IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v59y2021i3d10.1007_s11151-021-09815-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Incentives for Patent Challenges in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Enrico Böhme

    (Philipps-University Marburg)

  • Jonas Severin Frank

    (Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office))

  • Wolfgang Kerber

    (Philipps-University Marburg)

Abstract

In this paper, we show that a provision in antitrust law to allow patent settlements with a later market entry of generics than the date that is expected under patent litigation can increase consumer welfare. We introduce a policy parameter for determining the optimal additional period for collusion that would incentivize the challenging of weak patents and maximize consumer welfare. While in principle, later market entry leads to higher profits and lower consumer welfare, this can be more than compensated for if more patents are challenged as a result.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:59:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11151-021-09815-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-021-09815-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11151-021-09815-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-021-09815-0?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    2. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    3. David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2009. "Licensing ‘Weak’ Patents," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 492-525, September.
    4. Gratz, Linda, 2012. "Economic Analysis of Pay-for-delay Settlements and Their Legal Ruling," Discussion Papers in Economics 12734, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    5. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    6. Henry G. Grabowski & Margaret Kyle, 2007. "Generic competition and market exclusivity periods in pharmaceuticals," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4-5), pages 491-502.
    7. 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.
    8. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2008. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-1369, September.
    9. Severin Frank & Wolfgang Kerber, 2016. "Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: What Can We Learn From Economic Analysis?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201601, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    10. Hackner, Jonas, 2000. "A Note on Price and Quantity Competition in Differentiated Oligopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 233-239, August.
    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. Ding, Yucheng & Zhao, Xin, 2019. "Pay-for-delay patent settlement, generic entry and welfare," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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. Severin Frank & Wolfgang Kerber, 2016. "Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: What Can We Learn From Economic Analysis?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201601, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    2. 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.
    3. Rabah Amir & David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2011. "Per-Unit Royalty vs Fixed Fee: The Case of Weak Patents," Working Papers halshs-00595493, HAL.
    4. Farasat A. S. Bokhari & Franco Mariuzzo & Arnold Polanski, 2020. "Entry limiting agreements: First‐mover advantage, authorized generics, and pay‐for‐delay deals," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 516-542, July.
    5. Choi, Jay Pil & Gerlach, Heiko, 2019. "Optimal cross-licensing arrangements: Collusion versus entry deterrence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Katrin Cremers & Paula Schliessler, 2015. "Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 185-208, October.
    9. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2015. "Patent pools, litigation, and innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 499-523, September.
    10. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Rahul RK Kapoor & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2016. "The laws of action and reaction: on determinants of patent disputes in European chemical and drug industries," Working Papers TIMES² WP 2016-019, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2018. "Optimal licensing under incomplete information: the case of the inside patent holder," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(4), pages 979-1005, December.
    13. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2021. "The prevalence of weak patents in the United States: A new method to identify weak patents and the implications for patent policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Bar, Talia & Kalinowski, Jesse, 2019. "Patent validity and the timing of settlements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Juranek, Steffen, 2018. "Investing in legal advice," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 28-46.
    16. Haejun Jeon, 2016. "Patent litigation and cross licensing with cumulative innovation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 119(3), pages 179-218, November.
    17. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Joachim Henkel & Hans Zischka, 2019. "How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 195-239, October.
    19. Cremers, Katrin & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian & Lefouili, Yassine, 2016. "Invalid but infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 218-242.
    20. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antitrust; Collusion; Patent challenges; Patent settlements; Pharma;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • 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:kap:revind:v:59:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11151-021-09815-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.