IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/p354r.html

Legalist and realist decision-making in patent law: Validity cases in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Hoffmann, Jakob

    (LMU Munich)

  • Glückler, Johannes
  • Khuchua, Tamar
  • Lachapelle, Francois
  • Lazega, Emmanuel
  • Zipf, Marius

Abstract

While realist approaches towards judicial decision-making have become predomi- nant, their appropriateness is much less obvious for specialized or technical fields of law, such as patent litigation, and evidence is much scarcer than for generalist courts. Addressing this scarcity, the paper assesses judge-level variation in deci- sion outcomes based on a sample of 1,722 collegial decisions on patent validity at the German Federal Patent Court. Using a Bayesian mixed membership multilevel model, we find that after controlling for variation due to other contextual factors, there remains significant statistical variation in the propensity to nullify a patent at the level of individual judges. However, judge effects are relatively weak and uncer- tain, indicating mitigation of individual deviation through collegiality. We conclude by discussing the relevance of consistent judicial outcomes beyond the studied con- text and especially in transnational harmonization processes, such as initialized by the recent establishment of the Unified Patent Court.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoffmann, Jakob & Glückler, Johannes & Khuchua, Tamar & Lachapelle, Francois & Lazega, Emmanuel & Zipf, Marius, 2024. "Legalist and realist decision-making in patent law: Validity cases in Germany," SocArXiv p354r, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:p354r
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/p354r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/65f2b048e5e51c1114bc56c1/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/p354r?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. Katrin Cremers & Max Ernicke & Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Christian Helmers & Luke McDonagh & Paula Schliessler & Nicolas Zeebroeck, 2017. "Erratum to: Patent litigation in Europe," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 45-46, August.
      • Cremers, Katrin & Ernicke, Max & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian & McDonagh, Luke & Schliessler, Paula & Van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2013. "Patent litigation in Europe," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-072, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
      • Katrin Cremers & Max Ernicke & Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Christian Helmers & Luke Mc Donagh & Paula Schliessler & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2017. "Patent litigation in Europe," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/226239, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Eric Helland, 2019. "The Role of Ideology in Judicial Evaluations of Experts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(4), pages 579-611.
    3. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    4. Chad Westerland, 2007. "The Judicial Common Space 1," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 303-325, June.
    5. Richards, Mark J. & Kritzer, Herbert M., 2002. "Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 305-320, June.
    6. Rehder, Britta, 2007. "What Is Political about Jurisprudence? Courts, Politics and Political Science in Europe and the United States," MPIfG Discussion Paper 07/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    7. Medina Damares & dalla Pellegrina Lucia & Garoupa Nuno, 2022. "Unfolding Judicial Ideology: A Data-Generating Priors Approach with an Application to the Brazilian Supreme Court," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-54, March.
    8. Michael R. Baye & Joshua D. Wright, 2011. "Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24.
    9. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.
    10. Joshua B. Fischman, 2011. "Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 781-809.
    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. repec:osf:socarx:p354r_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Marius Zipf & Johannes Glückler & Tamar Khuchua & Emmanuel Lazega & François Lachapelle & Jakob Hoffmann, 2023. "The Judicial Geography of Patent Litigation in Germany: Implications for the Institutionalization of the European Unified Patent Court," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    4. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    5. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court - Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    6. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    7. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "The Disciplinary Effect of Post-Grant Review," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 155, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    8. Marselli, Riccardo & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Bargaining in the shadow of arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 356-368.
    9. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "A Theory of Judicial Retirement," Documentos de Trabajo 451, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    10. Best, Rachel Kahn & Fang, Yan & Fisk, Catherine & Krieger, Linda Hamilton & Reddy, Diana, 2025. "Disputed and disfavored: Pain, mental illness, and invisible conditions in disability discrimination cases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 371(C).
    11. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    12. Elena Sidorova & Svetlana Golovanova & Svetlana Avdasheva, 2019. "How to measure the quality of court decisions? A case of commercial courts," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 54, pages 126-143.
    13. Valentiny, Pál, 2019. "Közgazdaságtan a jogalkalmazásban [Forensic economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 134-162.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Zhang, Ya-Feng & Li, Li-Ming & Xu, Ke, 2022. "Do specialized intellectual property courts show a pro-patent propensity? Evidence from China," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    16. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Politics in the Courtroom: Political Ideology and Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 834-875.
    17. Giansiracusa, Noah & Ricciardi, Cameron, 2019. "Computational geometry and the U.S. Supreme Court," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-9.
    18. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    19. Frankenreiter Jens, 2018. "Are Advocates General Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Voting Behavior of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-43, March.
    20. R. Forrest McCluer & Martha A. Starr, 2013. "Using Difference in Differences to Estimate Damages in Healthcare Antitrust: A Case Study of Marshfield Clinic," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 447-469, November.
    21. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.

    More about this item

    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:osf:socarx:p354r. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.