IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i12d10.1007_s11192-022-04500-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Universities involvement in patent litigation: an analysis of the characteristics of US litigated patents

Author

Listed:
  • Grazia Sveva Ascione

    (University of Turin
    University of Bordeaux)

  • Laura Ciucci

    (Gran Sasso Science Institute
    University of Corsica)

  • Claudio Detotto

    (University of Corsica
    Centre for North South Economic Research (CRENoS))

  • Valerio Sterzi

    (University of Bordeaux)

Abstract

Some recent patent infringement litigations initiated by universities have resulted in multi-million dollar damages and have attracted public attention and stimulated research especially among law scholars. In this paper, we build a brand new database that include patents filed by universities at the United States and Trademark Office (USPTO), their characteristics and, eventually, the information about whether they have been used in infringements lawsuits by universities in the years 1990–2019. Our study is articulated in two parts. First, we show that, although it is still a quite rare phenomenon, patent litigation involving universities has been significantly growing in the last 2 decades. Second, we study the characteristics of university patents that have been litigated vis-à-vis non-litigated university patents. In this respect, we find that public universities and non-US universities are less inclined to litigate their patents compared to private and US universities. In addition, we also find that patent quality is an important determinant in the decision of university litigation. This result holds for patents in the Electrical Engineering sector, which is traditionally prone to opportunistic litigation, and no matter what type of university involved (public vs private, or US vs non-US).

Suggested Citation

  • Grazia Sveva Ascione & Laura Ciucci & Claudio Detotto & Valerio Sterzi, 2022. "Universities involvement in patent litigation: an analysis of the characteristics of US litigated patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6855-6879, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04500-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04500-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04500-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04500-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2002. "Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 73-89, January.
    3. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    4. Sterzi, Valerio & Rameshkoumar, Jean-Paul & Van Der Pol, Johannes, 2021. "Non-practicing entities and transparency of patent ownership in Europe: the case of UK dormant companies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:05 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    7. Valerio Sterzi & Michele Pezzoni & Francesco Lissoni, 2019. "Patent management by universities: evidence from Italian academic inventions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 309-330.
    8. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    9. Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
    10. Chowdhury, K.P., 2021. "Functional analysis of generalized linear models under non-linear constraints with applications to identifying highly-cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    11. Tong, Xuesong & Frame, J. Davidson, 1994. "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 133-141, March.
    12. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    13. Cédric Gossart & Altay Özaygen & Müge Özman, 2020. "Are Litigated Patents More Valuable? The Case of LEDs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 825-844, September.
    14. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    15. Lee Branstetter, 2010. "Exploring the Link between Academic Science and Industrial Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 119-142, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    17. Shane, Scott & Somaya, Deepak, 2007. "The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 739-755, August.
    18. Scott Shane & Deepak Somaya, 2007. "The Effects of Patent Litigation on University Licensing Efforts," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Cédric Gossart & Altay Özaygen & Müge Özman, 2020. "Are Litigated Patents More Valuable? The Case of LEDs," Post-Print hal-03825276, HAL.
    20. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    21. Bart Verspagen, 2006. "University Research, Intellectual Property Rights And European Innovation Systems," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 607-632, September.
    22. James E. Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2006. "Patent Litigation with Endogenous Disputes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 77-81, May.
    23. Nicolas Carayol & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The transfer and value of academic inventions when the TTO is one option," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 338-367, May.
    24. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    25. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    26. Hsin-Ning Su & Carey Ming-Li Chen & Pei-Chun Lee, 2012. "Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 181-195, July.
    27. Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants--the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 443-480, April.
    28. G.S Ascione & L. Ciucci & C. Detotto & V. Sterzi, 2021. "Do universities look like patent trolls? An Empirical Study of University Patent Infringement Litigation in the United States," Working Paper CRENoS 202105, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    29. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    30. Lauren Cohen & Umit G. Gurun & Scott Duke Kominers, 2019. "Patent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5461-5486, December.
    31. Cédric Gossart & Altay Seref Ozaygen & Müge Özman Gossart, 2020. "Are litigated patents more valuable ? The case of LEDs," Post-Print hal-02331646, HAL.
    32. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    33. Kiebzak, Stephen & Rafert, Greg & Tucker, Catherine E., 2016. "The effect of patent litigation and patent assertion entities on entrepreneurial activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 218-231.
    34. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    35. Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Hélène Dernis & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2013/3, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Valerio STERZI & Cécilia MARONERO & Gianluca ORSATTI & Andrea VEZZULLI, 2021. "Non-Practicing Entities in Europe: an Empirical Analysis of Patent Acquisitions at the European Patent Office," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2021-23, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    3. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    4. Cédric Gossart & Altay Özaygen & Müge Özman, 2020. "Are Litigated Patents More Valuable? The Case of LEDs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 825-844, September.
    5. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    6. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Patent Attributes on the Value of Discrete and Complex Innovations," Papers 2208.07222, arXiv.org.
    7. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2021. "Identification of “Valuable” Technologies via Patent Statistics in India: An Analysis Based on Renewal Information," BASE University Working Papers 13/2021, BASE University, Bengaluru, India.
    8. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    9. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    10. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    11. Sterzi, Valerio & Maronero, Cecilia & Orsatti, Gianluca & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2023. "Non-Practicing Entities and their patent acquisition activity in Europe," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202306, University of Turin.
    12. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Yann Ménière & Myra Mohnen, 2017. "International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 793-828, May.
    13. Way-Ren Huang & Chia-Jen Hsieh & Ke-Chiun Chang & Yen-Jo Kiang & Chien-Chung Yuan & Woei-Chyn Chu, 2017. "Network characteristics and patent value—Evidence from the Light-Emitting Diode industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, August.
    14. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    15. Nicolas Carayol & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The transfer and value of academic inventions when the TTO is one option," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 338-367, May.
    16. BEKKERS Rudi & RAITERI Emilio & MARTINELLI Arianna & MAS TUR Elena, 2020. "Landscape study of potentially essential patents disclosed to ETSI.: A study carried out in the context of the EC 'Pilot study for essentiality assessment of Standard Essential Patents' project," JRC Research Reports JRC121411, Joint Research Centre.
    17. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    18. Sterzi, Valerio & Maronero, Cecilia & Orsatti, Gianluca & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2023. "Non-Practicing Entities and their patent acquisition activity in Europe," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 202322, University of Turin.
    19. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    20. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent litigation; Patent quality; University patents;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04500-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.