Kesan, J.P. (2009) Transaction costs and trolls: strategic behavior by individual inventors, small firms and entrepreneurs in patent litigation. U Illinois Law and Economics Research Paper No. LE09-005.
3. Benassi, M. and Di Minin, A. (2009) Playing in between: patent brokers in markets for technology. R&D Management, 39, 1, 68-86.
4. Bensen, S.M. and Levinson, R.J. (2009) Standards, intellectual property disclosure and patent royalties after Rambus. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 10, 2, 233-282.
5. Bessen, J., Ford, J., and Meurer, M. (2011) The private and social costs of patent trolls. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45.
6. Bessen, J. and Meurer, M.J. (2008) Patent Failure. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
7. Blind, K. and Gauch, S. (2008) Trends in ICT standards: the relationship between European standardization bodies and standards consortia. Telecommunications Policy, 32, 503-513.
8. Chien, C.V. (2009) Of trolls, David's, Goliaths, and kings: narratives and evidence in the litigation of high-tech patents. North Carolina Law Review, 87, 1571, 1577-1579.
9. Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research Design; Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
10. Devlin, A. (2009) Standard-setting and the failure of price competition. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 65, 217, 262-217263.
11. Diessel, B.H. (2007) Trolling for trolls: the pitfalls of the emerging market competition requirement for permanent injunctions in patent cases post-EBAY. Michigan Law Review, 305, 106-305.
12. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14-4, 532-550.
13. Fischer, T. and Henkel, J. (2009) Patent trolls on markets for technology - an empirical analysis of trolls' patent acquisitions. Proceedings of the TIM Division Academy of Management Meeting 2010.
14. Geradin, D., Layne-Farrar, A., and Padilla, J. (2011) Elves or trolls? The role of nonpracticing patent owners in the innovation economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21, 1, 73-94.
15. Golden, J.M. (2007) Patent trolls and patent remedies. Texas Law Review, 85, 2111-2161.
16. Henkel, J. and Reitzig, M. (2007) Patent sharks and the sustainability of value destruction strategies. working paper series.
17. Henkel, J. and Reitzig, M. (2008) Patent sharks. Harvard Business Review, 129-133.
18. Hovenkamp, H.J. (2008) Patent continuations, patent deception, and standard setting: the Rambus and Broadcom decisions. working paper.
19. Layne-Farrar, A. and Schmidt, K.M. (2010) Licensing complementary patents: 'Patent Trolls', market structure, and 'excessive' royalties. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25, 1121-1143.
20. Lemley, M. (2007) Are universities patent trolls? Stanford Public Law Working Paper, No. 980776.
21. Lemley, M. and Shapiro, C. (2007) Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Review, 85, 1991-2048.
22. Lerner, J. (2006) Trolls on state street? The litigation of financial patents. Working Paper, 1976-2005.
23. Levko, A., Barry, C., Torrres, V., and Marvin, R. (2009) A closer look: patent litigation trends and the increasing impact of non-practicing entities. PWC Patent Litigation Study.
24. Luman, J.F. and Dodson, C.L. (2006) No Longer a myth, the emergence of the patent troll: stifling innovation, increasing litigation, and extorting billions. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 18, 5, 12-16.
25. Magliocca, G.N. (2007) Blackberries and barnyards: Patent trolls and the perils of innovation. Notre Dame Law Review, 82, 5, 1809-1838.
26. McDonough, J. (2006) 'The Myth of the patent troll: an alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy. Emory LJ, HeinOnline.
27. Merges, R.P. (2009) The trouble with patent trolls. Innovation, rent seeking and patent law reform. Berkley Technology Law Journal, 24, 4, 1584-1614.
28. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Mintzberg, H. (1979) An emerging strategy of 'direct' re-search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 580-589.
30. Niro, R.P. and Greenspoon, R.P. (2007) Are patent trolls really undermining the patent system? The Licensing Journal, 21, 8-14.
31. Ohly, A. (2008) 'Patenttrolle' oder: Der patentrechtliche Unterlassungsanspruch unter Verhältnismäßigkeitsvorbehalt? - Aktuelle Entwicklungen im US-Patentrecht und ihre Bedeutung für das deutsche und europäische Patentsystem. GRUR Int, 10, 787-798.
32. Pohlmann, T. and Blind, K. (2011) Firms' cooperative activities as driving factors of patent declaration on technological standards. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Standards and Innovation Technology, ISBN: 987-1-4577-2020-8.
33. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., and Heath, C. (2007) On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey - unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of 'being infringed'. Research Policy, 36, 134-154.
34. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., and Schneider, F. (2010) Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 3, 947-996.
35. Rubin, S. (2007) Defending the patent troll: why these allegedly nefarious companies are actually beneficial to innovation. The Journal of Private Equity, 10, 4, 60-63.
36. Rysman, M. and Simcoe, T. (2011) A NAASTy alternative to RAND pricing commitments. Telecommunications Policy, 35-11, 1010-1017.
37. Sag, M. and Rohde, K. (2006) Patent reform and differential impact. Bepress Legal Series, 1, 20-33.
38. Salant, J. (2007) Formulas for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty determination. Conference Proceedings Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology: SIIT 2007.
39. Schmalensee, R. (2009) Standard-setting, innovation specialists and competition policy. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57, 3, 526-552.
40. Shapiro, C. (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Working paper. In: Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., and Stern, S. (eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy. 1, (Eds), Chicago: MIT Press. pp. 119-150.
41. Shrestha, S. (2010) Trolls or market-makers? An empirical analysis of non-practicing entities. Columbia Law Review, 110, 114-160.
42. Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Steiner, T. and Guth, S. (2005) Beware patent trolls. Management Quarterly, Fall 2005, 38-51.
44. Tansey, R., Neal, M., and Carroll, R. (2005) Get rich or die trying: lessons from Rambus' high-risk predatory litigation in the semiconductor industry. Industry and Innovation, 12, 93-115.
45. Tarantino, E. (2010) A model of technology adoption in standard setting organizations. Conference Proceedings INTERTIC Conference on Competition in High Tech Markets: Milan 2010.
46. Teece, D.J. (2000) Managing Intellectual Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
47. Tucker, C. (2011) Patent Trolls and Technology Adoption. Workshop & Lecture Series on Technology: Policy, Law & Economics. pp. 1-28. Zürich: ETH Zurich.
48. U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (2003) To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. A Report by the Federal Trade Commission.
49. Veer, T. and Jell, F. (2012) Contributing to markets for technology? A comparison of patent filing motives of individual inventors, small companies and universities. Technovation (in print).
50. Walsham, G. (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester: Wiley.
51. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.