The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitâ€™s Impact on Patent Litigation
More than 20 years after the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), research has yet to explain accurately the new courtâ€™s impact on patent litigation, patenting, and inventive activity. To address this shortcoming in the literature, we analyze a novel data set that permits us to consider separately the issues of validity and infringement in comparing the tendencies of the CAFC with those of its predecessor appeals courts. Our analysis of district and appellate decisions spanning 1953â€“2002 yields a recasting of the â€œpro-patentâ€ nature of the CAFC: while it has been significantly more reluctant than its predecessors to affirm decisions of invalidity, it has not been more reluctant to affirm â€œnot infringedâ€ decisions. Because of the CAFCâ€™s tendencies, district courts have decided patents to be invalid significantly less often, patentees have appealed decisions of invalidity significantly more often, and infringement has become the more frequently decisive inquiry.
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.:
- 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.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005.
"Exploring the Patent Explosion,"
The Journal of Technology Transfer,
Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 35-48, 01.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 2004. "Exploring the Patent Explosion," NBER Working Papers 10605, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bronwyn Hall, 2004. "Exploring the patent explosion," Working Papers wp291, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
- Kessler, Daniel & Meites, Thomas & Miller, Geoffrey P, 1996. "Explaining Deviations from the Fifty-Percent Rule: A Multimodal Approach to the Selection of Cases for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 233-259, January.
- Andrews, Donald W K, 1993. "Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 821-856, July.
- Donald W.K. Andrews, 1990. "Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 943, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Perron, Pierre, 1989. "The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1361-1401, November.
- Perron, P, 1988. "The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock And The Unit Root Hypothesis," Papers 338, Princeton, Department of Economics - Econometric Research Program.
- Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
- 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.
- Marco, Alan C., 2005. "Learning by Suing: Structural Estimates of Court Errors in Patent Litigation," Vassar College Department of Economics Working Paper Series 68, Vassar College Department of Economics. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)