IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v122y2023ics0166497222002140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Ling
  • Zhang, Yujia
  • Yan, Yushan

Abstract

Patent litigation strategy is receiving considerable attention as friction escalates between firms over the legal use of patented technology. Offensive patent litigation is an important corporate strategy to protect intellectual property rights via suing others in the event of an infringement. This study seeks to understand how organizational routines, certificated by the Intellectual Property Rights Management Standard (IPRMS), influence strategic choices of patent litigation. Considering multiple scenarios of firm size and ownership, the results show that organizational routines positively affect the choice of offensive patent litigation, with firm size weakening the effect and state ownership reinforcing the effect. These findings contribute to offensive patent litigation research by highlighting the importance of organizational routines and exploring the interaction between a firm's strategies and the institutional foundations of legal practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:122:y:2023:i:c:s0166497222002140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222002140
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102663?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. 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 129-151, Spring.
    2. Gordon E Greenley & Mehmet Oktemgil, 1998. "A Comparison of Slack Resources in High and Low Performing British Companies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 377-398, May.
    3. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2018. "A Model Of Patent Trolls," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 2075-2106, November.
    4. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    5. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 541-567, Winter.
    6. Michael D. Cohen, 2012. "Perceiving and Remembering Routine Action: Fundamental Micro-Level Origins," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1383-1388, December.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    8. Gersick, Connie J. G. & Hackman, J. Richard, 1990. "Habitual routines in task-performing groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 65-97, October.
    9. Sylvain Chassang, 2010. "Building Routines: Learning, Cooperation, and the Dynamics of Incomplete Relational Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 448-465, March.
    10. T. S. Raghu & Wonseok Woo & S. B. Mohan & H. Raghav Rao, 2008. "Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 61-75, March.
    11. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    12. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Wook Han, 2006. "Issues in measuring the degree of technological specialisation with patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(3), pages 481-492, March.
    13. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Sangyoon Yi & Thorbjørn Knudsen & Markus C. Becker, 2016. "Inertia in Routines: A Hidden Source of Organizational Variation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 782-800, June.
    16. Joseph A. Grundfest & Peter H. Huang, 2006. "The Unexpected Value of Litigation: A Real Options Perspective," Economics Working Papers 0066, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    17. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    18. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    19. Levinthal, Daniel & March, James G., 1981. "A model of adaptive organizational search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 307-333, December.
    20. Bessen, James, 2004. "Holdup and licensing of cumulative innovations with private information," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 321-326, March.
    21. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    22. Geoffrey Hodgson & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2004. "The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 281-307, July.
    23. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    24. Paula M. Schliessler, 2015. "Patent litigation and firm performance: the role of the enforcement system," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(2), pages 307-343.
    25. Daniel Berkowitz & Hong Ma & Shuichiro Nishioka, 2017. "Recasting the Iron Rice Bowl: The Reform of China's State-Owned Enterprises," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(4), pages 735-747, July.
    26. Mike W. Peng & Justin Tan & Tony W. Tong, 2004. "Ownership Types and Strategic Groups in an Emerging Economy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1105-1129, November.
    27. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    28. Koen H. Heimeriks & Mario Schijven & Stephen Gates, 2012. "Manifestations of Higher-Order Routines: The Underlying Mechanisms of Deliberate Learning in the Context of Postacquisition Integration," Post-Print hal-00859930, HAL.
    29. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    30. Bar, Talia & Kalinowski, Jesse, 2019. "Patent validity and the timing of settlements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    31. Stene, Edwin O., 1940. "An Approach to a Science of Administration," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(6), pages 1124-1137, December.
    32. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    33. Meghana Ayyagari & Asli Demirgüç-Kunt & Vojislav Maksimovic, 2010. "Formal versus Informal Finance: Evidence from China," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(8), pages 3048-3097, August.
    34. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2002. "David vs. Goliath: An Analysis of Asymmetric Mixed-Strategy Games and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 972-991, August.
