IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jemstr/v16y2007i2p385-405.html

Preliminary Injunctions and Damage Rules in Patent Law

Author

Listed:
  • John R. Boyce
  • Aidan Hollis

Abstract

This paper shows that preliminary injunctions may be sought in patent cases to obtain market power during the period of the injunction and are likely to be sought only where there is a small probability that the patent will be ultimately found valid. Both patentee and alleged infringer benefit from a preliminary injunction. This is an artifact of the asymmetry of current damage rules. Altering the rules so that an innovator who wins a preliminary injunction on a patent ultimately declared invalid pays both lost profits to the imitator and a fine equal to lost consumer surplus creates efficient incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • John R. Boyce & Aidan Hollis, 2007. "Preliminary Injunctions and Damage Rules in Patent Law," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 385-405, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jemstr:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:385-405
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00143.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00143.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00143.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Tilting the Table? The Use of Preliminary Injunctions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 573-603, October.
    2. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    3. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    4. Reiko Aoki & Jin-Li Hu, 2003. "Time Factors of Patent Litigation and Licensing," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 159(2), pages 280-301, June.
    5. Jean O. Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 1996. "Preliminary Injunctive Relief: Theory and Evidence from Patent Litigation," NBER Working Papers 5689, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Reiko Aoki & Jin‐Li Hu, 1999. "Licensing vs. Litigation: The Effect of the Legal System on Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 133-160, March.
    7. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cremers, Katrin & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian, 2014. "Invalid but infringed? An analysis of Germany's bifurcated patent litigation system," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-072, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    3. Francisco Ramos Romeu, 2010. "An economic theory of the regulation of preliminary measures," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 267-300, December.
    4. Thomas D. Jeitschko & Byung-Cheol Kim, 2013. "Signaling, Learning, and Screening Prior to Trial: Informational Implications of Preliminary Injunctions," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 1085-1113, October.
    5. Rasmus Arler Bogetoft & Peter Bogetoft, 2022. "Market entrance, patents, and preliminary injunctions: a model of pharmaceutical patent litigation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 379-423, June.
    6. Cremers, Katrin & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian & Lefouili, Yassine, 2016. "Invalid but infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 218-242.

    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. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    2. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    3. Jürgen Mihm & Fabian J. Sting & Tan Wang, 2015. "On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation Races," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2662-2684, November.
    4. Philipp N. Baecker, 2007. "Real Options and Intellectual Property," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-48264-2, March.
    5. Jeon, Haejun, 2019. "Patent protection and R&D subsidy under asymmetric information," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 332-354.
    6. Aoki, R. & Spiegel, Y., 1998. "Public Disclosure of Patent Applications, R&D, and Welfare," Papers 30-98, Tel Aviv.
    7. Robert M. Hunt, 2006. "When Do More Patents Reduce R&D?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 87-91, May.
    8. Carl Shapiro, 2008. "Patent Reform: Aligning Reward and Contribution," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 111-156, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Barrenechea, Martin, 2015. "Process innovations, patent litigation and time effects," MPRA Paper 65842, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Reiko Aoki & Jin‐Li Hu, 1999. "Licensing vs. Litigation: The Effect of the Legal System on Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 133-160, March.
    11. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
    12. Llobet, Gerard, 2003. "Patent litigation when innovation is cumulative," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1135-1157, October.
    13. Illoong Kwon, 2012. "Patent Thicket, Secrecy, and Licensing," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 28, pages 27-49.
    14. Tang, Puay, 2005. "Digital copyright and the "new" controversy: Is the law moulding technology and innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 852-871, August.
    15. Reiko Aoki & Jin-Li Hu, 2003. "Time Factors of Patent Litigation and Licensing," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 159(2), pages 280-301, June.
    16. Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2004. "The Relationship Between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law: An Economic Approach," Economics Discussion Papers 2851, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    17. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    18. Bertrand Chopard & Thomas Cortade & Eric Langlais, 2014. "On patent strength, litigation costs, and patent disputes under alternative damage rules," Working Papers hal-04141316, HAL.
    19. Rasmus Arler Bogetoft & Peter Bogetoft, 2022. "Market entrance, patents, and preliminary injunctions: a model of pharmaceutical patent litigation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 379-423, June.
    20. Malte Mosel, 2011. "Big patents, small secrets: how firms protect inventions when R&D outcome is heterogeneous," Working Papers 105, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).

    More about this item

    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:bla:jemstr:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:385-405. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/journals/JEMS/ .

    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.