IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare06/139933.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Getting Away With Robbery? Patenting Behavior With The Threat Of Infringement

Author

Listed:
  • Yiannaka, Amalia
  • Fulton, Murray E.

Abstract

The paper examines the relationship between the innovator’s patenting and patent breadth decisions as well as how these two decisions affect, and are affected by, the innovator’s ability to enforce her patent rights. An important feature of the model is that the entrant may be able, by his choice of location in product space, to affect the innovator’s decision to defend her patent. An interesting finding of the paper is that the innovator might find it optimal to patent her innovation even when she chooses to not defend her patent by invoking a trial when patent infringement occurs. The paper also shows that, in most cases, the greater is the entrant’s R&D effectiveness, the smaller is the innovator’s incentive to patent her product. If patenting occurs, however, the greater is R&D effectiveness, the greater is the patent breadth that could be chosen without triggering infringement.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiannaka, Amalia & Fulton, Murray E., 2006. "Getting Away With Robbery? Patenting Behavior With The Threat Of Infringement," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139933, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:139933
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.139933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/139933/files/2006_yiannaka.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.139933?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
    ---><---

    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. Erkal, Nisvan, 2005. "The decision to patent, cumulative innovation, and optimal policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 535-562, September.
    3. Waterson, Michael, 1990. "The Economics of Product Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 860-869, September.
    4. Horstmann, Ignatius & MacDonald, Glenn M & Slivinski, Alan, 1985. "Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 837-858, October.
    5. Claude Crampes & Corinne Langinier, 2002. "Litigation and Settlement in Patent Infringement Cases," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 258-274, Summer.
    6. Yiannaka, Amalia & Fulton, Murray, 2006. "Strategic patent breadth and entry deterrence with drastic product innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 177-202, 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. 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.
    2. Aoki, Reiko & Spiegel, Yossi, 2009. "Pre-grant patent publication and cumulative innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 333-345, May.
    3. Amalia Yiannaka & Murray Fulton, 2011. "Getting Away with Robbery? Patenting Behavior with the Threat of Infringement," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 625-648, June.
    4. Ponce, Carlos J., 2007. "More secrecy... more knowledge disclosure? : On disclosure outside of patents," UC3M Working papers. Economics we077241, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    5. Heger, Diana & Zaby, Alexandra K., 2012. "Giving away the game? The impact of the disclosure effect on the patenting decision," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-010, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Yiannaka, Amalia & Fulton, Murray E., 2004. "Getting Away With Robbery? Patenting Behavior With The Threat Of Infringement," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20304, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Serge Pajak, 2016. "Do innovative firms rely on big secrets? An analysis of IP protection strategies with the CIS 4 survey," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 516-532, July.
    8. Yiannaka, Amalia & Fulton, Murray E., 2005. "To Patent Or Not To Patent: The Role Of Optimal Patent Breadth And The Decision To Defend The Patent Right," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19180, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Amalia Yiannaka, 2009. "When Less Is More: Optimal Patent Breadth under the Threat of Patent Validity Challenges," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(4), pages 1067-1093, April.
    10. Jürgen Mihm & Fabian J. Sting & Tan Wang, 2015. "On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation Races," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2662-2684, November.
    11. Yiannaka, Amalia & Fulton, Murray, 2006. "Strategic patent breadth and entry deterrence with drastic product innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 177-202, January.
    12. Alexandra Zaby, 2010. "Losing the lead: the patenting decision in the light of the disclosure requirement," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 147-164.
    13. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Corinne Langinier, 2005. "Using patents to mislead rivals," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 520-545, May.
    15. Aoki, R. & Spiegel, Y., 1998. "Public Disclosure of Patent Applications, R&D, and Welfare," Papers 30-98, Tel Aviv.
    16. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    17. Schankerman, Mark & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality : Examination, Fees, and the Courts," Other publications TiSEM fa319822-6e68-4e05-8547-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Julio R. Robledo, 2005. "The Effect of Litigation on Intellectual Property and Welfare," Vienna Economics Papers 0511, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    19. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    20. Dumont Béatrice, 2015. "Does Patent Quality Drive Damages in Patent Lawsuits? Lessons from the French Judicial System," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 355-383, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Economics;

    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:ags:aare06:139933. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.