    35. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The Value of Intellectual Property Rights to Firms," Economics Series Working Papers 319, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    36. Chen, Yi-Min & Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Liu, Yu-Siang & Huang, Huei-Ting, 2016. "A preemptive power to offensive patent litigation strategy: Value creation, transaction costs and organizational slack," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1634-1638.
    37. Sayan Chatterjee & Birger Wernerfelt, 1991. "The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 33-48, January.
    38. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    39. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2008. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-1369, September.
    40. Peter C. Cramton, 1992. "Strategic Delay in Bargaining with Two-Sided Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(1), pages 205-225.
    41. Mark J. Zbaracki & Mark Bergen, 2010. "When Truces Collapse: A Longitudinal Study of Price-Adjustment Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 955-972, October.
    42. Cohen, Michael D, et al, 1996. "Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(3), pages 653-698.
    43. Martha S. Feldman, 2000. "Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 611-629, December.
    44. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman, 2005. "Organizational routines as a unit of analysis," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(5), pages 793-815, October.
    45. Chen, Yi-Min & Ni, Yu-Ting & Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Teng, Ying-Maw, 2015. "Information- and rivalry-based perspectives on reactive patent litigation strategy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 788-792.
    46. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    47. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    48. Siegelman, Peter & Waldfogel, Joel, 1999. "Toward a Taxonomy of Disputes: New Evidence through the Prism of the Priest/Klein Model," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 101-130, January.
    49. Markus C. Becker, 2005. "A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research: linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interaction patterns," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(5), pages 817-846, October.
    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. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    2. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.
    3. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    4. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    5. Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    6. David Obstfeld, 2012. "Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1571-1592, December.
    7. Mickaël David & Frantz Rowe, 2015. "Enterprise Systems Contribution to Organizational Routines Evolution Potential [Le rôle des systèmes d’information d’entreprise dans l’évolutivité des routines organisationnelles]," Post-Print hal-01559512, HAL.
    8. Guo, Jingjing & Guo, Bin & Zhou, Jianghua & Wu, Xiaobo, 2020. "How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect firm innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects of knowledge attributes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    9. Guha, Mahua & Das, Gopal, 2017. "Routine contraction in good times: An example of a typical prototype development routine," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 145-152.
    10. Schriber, Svante & Löwstedt, Jan, 2015. "Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-68.
    11. Schmidt, Heiko M. & Santamaria-Alvarez, Sandra Milena, 2022. "Routines in International Business: A semi-systematic review of the concept," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2).
    12. Scott F. Turner & Violina Rindova, 2012. "A Balancing Act: How Organizations Pursue Consistency in Routine Functioning in the Face of Ongoing Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 24-46, February.
    13. Bing Bai & Byungjoon Yoo & Xiuquan Deng & Iljoo Kim & Dehua Gao, 2016. "Linking routines to the evolution of IT capability on agent-based modeling and simulation: a dynamic perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 184-211, June.
    14. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    15. Yu-Shan Chen & Yu-Hsien Lin & Tai-Hsi Wu & Shu-Tzu Hung & Pei-Ju Lucy Ting & Chen-Han Hsieh, 2019. "Re-examine the determinants of market value from the perspectives of patent analysis and patent litigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Rouslan Koumakhov & Adel Daoud, 2017. "Routine and reflexivity: Simonian cognitivism vs practice approach," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 727-743.
    17. Neil M Kay, 2018. "We need to talk: opposing narratives and conflicting perspectives in the conversation on routines," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(6), pages 943-956.
    18. Paul Spee & Paula Jarzabkowski & Michael Smets, 2016. "The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 759-781, June.
    19. Feim M. Blakçori, 2014. "The Role of Formal Routines in Organizational Innovation," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 4(2), pages 56-70, February.
    20. Deepak Somaya & Christine A. McDaniel, 2012. "Tribunal Specialization and Institutional Targeting in Patent Enforcement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 869-887, June.

    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:techno:v:122:y:2023:i:c:s0166497222002140. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.