IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/iepoli/v35y2016icp76-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Side payments, litigation risk and settlement outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Ottoz, Elisabetta
  • Cugno, Franco

Abstract

We offer a simple model of patent settlement for examining how litigation prospects, patent strength and expected damage awards affect consumer benefits stemming from settlement agreements providing for per-unit royalties and non-negative fixed fees. The result shows that consumers may be harmed if expected damage payments forgone by settlement lead to agreements with high royalty payments that benefit both the patent holder and licensee at the expense of the consumer.

Suggested Citation

  • Ottoz, Elisabetta & Cugno, Franco, 2016. "Side payments, litigation risk and settlement outcomes," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 76-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:35:y:2016:i:c:p:76-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2016.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167624516300075
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2016.02.001?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. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    2. Choi, Jay Pil, 2009. "Alternative damage rules and probabilistic intellectual property rights: Unjust enrichment, lost profits, and reasonable royalty remedies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 145-157, June.
    3. Schmalensee, Richard, 1988. "Industrial Economics: An Overview," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(392), pages 643-681, September.
    4. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2008. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-1369, September.
    5. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Dixon, Huw D. & Somma, Ernesto, 2003. "The evolution of consistent conjectures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 523-536, August.
    7. Cabral, Luis M. B., 1995. "Conjectural variations as a reduced form," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 397-402, October.
    8. Michael J. Meurer, 1989. "The Settlement of Patent Litigation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 77-91, Spring.
    9. Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Patent Licensing and R&D Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 25-30, May.
    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. Kyung Seo & Yeonbae Kim & Kyunam Kim, 2022. "Strategic and economic behavior of a sued company in patent litigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(8), pages 4124-4138, December.

    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. Ottoz Elisabetta & Cugno Franco, 2012. "Does Banning Side Payments in Patent Settlements Suffice to Fully Protect Consumers?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201201, University of Turin.
    2. Choi, Jay Pil & Gerlach, Heiko, 2019. "Optimal cross-licensing arrangements: Collusion versus entry deterrence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Mark Schankerman & Florian Schuett, 2022. "Patent Screening, Innovation, and Welfare [Innovation, Reallocation, and Growth]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(4), pages 2101-2148.
    4. 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.
    5. Rabah Amir & David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2011. "Per-Unit Royalty vs Fixed Fee: The Case of Weak Patents," Working Papers halshs-00595493, HAL.
    6. Bertrand Chopard & Thomas Cortade & Eric Langlais, 2014. "On patent strength, litigation costs, and patent disputes under alternative damage rules," Working Papers hal-04141316, HAL.
    7. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Müller, W. & Normann, H.T., 2003. "Conjectural Variations and Evolutionary Stability : A New Rationale for Consistency," Discussion Paper 2003-44, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Philippe, 2009. "Contributory infringement rule and patents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 296-310, May.
    10. Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, 2015. "Different Rules of Legal-Cost Allocation and Patent Holdup," Research in Law and Economics, in: Economic and Legal Issues in Competition, Intellectual Property, Bankruptcy, and the Cost of Raising Children, volume 27, pages 143-159, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Chen, Yongmin, 2020. "Improving market performance in the digital economy," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    12. Robert M. Hunt, 2006. "When Do More Patents Reduce R&D?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 87-91, May.
    13. Schankerman, Mark & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality : Examination, Fees, and the Courts," Other publications TiSEM fa319822-6e68-4e05-8547-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Jay Pil Choi, 2003. "Pools and Cross-Licensing in the Shadow of Patent Litigation," CESifo Working Paper Series 1070, CESifo.
    15. Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2010. "Patent Damages And Spatial Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 279-305, June.
    16. Barrenechea, Martin, 2015. "Process innovations, patent litigation and time effects," MPRA Paper 65842, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. 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.
    18. Ilkka Leppänen, 2018. "Evolutionarily stable conjectures and other regarding preferences in duopoly games," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 347-364, April.
    19. Enrico Böhme & Jonas Severin Frank & Wolfgang Kerber, 2021. "Optimal Incentives for Patent Challenges in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(3), pages 503-528, November.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumers' welfare; Infringement damages; Licensing; Patent settlements;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:eee:iepoli:v:35:y:2016:i:c:p:76-81. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505549 .

    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.