IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions

  • Fischer, Timo
  • Henkel, Joachim
Registered author(s):

    Patent trolls, or NPEs, appropriate profits from innovation solely by enforcing patents against infringers. They are often characterized as relying on low-quality patents, an assessment that, if correct, would imply that eradicating such patents would effectively terminate the NPE business. In this paper, we shed light on this issue by empirically analyzing NPEs’ patent acquisitions. We draw on a unique dataset of 392 U.S. patents acquired by known NPEs between 1997 and 2006, which we compare to three control groups of 784 U.S. patents each acquired by practicing firms. We find that the probability that a traded patent is acquired by an NPE rather than a practicing entity increases in the scope of the patent, in the patent density of its technology field and, contrary to common belief, in the patent's technological quality. Our findings thus support recent theoretical propositions about the NPE business model, showing that NPEs procure patents that are more likely to be infringed, harder to substitute for, and robust to legal challenges. The fact that NPE-acquired patents are of significantly higher quality than those in the control group implies that elevating minimum patent quality will not put an end to the NPE business, and suggests that this business is sustainable in the long run. We furthermore discuss the fact that NPEs are peculiar players on markets for technology insofar as they are solely interested in the exclusion right, not in the underlying knowledge. We posit that transactions involving NPEs may only be the tip of the iceberg of “patent-only” transactions, a conjecture with strong implications for the efficiency and the study of markets for technologies. Managerial and policy implications are discussed.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312001394
    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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

    Volume (Year): 41 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 9 ()
    Pages: 1519-1533

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:9:p:1519-1533
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Siebert, Ralph Bernd & Graevenitz, Georg von, 2010. "Licensing in the Patent Thicket - Timing and Benefits," MPRA Paper 24007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708.
    3. van Zeebroeck, Nicolas & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Guellec, Dominique, 2009. "Claiming more: the Increased Voluminosity of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1006-1020, July.
    4. Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Improving patent valuations for management purposes--validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 939-957, September.
    5. Alfonso Gambardella & Paola Giuri & Alessandra Luzzi, 2006. "The Market for Patents in Europe," LEM Papers Series 2006/04, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
    7. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2005. "The Patent Litigation Explosion," Working Papers 0501, Research on Innovation.
    8. Müller, Elisabeth & MacGarvie, Megan J. & Cockburn, Iain M., 2008. "Patent Thickets, Licensing and Innovative Performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-101, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    9. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, June.
    10. Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2002. "Determinants of Opposition Against EPO Patent Grants - The Case of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals," CEPR Discussion Papers 3645, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. 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.
    12. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    13. 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.
    14. 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 129-51, Spring.
    15. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    16. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk
      [Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk]
      ," Introductory Chapters, Princeton University Press.
    17. Wesley M Cohen & Richard R Nelson & John P Walsh, 2003. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not)," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000624, David K. Levine.
    18. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    19. Lemley, Mark A & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8638s257, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    20. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    21. von Graevenitz, Georg & Wagner, Stefan & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2011. "How to measure patent thickets--A novel approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 6-9, April.
    22. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2010. "Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 472-503.
    24. Sorenson, Olav & Rivkin, Jan W. & Fleming, Lee, 2006. "Complexity, networks and knowledge flow," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 994-1017, September.
    25. Reitzig, Markus & Henkel, Joachim & Heath, Christopher, 2007. "On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey--Unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of "being infringed"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 134-154, February.
    26. Don E Kash & William Kingston, 2001. "Patents in a world of complex technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 11-22, February.
    27. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3), pages 783-832.
    28. Reitzig, Markus, 2003. "What determines patent value?: Insights from the semiconductor industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 13-26, January.
    29. Markus Reitzig & Joachim Henkel & Ferdinand Schneider, 2010. "Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 947-967, June.
    30. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    31. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    32. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
    33. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    34. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1999. "Inventive Activity and the Market for Technology in the United States, 1840-1920," NBER Working Papers 7107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    35. Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:9:p:1519-1533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.