Roadblock to Innovation: The Role of Patent Litigation in Corporate R&D

References

• Abrams DS, Akcigit U, Popadak J (2013) Patent value and citations: Creative destruction or strategic disruption? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Acharya VV, Subramanian KV (2009) Bankruptcy codes and innovation. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(12):4949–4988.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acharya VV, Amihud Y, Litov L (2011) Creditor rights and corporate risk-taking. J. Financial Econom. 102(1):150–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60(2):323–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akcigit U, Kerr WR (2018) Growth through heterogeneous innovations. J. Political Econom. 126(4):1374–1443.Google Scholar
• Almeida H, Campello M, Weisbach MS (2004) The cash flow sensitivity of cash. J. Finance 59(4):1777–1804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Appel I (2019) Governance by litigation. J. Financial Econom. 133(3):708–725.Google Scholar
• Appel I, Farre-Mensa J, Simintzi E (2017) Patent trolls and small business employment. Harvard Business School Working Paper 17-072, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Arena MP, Julio B (2015) The effects of securities class action litigation on corporate liquidity and investment policy. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 50(1-2):251–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow K (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention in national bureau of economic research. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, National Bureau of Economic Research Special Conference Series, vol. 13 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 609–626.Google Scholar
• Bernstein S (2015) Does going public affect innovation? J. Finance 70(4):1365–1403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Hunt RM (2007) An empirical look at software patents. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(1):157–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Maskin E (2009) Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. RAND J. Econom. 40(4):611–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2008a) Of patents and property. Regulation 31:18.Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2008b) Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2013) The direct costs from NPE disputes. Cornell Law Rev. 99:387.Google Scholar
• Bessen JE, Neuhäusler P, Turner JL, Williams JW (2018) Trends in private patent costs and rents for publicly-traded United States firms. Internat. Rev. Law Econom. 56:53–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boldrin M, Levine D (2002) The case against intellectual property. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(2):209–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottero M, Lenzu S, Mezzanotti F (2020) Sovereign debt exposure and the bank lending channel: Impact on credit supply and the real economy. J. Internat. Econom. 103328.Google Scholar
• Brown JR, Fazzari SM, Petersen BC (2009) Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. J. Finance 64(1):151–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calabresi G, Melamed AD (1972) Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Rev. 85:1089–1128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carrier MA (2011) Innovation for the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Chetty R, Looney A, Kroft K (2009) Salience and taxation: Theory and evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(4):1145–1177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chien CV, Lemley MA (2012) Patent holdup, the ITC, and the public interest. Cornell Law Rev. 98(1):1.Google Scholar
• Chodorow-Reich G (2014) The employment effects of credit market disruptions: Firm-level evidence from the 2008–9 financial crisis. Quart. J. Econom. 129(1):1–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Claessens S, Laeven L (2003) Financial development, property rights, and growth. J. Finance 58(6):2401–2436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Gurun U, Kominers S (2016a) Shielded innovation. Working paper, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Gurun UG, Kominers SD (2016b) The growing problem of patent trolling. Science 352(6285):521–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Gurun UG, Kominers SD (2019) Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms. Management Sci. 65(12):5461–5486.Link, Google Scholar
• Corrado CA, Hulten CR (2010) How do you measure a “technological revolution”? Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(2):99–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dass N, Nanda VK, Xiao SC (2017) Truncation bias correction in patent data: Implications for recent research on innovation. J. Corporate Finance 44:353–374.Google Scholar
• Demirgüç-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (1998) Law, finance, and firm growth. J. Finance 53(6):2107–2137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de Silanes F, Shleifer A (2003) Courts. Quart. J. Econom. 118(12):453–517.Google Scholar
• Eisfeldt AL, Papanikolaou D (2014) The value and ownership of intangible capital. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(5):189–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epstein RA (2008) The property rights movement and intellectual property. Regulation 30(4):2007–2008.Google Scholar
• Executive Office of the President (2013) Patent assertion and U.S. innovation. Report, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Fazzari SM, Hubbard RG, Petersen BC, Blinder AS, Poterba JM (1988) Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity 1988(1):141–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feng J, Jaravel X (2015) Crafting intellectual property rights: Implications for patent assertion entities, litigation, and innovation. Amer. Econom. J.: Appl. Econom.: 12(1):140–181.Google Scholar
• Ferreira D, Ferreira MA, Mariano B (2018) Creditor control rights and board independence. J. Finance 73(5):2385–2423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher RA (1922) On the interpretation of χ2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of p. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. 85(1):87–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M (2015) Patents and cumulative innovation: Causal evidence from the courts. Quart. J. Econom. 130(1):317–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gormley TA, Matsa DA (2014) Common errors: How to (and not to) control for unobserved heterogeneity. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(2):617–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grumbles E III, Hughey RC, Perera S (2009) The three year anniversary of eBay v. MercExchange: A statistical analysis of permanent injunctions. Intellectual Property Today (November 2), 25–29.Google Scholar
• Gupta K, Kesan JP (2015) Studying the impact of eBay on injunctive relief in patent cases. University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper 17-03, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
• Hall BH (2003) Business method patents, innovation, and policy. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Harhoff D (2012) Recent research on the economics of patents. Annu. Rev. Econom. 4(1):541–565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Lerner J (2010) The financing of R&D and innovation. Hall BH, Rosenberg N, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 609–639.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Haslem B (2005) Managerial opportunism during corporate litigation. J. Finance 60(4):2013–2041.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hegde D, Luo H (2018) Patent publication and the market for ideas. Management Sci. 64(2):652–672.Link, Google Scholar
