IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v70y2009i1-2p296-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contributory infringement rule and patents

Author

Listed:
  • Langinier, Corinne
  • Marcoul, Philippe

Abstract

The contributory infringement rule assesses liability to a third party that contributes to the infringement of a patent. Not only are firms that directly infringe liable, but those that indirectly contribute are also liable. We investigate how this rule affects the creation of a network of members (e.g., an e-commerce network). We find that the enforcement of indirect liability does not induce more trials in equilibrium. Firms settle out-of-court, but because of the threat of trial, the network size decreases and the social welfare is reduced. Surprisingly, we find that if the compensation paid by the indirect infringers is high, the rule does not benefit the patentholder and may not even give enough R&D incentives ex ante. It is possible to find a direct compensation for the patentholder that is socially preferable.

Suggested Citation

  • Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Philippe, 2009. "Contributory infringement rule and patents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 296-310, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:70:y:2009:i:1-2:p:296-310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-2681(08)00211-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, 2007. "An Empirical Look at Software Patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 157-189, March.
    2. Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason & Hal Varian, 1994. "Economic FAQs About the Internet," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 75-96, Summer.
    3. Jacques Crémer & Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, 2000. "Connectivity in the Commercial Internet," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 433-472, December.
    4. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2005. "Economic Theories of Settlement Bargaining," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0508, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    6. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1996. "Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 191-210, April.
    7. William Landes & Douglas Lichtman, 2003. "Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: Napster and Beyond," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 113-124, Spring.
    8. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    9. Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring.
    10. Shapiro, Carl, 2001. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt87s5j911, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    11. Claude Crampes & Corinne Langinier, 2002. "Litigation and Settlement in Patent Infringement Cases," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 258-274, Summer.
    12. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    13. Cremer, Jacques, 2000. "Network externalities and universal service obligation in the internet," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4-6), pages 1021-1031, May.
    14. Bruce Hay & Kathryn E. Spier, 2005. "Manufacturer Liability for Harms Caused by Consumers to Others," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1700-1711, December.
    15. James Boyd & Daniel E. Ingberman, 2003. "Fly by Night or Face the Music? Premature Dissolution and the Desirability of Extended Liability," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 5(1), pages 189-232.
    16. Michael J. Meurer, 1989. "The Settlement of Patent Litigation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 77-91, Spring.
    17. Schankerman, Mark & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "Damages and Injunctions in Protecting Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 199-220, Spring.
    18. Cremer, Jacques & Hariton, Cyril, 1999. "The Pricing of Critical Applications in the Internet," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 281-310, December.
    19. Aoki, Reiko & Hu, Jin, 1999. "A Cooperative Game Approach to Patent Litigation, Settlement, and Allocation of Legal Costs," Working Papers 216, Department of Economics, The University of Auckland.
    20. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:4:p:433-72 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Zhang, Gupeng & Lv, Xiaofeng & Zhou, Jianghua, 2014. "Private value of patent right and patent infringement: An empirical study based on patent renewal data of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 37-54.

    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. Haejun Jeon, 2016. "Patent litigation and cross licensing with cumulative innovation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 119(3), pages 179-218, November.
    3. Philipp N. Baecker, 2007. "Real Options and Intellectual Property," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-48264-2, December.
    4. Johnson, Justin P., 2014. "Defensive publishing by a leading firm," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 15-27.
    5. Bertrand Chopard & Thomas Cortade & Eric Langlais, 2014. "On patent strength, litigation costs, and patent disputes under alternative damage rules," Working Papers hal-04141316, HAL.
    6. Kimberlee Weatherall & Elizabeth Webster, 2014. "Patent Enforcement: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 312-343, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Mark Schankerman & Florian Schuett, 2022. "Patent Screening, Innovation, and Welfare," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(4), pages 2101-2148.
    10. Robert M. Hunt, 2006. "When Do More Patents Reduce R&D?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 87-91, May.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Xinyu Hua & Kathryn E. Spier, 2023. "Settling Lawsuits With Pirates," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(2), pages 543-575, May.
    14. Yann Ménière & Sarah Parlane, 2004. "A dynamic model of cross licensing," Working Papers 200424, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    15. Andreas Panagopoulos & In-Uck Park, 2016. "Patenting vs. Secrecy for Startups and the Trade of Patents as Negotiating Assets," Working Papers 1610, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    16. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, November.
    17. Lampert, Hodaya & Wettstein, David, 2020. "Patents and pools in pyramidal innovation structures," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Siebert, Ralph & von Graevenitz, Georg, 2010. "Jostling for advantage or not: Choosing between patent portfolio races and ex ante licensing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 225-245, February.
    19. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2015. "Patent pools, litigation, and innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 499-523, September.
    20. Ganguly, Madhuparna, 2024. "Stronger Patent Regime, Innovation and Scientist Mobility," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
    • 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:jeborg:v:70:y:2009:i:1-2:p:296-310. 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/jebo .

    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.