IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vas/papers/86.html

The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping and the Federal Circuit

Author

Abstract

In 1982, the US Congress established the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) as the sole appellate court for patent cases. Ostensibly, this court was created to eliminate inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of patent law across federal courts, and thereby mitigate the incentives of patentees and alleged infringers to "forum shop" for a preferred venue. We perform the first econometric study of the extent of non-uniformity and forum shopping in the pre-CAFC era and of the CAFC's impact on these phenomena. We find that in patentee-plaintiff cases the pre-CAFC era was indeed characterized by significant non-uniformity in patent validity rates across circuits and by forum shopping on the basis of validity rates. We find weak evidence that the CAFC has increased uniformity of validity rates and strong evidence that forum shopping on the basis of validity rates ceased several years prior to the CAFC's establishment. In patentee-defendant cases, we find that validity rates are lower on average, but do not find either significant non-uniformity of validity rates across circuits or significant forum shopping.

Suggested Citation

  • Atkinson, Scott & Marco, Alan C. & Turner, John L., "undated". "The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping and the Federal Circuit," Vassar College Department of Economics Working Paper Series 86, Vassar College Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:vas:papers:86
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://irving.vassar.edu/VCEWP/VCEWP86.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    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. Ganglmair, Bernhard & Helmers, Christian & Love, Brian J., 2024. "Do judicial assignments matter? Evidence from random case allocation," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-003, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Yun Hou & I.P.L. Png & Xi Xiong, 2023. "When stronger patent law reduces patenting: Empirical evidence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 977-1012, April.
    4. Lee, Yoon-Ho Alex & Klerman, Daniel, 2016. "The Priest-Klein hypotheses: Proofs and generality," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 59-76.
    5. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    6. Gaessler, Fabian & Lefouili, Yassine, 2017. "What to Buy When Forum Shopping? Analyzing Court Selection in Patent Litigation," TSE Working Papers 17-775, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Naso, Pedro & Bulte, Erwin & Swanson, Tim, 2020. "Legal pluralism in post-conflict Sierra Leone," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    8. He, Weimin & Wang, Bin, 2024. "Environmental jurisdiction and energy efficiency: Evidence from China's establishment of environmental courts," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Joachim Henkel & Hans Zischka, 2019. "How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 195-239, October.
    10. Alan Marco & Shawn Miller, & Ted Sichelman, 2015. "Do Economic Downturns Dampen Patent Litigation?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 481-536, September.
    11. Daniel Klerman & Yoon-Ho Alex Lee, 2014. "Inferences from Litigated Cases," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 209-248.

    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:vas:papers:86. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sean Flynn The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Sean Flynn to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edvasus.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.