IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/hiasdp/hias-e-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A model of patent trolls

Author

Listed:
  • CHOI, Jay Pil
  • GERLACH, Heiko

Abstract

This paper develops a model of patent trolls to understand various litigation strategies employed by nonpracticing entities (NPE). We show that when a NPE faces multiple potential infringers who use related technologies, it can gain a credible threat to litigate even when it has no such credibility vis-à-vis any single potential infringer in isolation. This is due to an information externality generated by an early litigation outcome for subsequent litigation. Successful litigation creates an option value against future potential infringers through Bayesian updating. This renders a credible litigation threat against the initial defendant and allows the NPE to extract more rents. We discuss policy implications including the adoption of the British system of “loser-pays” fee shifting and the use of injunctive relief.

Suggested Citation

  • CHOI, Jay Pil & GERLACH, Heiko, 2015. "A model of patent trolls," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-9, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    • Handle: RePEc:hit:hiasdp:hias-e-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/hermes/ir/re/27473/070_hiasDP-E-9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Silvana Krasteva & Huseyin Yildirim, 2012. "Payoff uncertainty, bargaining power, and the strategic sequencing of bilateral negotiations," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(3), pages 514-536, September.
    2. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2017. "A Theory of Patent Portfolios," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 315-351, February.
    3. Choi, Jay Pil, 2009. "Alternative damage rules and probabilistic intellectual property rights: Unjust enrichment, lost profits, and reasonable royalty remedies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 145-157, June.
    4. Che, Yeon-Koo & Yi, Jong Goo, 1993. "The Role of Precedents in Repeated Litigation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 399-424, October.
    5. James Bessen & Jennifer L. Ford & Michael J. Meurer, 2011. "The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls," Working Papers 1103, Research on Innovation.
    6. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    7. Lemley, Mark A & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8638s257, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    8. Carl Shapiro, 2010. "Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties-super-1," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 509-557.
    9. Vincenzo Denicolò & Damien Geradin & Anne Layne-Farrar & A. Jorge Padilla, 2008. "REVISITING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: INTERPRETING eBAY IN HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES WITH NON-PRACTICING PATENT HOLDERS," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 571-608.
    10. Lauren Cohen & Umit G. Gurun & Scott Duke Kominers, 2019. "Patent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5461-5486, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2016. "The Inverse Cournot Effect in Royalty Negotiations with Complementary Patents," Working Papers wp2016_1608, CEMFI.
    2. Nicoletta Berardi & Paul Seabright, 2020. "Joint Ownership of Production Projects as a Commitment Device against Interest Groups," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 176(3), pages 572-594.
    3. Turner, John L., 2018. "Input complementarity, patent trolls and unproductive entrepreneurship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 168-203.
    4. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2023. "A theory of socially inefficient patent holdout," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 424-449, April.
    5. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 2021. "Patent assertion entities and the courts: Injunctive or fee-based relief?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Denicolò, Vincenzo & Zanchettin, Piercarlo, 2022. "Patent protection for complex technologies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. He, Leshui, 2020. "A theory of pre-filing settlement and patent assertion entities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    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. Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Legros, 2013. "‘Essential’ Patents, FRAND Royalties and Technological Standards," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 913-937, December.
    2. Bar, Talia & Kalinowski, Jesse, 2019. "Patent validity and the timing of settlements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Bessen, James & Neuhäusler, Peter & Turner, John L. & Williams, Jonathan, 2018. "Trends in private patent costs and rents for publicly-traded United States firms," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 53-69.
    4. Turner, John L., 2018. "Input complementarity, patent trolls and unproductive entrepreneurship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 168-203.
    5. Kwon, Seokbeom & Drev, Matej, 2020. "Defensive Patent Aggregators as Shields against Patent Assertion Entities? Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Christian Le Bas & Julien Pénin, 2014. "Patents and innovation : Are the brakes broken, or how to restore patents’ dynamic efficiency ?," Working Papers of BETA 2014-02, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Ottoz Elisabetta & Cugno Franco, 2012. "Does Banning Side Payments in Patent Settlements Suffice to Fully Protect Consumers?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201201, University of Turin.
    8. Bereskin, Fred & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Latham, William & Wang, Huijun, 2023. "So Sue Me! The cross section of stock returns related to patent infringement allegations," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Choi, Jay Pil & Gerlach, Heiko, 2019. "Optimal cross-licensing arrangements: Collusion versus entry deterrence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Tucker, C.E., 2012. "Institutions, competition and regulation : Intellectual property and innovation," Discussion Paper 2012-030, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    11. Mukund Chari & H. Kevin Steensma & Charles Connaughton & Ralph Heidl, 2022. "The influence of patent assertion entities on inventor behavior," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1666-1690, August.
    12. Duan, Ran, 2023. "Patent trolls and capital structure decisions in high-tech firms," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2010. "Patent Damages And Spatial Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 279-305, June.
    15. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2023. "A theory of socially inefficient patent holdout," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 424-449, April.
    16. Heiden, Bowman, 2016. "The viability of FRAND: How the seminal landmark Microsoft ruling could impact the value of standard essential patents and the future of telecom standards," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 870-887.
    17. Catherine Tucker, 2012. "Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion," NBER Chapters, in: Standards, Patents and Innovations, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. 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.
    19. Bernhard Ganglmair & Christian Helmers & Brian J Love, 2022. "The Effect of Patent Litigation Insurance: Theory and Evidence from NPEs [“Valuable Patents]," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 741-773.
    20. Yongmin Chen & David E.M. Sappington, 2018. "An optimal rule for patent damages under sequential innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 370-397, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    patent portfolios; patent litigation; non-practicing entities; patent troll;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hit:hiasdp:hias-e-9. 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: Digital Resources Section, Hitotsubashi University Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ashitjp.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.