IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v70y2022i2p396-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent Licensing, Non‐Practising Entities, and Investment in R&D

Author

Listed:
  • James Bergin

Abstract

This paper studies the impact of Non‐Practising Entities (NPE's) on investment in innovation. The issue is considered in an environment with strategic investment behavior and licensing. Patent strength turns out to be central in determining the impact of an NPE on innovation. A patenting scheme which assigns rights only to incremental innovation improvement (relative to the innovations of competitors) raises aggregate investment relative to a ‘winner‐takes‐all’ scheme. In a ‘winner‐takes‐all’ scheme the most successful/encompassing innovation obtains all the intellectual property rights, and less successful innovators none, and in this environment the presence of an NPE negatively impacts aggregate investment.

Suggested Citation

  • James Bergin, 2022. "Patent Licensing, Non‐Practising Entities, and Investment in R&D," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 396-462, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:70:y:2022:i:2:p:396-462
    DOI: 10.1111/joie.12289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12289
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joie.12289?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. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    2. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
    3. 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.
    4. Pascale Crama & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "Milestone Payments or Royalties? Contract Design for R&D Licensing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1539-1552, December.
    5. Talia Bar, 2006. "Defensive Publications in an R&D Race," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 229-254, March.
    6. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    7. Anne Layne-Farrar & A. Jorge Padilla & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments," Working Papers wp2007_0702, CEMFI.
    8. Thomas R Varner, 2011. "An Economic Perspective on Patent Licensing Structure and Provisions," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 229-238, October.
    9. William D. Nordhaus, 1967. "The Optimal Life of a Patent," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 241, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. 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.
    11. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    12. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    13. Crama, Pascale & De Reyck, Bert & Degraeve, Zeger, 2013. "Step by step. The benefits of stage-based R&D licensing contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(3), pages 572-582.
    14. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    15. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    16. Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques‐François Thisse, 1998. "Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    17. Can Erutku & Yves Richelle, 2007. "Optimal Licensing Contracts and the Value of a Patent," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 407-436, June.
    18. Nancy T. Gallini & Ralph A. Winter, 1985. "Licensing in the Theory of Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 237-252, Summer.
    19. Turner, John L., 2018. "Input complementarity, patent trolls and unproductive entrepreneurship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 168-203.
    20. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    21. Nordhaus, William D, 1972. "The Optimum Life on a Patent: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 428-431, June.
    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. 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. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Gamba, Simona, 2017. "The Effect of Intellectual Property Rights on Domestic Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 15-27.
    4. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041.
    5. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, number 2009_041.
    6. Yongmin Chen & David E.M. Sappington, 2018. "An optimal rule for patent damages under sequential innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 370-397, June.
    7. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Davin Chor & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2013. "Cumulative Innovation, Growth and Welfare-Improving Patent Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 4407, CESifo.
    10. Yang, Xuebing, 2013. "Horizontal inventive step and international protection of intellectual property," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 338-355.
    11. repec:zbw:bofism:2009_041 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Robert M. Hunt, 2004. "Patentability, Industry Structure, and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 401-425, September.
    13. Jeon, Haejun & Nishihara, Michi, 2018. "Optimal patent policy in the presence of vertical separation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 682-697.
    14. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    15. Chen, Yongmin & Pan, Shiyuan & Zhang, Tianle, 2014. "(When) Do stronger patents increase continual innovation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 115-124.
    16. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    17. Cevikarslan, Salih, 2013. "Optimal patent length and patent breadth in an R&D driven market with evolving consumer preferences: An evolutionary multi-agent based modelling approach," MERIT Working Papers 2013-020, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Ding, Rong & Ko, Chiu Yu, 2021. "Does licensing improve welfare with rent dissipation?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    19. Krasteva, Silvana & Sharma, Priyanka & Wang, Chu, 2020. "Patent policy, imitation incentives, and the rate of cumulative innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 509-533.
    20. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    21. Scotchmer, suzanne, 1998. "The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt2s5174q8, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.

    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:jindec:v:70:y:2022:i:2:p:396-462. 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.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    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.