IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v35y2006p85-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Impact on Patent Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew D. Henry
  • John L. Turner

Abstract

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 court’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 1953–2002 yields a recasting of the “pro-patent” 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 “not infringed” decisions. Because of the CAFC’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.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2006. "The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Impact on Patent Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 85-117, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:35:y:2006:p:85-117
    DOI: 10.1086/498834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/498834
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/498834?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. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    3. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005. "Exploring the Patent Explosion," Springer Books, in: Albert N. Link & F. M. Scherer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, pages 195-208, Springer.
    4. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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)

    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. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    2. Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2016. "Across Five Eras: Patent Validity and Infringement Rates in U.S. Courts, 1929–2006," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 454-486, September.
    3. Martin S. Meyer & Puay Tang, 2007. "Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for Third-Stream indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 415-440, February.
    4. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Gómez-Puig, Marta & Sosvilla-Rivero, Simón, 2014. "Causality and contagion in EMU sovereign debt markets," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-27.
    6. Kuikeu, Oscar, 2011. "Arguments contre la zone franc [Against the cfa franc zone]," MPRA Paper 33710, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Nidhal Mgadmi & Houssem Rachdi & Hichem Saidi & Khaled Guesmi, 2019. "On the Instability of Tunisian Money Demand: Some Empirical Issues with Structural Breaks," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 17(1), pages 153-165, March.
    8. Marriott, John & Newbold, Paul, 2000. "The strength of evidence for unit autoregressive roots and structural breaks: A Bayesian perspective," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Cuddington, John T. & Ludema, Rodney & Jayasuriya, Shamila A, 2002. "Prebisch-Singer Redux," Working Papers 15857, United States International Trade Commission, Office of Economics.
    10. Antonio E. Noriega & Araceli Ramírez-Zamora, 1999. "Unit roots and multiple structural breaks in real output," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 14(2), pages 163-188.
    11. Jeng-Bau Lin & Chin-Chia Liang & Wei Tsai, 2019. "Nonlinear Relationships between Oil Prices and Implied Volatilities: Providing More Valuable Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-15, July.
    12. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Enrico Pennings, 2012. "Defensive Disclosure under Antitrust Enforcement," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-010/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Choi, Kyongwook & Yu, Wei-Choun & Zivot, Eric, 2010. "Long memory versus structural breaks in modeling and forecasting realized volatility," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 857-875, September.
    14. Atanu Ghoshray & Issam Malki & Javier Ordóñez, 2022. "On the long-run dynamics of income and wealth inequality," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 375-408, February.
    15. De Wachter, Stefan & Tzavalis, Elias, 2012. "Detection of structural breaks in linear dynamic panel data models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3020-3034.
    16. Rómulo Chumacero & Jorge Quiroz, 1996. "La Tasa Natural de Crecimiento de la Economía Chilena: 1985-1996," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 33(100), pages 453-472.
    17. Wang‐Sheng Lee & Sandy Suardi, 2010. "The Australian Firearms Buyback And Its Effect On Gun Deaths," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(1), pages 65-79, January.
    18. Miguel Arranz & Alvaro Escribano, 2004. "Outliers - robust ECM cointegration tests based on the trend components," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 243-266, December.
    19. Jim Lee, 1999. "Inflation Targeting In Practice: Further Evidence," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(3), pages 332-347, July.
    20. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.

    More about this item

    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:jlstud:v:35:y:2006:p:85-117. 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/JLS .

    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.