IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v35y2006p85-117.html

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

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Perron, P, 1993. "Erratum [The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis]," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 248-249, January.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005. "Exploring the Patent Explosion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 35-48, January.
    10. Donald W. K. Andrews, 2003. "Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point: A Corrigendum," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 395-397, January.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Enrico Pennings, 2012. "Defensive Disclosure under Antitrust Enforcement," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-010/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kuan, Chung-Ming, 1998. "Tests for changes in models with a polynomial trend," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 75-91, May.
    12. Mohitosh Kejriwal & Claude Lopez, 2013. "Unit Roots, Level Shifts, and Trend Breaks in Per Capita Output: A Robust Evaluation," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 892-927, November.
    13. Giorgio Canarella & Rangan Gupta & Stephen M. Miller & Stephen K. Pollard, 2019. "Unemployment rate hysteresis and the great recession: exploring the metropolitan evidence," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 61-79, January.
    14. Christos Kollias, 1997. "Defence spending and growth in turkey 1954-1993: A causal analysis," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 189-204.
    15. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Hong Luo & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2017. "Copyright Enforcement: Evidence from Two Field Experiments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 499-528, June.
    17. Perron, Pierre & Zhu, Xiaokang, 2005. "Structural breaks with deterministic and stochastic trends," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 129(1-2), pages 65-119.
    18. Pitarakis, Jean-Yves, 2011. "Joint Detection of Structural Change and Nonstationarity in Autoregressions," MPRA Paper 29189, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Travaglini, Guido, 2007. "The U.S. Dynamic Taylor Rule With Multiple Breaks, 1984-2001," MPRA Paper 3419, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Jun 2007.
    20. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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.