• Hochberg YV, Serrano CJ, Ziedonis RH (2018) Patent collateral, investor commitment, and the market for venture lending. J. Financial Econom. 130(1):74–94.Google Scholar
• Holte RT (2015) The misinterpretation of eBay v. MercExchange and why: An analysis of the case history, precedent, and parties. Chapman Law Rev. 18(3):677–733.Google Scholar
• Hsu P-H, Tian X, Xu Y (2014) Financial development and innovation: Cross-country evidence. J. Financial Econom. 112(1):116–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Lerner J (2011) Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplow L, Shavell S (1996) Property rules versus liability rules: An economic analysis. Harvard Law Rev. 109(4):713–790.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kashyap AK, Lamont OA (1994) Credit conditions and the cyclical behavior of inventories. Quart. J. Econom. 109(3):565–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, Soellinger T, Chen JM (2017) Law on the market? Abnormal stock returns and Supreme Court decision-making. Working paper, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Kerr WR (2010) Breakthrough inventions and migrating clusters of innovation. J. Urban Econom. 67(1):46–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiebzak S, Rafert G, Tucker CE (2016) The effect of patent litigation and patent assertion entities on entrepreneurial activity. Res. Policy 45(1):218–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim I, Skinner DJ (2012) Measuring securities litigation risk. J. Accounting Econom. 53(1):290–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King RG, Levine R (1993) Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):717–737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2012) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kortum S, Lerner J (2000) Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. RAND J. Econom. 31(4):674–692.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krieger JL, Li D, Papanikolaou D (2018) Missing novelty in drug development. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• La Porta R, Lopez-de Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) Legal determinants of external finance. J. Finance 52(3):1131–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw J, Schankerman M (2001) Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):129–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Lerner J (1998) The enforcement of intellectual property rights: A survey of the empirical literature. Ann. Econom. Statist. (49/50):223–246.Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2005) Probabilistic patents. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(2):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2006) Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Rev. 85:2163.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (2002) Patent protection and innovation over 150 years. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (2009) The empirical impact of intellectual property rights on innovation: Puzzles and clues. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(2):343–348.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (2010) The litigation of financial innovations. J. Law Econom. 53:807–831.Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Schoar A (2005) Does legal enforcement affect financial transactions? The contractual channel in private equity. Quart. J. Econom. 120(1):223–246.Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Seru A (2017) The use and misuse of patent data: Issues for corporate finance and beyond. Harvard Business School Working Paper 18-042, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Li G-C, Lai R, D’Amour A, Doolin DM, Sun Y, Torvik VI, Amy ZY, Fleming L (2014) Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the US patent inventor database (1975–2010). Res. Policy 43(6), 941–955.Google Scholar
• Lin C, Liu S, Manso G (2020) Shareholder litigation and corporate innovation. Management Science Working paper, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
• Mann W (2018) Creditor rights and innovation: Evidence from patent collateral. J. Financial Econom. 130(1):25–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mezzanotti F, Simcoe T (2019) Patent policy and American innovation after eBay: An empirical examination. Res. Policy 48(5):1271–1281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moser P (2005) How do patent laws influence innovation? Evidence from nineteenth-century world’s fairs. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(4):1214–1236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moser P (2013) Patents and innovation: Evidence from economic history. J. Econom. Perspect. 27(1):23–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moshirian F, Tian X, Zhang B, Zhang W (2020) Stock market liberalization and innovation. J. Financial Econom., epub ahead of print August 23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.08.018.Google Scholar
• Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63(4):648–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pakes A (1986) Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks. Econometrica 54(4):755–784.Google Scholar
• Peters RH, Taylor LA (2017) Intangible capital and the investment-q relation. J. Financial Econom. 123(2):251–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ponticelli J (2016) Court enforcement bank loans and firm investment: Evidence from a bankruptcy reform in Brazil (with Leonardo S. Alencar). Quart. J. Econom. 131(3):1365–1413.Google Scholar
• Rogers JL, Van Buskirk A (2009) Shareholder litigation and changes in disclosure behavior. J. Accounting Econom. 47(1):136–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sakakibara M, Branstetter L (2001) Do stronger patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):77–100.Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S (1991) Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. J. Econom. Perspect. 5(1):29–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seaman CB (2016) Permanent injunctions in patent litigation after eBay: An empirical study. Iowa Law Rev. 101(5):1949–2019.Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2010) Injunctions, hold-up, and patent royalties. Amer. Law Econom. Rev. 12(2):280–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2016a) Patent remedies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(5):198–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2016b) Property rules vs. liability rules for patent infringement. Working paper, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
• Smeets R (2014) Does patent litigation reduce corporate R&D? An analysis of US public firms. Working paper, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ.Google Scholar
• Srinivasan S (2018) Patents v. innovation: Evidence from public firms. Working paper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Tang YH (2006) The future of patent enforcement after eBay v. MercExchange. Harvard J. Law Tech. 20(1): 235–252.Google Scholar
• Tucker C (2014) Patent trolls and technology diffusion: The case of medical imaging. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Research Paper Series, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
• Venkatesan J (2009) Compulsory licensing on nonpracticing patentees after eBay v. MercExchange. Virginia J. Law Tech. 14:26.Google Scholar
• Wesenberg E, O’Rourke P (2006) The toll on the troll. New Jersey Law J. (July 24), https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/900005458488/?slreturn=20210012145850.Google Scholar
• Williams HL (2016) Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from healthcare markets. Innovation Policy Econom. 16:53–87.Crossref, Google Scholar