IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-686306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing

Author

Listed:
  • Gerard Llobet
  • Jorge Padilla

Abstract

Legal scholars debate the merits of using the total value of the product, as opposed to the value of the component to which the technology contributes, as the base for a royalty in licensing contracts. In this paper we make use of the fact that these two royalty bases are equivalent to using ad valorem and per-unit royalties, respectively. We abstract from implementation and practicability considerations to analyze the welfare implications of the two rules. Ad valorem royalties tend to lead to lower prices, particularly in the context of successive monopolies. They benefit upstream innovators and do not necessarily hurt downstream producers. This benefit increases when there are multiple innovators contributing complementary technologies, as is typical of standard-setting organizations. Ad valorem royalties are even more desirable when enticing upstream investment is optimal. Our findings explain why most licensing contracts include royalties based on the value of the product.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2016. "The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 45-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/686306
    DOI: 10.1086/686306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/686306
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/686306
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/686306?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

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sugato Bhattacharyya & Francine Lafontaine, 1995. "Double-Sided Moral Hazard and the Nature of Share Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 761-781, Winter.
    2. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2016. "The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 45-73.
    3. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    4. Richard E. Romano, 1994. "Double Moral Hazard and Resale Price Maintenance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(3), pages 455-466, Autumn.
    5. 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.
    6. Stefano Colombo & Luigi Filippini, 2015. "Patent Licensing with Bertrand Competitors," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Gilbert, Richard J & Katz, Michael L, 2009. "Efficient Division of Profits from Complementary Innovations," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5mr0s11v, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    8. Gilbert, Richard J & Katz, Michael L, 2009. "Efficient Division of Profits from Complementary Innovations," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt5mr0s11v, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    9. Bengt Holmstrom, 1982. "Moral Hazard in Teams," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 324-340, Autumn.
    10. Hernandez-Murillo, Ruben & Llobet, Gerard, 2006. "Patent licensing revisited: Heterogeneous firms and product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 149-175, January.
    11. Bousquet, Alain & Cremer, Helmuth & Ivaldi, Marc & Wolkowicz, Michel, 1998. "Risk sharing in licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 535-554, September.
    12. Gilbert, Richard J. & Katz, Michael L., 2011. "Efficient division of profits from complementary innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 443-454, July.
    13. D. B. Suits & R. A. Musgrave, 1953. "Ad Valorem and Unit Taxes Compared," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 67(4), pages 598-604.
    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. Tesoriere, Antonio, 2019. "Stable sharing rules and participation in pools of essential patents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-58.
    2. Stefano Colombo & Luigi Filippini, 2016. "Revenue royalties," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 47-76, May.
    3. Siyu Ma & Yair Tauman, 2021. "Licensing of a New Product Innovation with Risk Averse Agents," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(1), pages 79-102, August.
    4. Dequiedt, Vianney & Versaevel, Bruno, 2013. "Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 59-69.
    5. Denicolò, Vincenzo & Halmenschlager, Christine, 2012. "Optimal patentability requirements with complementary innovations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 190-204.
    6. Massimo D'Antoni & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2014. "Appropriability and Incentives with Complementary Innovations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 103-124, March.
    7. Han, Tien-Der & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2023. "Mergers of complements, endogenous product differentiation and welfare," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 30-41.
    8. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Other publications TiSEM 9ea6a894-ac05-413d-8c2d-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Annalisa Biagi & Vincenzo Denicolò, 2014. "Timing of Discovery and the Division of Profit With Complementary Innovations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 89-102, March.
    10. Stefano Colombo & Luigi Filippini, 2015. "Patent Licensing with Bertrand Competitors," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Discussion Paper 2020-034, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Choi, Jay Pil, 2001. "Technology transfer with moral hazard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 249-266, January.
    13. Schmidt, Klaus M., 2010. "Standards, Innovation Incentives, and the Formation of Patent Pools," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 342, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    14. Kim, Bongsun & Kim, Eonsoo & Miller, Douglas J. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2016. "The impact of the timing of patents on innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 914-928.
    15. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2014. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 68-88, March.
    16. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, November.
    17. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Discussion Paper 2020-025, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    18. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2016. "Licensing a technology standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 33-61.
    19. Ismail Saglam, 2023. "Licensing cost‐reducing innovations under supply function competition," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 180-201, January.
    20. Sadao NAGAOKA & Yoichiro NISHIMURA, 2014. "Complementarity, Fragmentation, and the Effects of Patent Thickets," Discussion papers 14001, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • 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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/686306. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.