The impact of patent infringement litigation decisions on firms' innovation performance in China.
Firm size
Impact mechanism
Innovation performance
Patent protection
Win-or-lose decision
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 10 2024
09 10 2024
Historique:
received:
04
04
2024
accepted:
30
09
2024
medline:
10
10
2024
pubmed:
10
10
2024
entrez:
9
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The judiciary protects the value of innovation through remedies such as injunctions and damages when patent rights are infringed, adjusting the expected returns on future innovation activities for firms. Based on data from 1,062 Chinese firms involved in Patent Infringement Litigations (PILs), this study uses three-way fixed-effects Poisson panel regression models to examine the dynamic impacts of a PIL win-or-lose decision on breakthrough and incremental innovation performance for plaintiff and defendant firms. The study finds that plaintiff micro and small-sized enterprises (MSEs) can only engage in short-term breakthrough innovation after winning a PIL. Plaintiff medium and large-sized enterprises (MLEs) tend to adopt the patent defence strategy after winning, while losing a case positively impacts their breakthrough and incremental innovation. Defendant firms adopt the strategy from incremental innovation to breakthrough innovation after winning, while losing inhibits their innovation. The current Chinese patent system has an imbalance in incentivizing innovation for MSEs. Whether winning or losing, defendant MSEs participating in litigation significantly inhibit their innovation performance at different levels. This paper provides a multidimensional angle for studying the relationship between patent protection and corporate innovation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39384940
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-74924-1
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-74924-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23564Subventions
Organisme : National Social Science Fund of China
ID : 22VRC064
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 71974096
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Qian, C. The culture of China’s mediation in regional and international affairs. Confl. Resolut Q. 28 (1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.20012 (2010).
doi: 10.1002/crq.20012
Minzner, C. F. China’s turn against law. Am. J. Comp. Law. 59 (4), 935–984. https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2011.0006 (2011).
doi: 10.5131/AJCL.2011.0006
Herz, B. & Mejer, M. Effects of the European Union trademark: lessons for the harmonization of intellectual property systems. Res. Policy. 48 (7), 1841–1854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.010 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.010
Papageorgiadis, N. & McDonald, F. Defining and measuring the institutional context of national intellectual property systems in a post-TRIPS world. J. Int. Manag. 25 (1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2018.05.002 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2018.05.002
Kafouros, M., Aliyev, M. & Krammer, S. M. Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets. Res. Policy. 50 (6), 104263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104263 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104263
Ma, B. & Yu, D. Can patentee preference in patent infringement dispute resolution impact innovation? R D Manag. 53, 12657. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12657 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/radm.12657
Jeon, H. Patent infringement, litigation, and settlement. Econ. Model. 51, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.07.019 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2015.07.019
Juranek, S., Quan, T. & Turner, J. L. Patents, litigation strategy and antitrust in innovative industries. Rev. Ind. Organ. 56, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-020-09756-0 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s11151-020-09756-0
Lanjouw, J. O. & Schankerman, M. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND J. Econ. 32 (1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696401 (2001).
doi: 10.2307/2696401
Buss, P. & Peukert, C. R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement. Res. Policy. 44 (4), 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.11.006 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.11.006
Mazzeo, M. J., Hillel, J. & Zyontz, S. Explaining the unpredictable: an empirical analysis of U.S. patent infringement awards. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 35, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2013.03.001 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2013.03.001
Bian, R. Patent litigation in China: challenging conventional wisdom. Berkeley Tech. L J. 33 (2), 413–486. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z382J6846W (2018).
doi: 10.15779/Z382J6846W
Hu, W., Yoshioka-Kobayashi, T. & Watanabe, T. Determinants of patent infringement awards in the U.S., Japan, and China: a comparative analysis. World Pat. Inf. 60, 101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2019.101947 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2019.101947
Wang, L., Zhang, Y. & Yan, Y. Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: an organizational routine perspective. Technovation. 122, 102663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102663 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102663
Reitzig, M., Henkel, J. & Heath, C. On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of being infringed. Res. Policy. 36 (1), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.003 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.003
He, N. & Dong, Z. Quantitative modeling and empirical research on the intensity of patent judicial protection. Sci. Res. Manag. 41 (2), 115–122 (2020). (In Chinese).
Kiebzak, S., Rafert, G. & Tucker, C. E. The effect of patent litigation and patent assertion entities on entrepreneurial activity. Res. Policy. 45 (1), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.002 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.002
Raghu, T. S., Woo, W., Mohan, S. B. & Rao, H. R. Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry. Inf. Syst. Front. 10, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-007-9036-5 (2008).
doi: 10.1007/s10796-007-9036-5
Nam, S., Nam, C. & Kim, S. The impact of patent litigation on shareholder value in the smartphone industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 95, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.015 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.015
Tang, X. & Wang, L. When your friend takes a fall: spillovers of patent infringement lawsuits on firm innovation via cross-owners. Econ. Model. 131, 106597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106597 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106597
Pan, Y., Pan, J. & Dai, Y. Patent litigation and innovation. J. Financ Res. 434 (8), 191–206 (2016). (In Chinese).
Yin, Z., Guo, J., Sun, Z. & Zhou, M. How do patent trolls affect the technological innovation of Chinese enterprises? Evidence from enterprise patent survey data in China. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 65, 101695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101695 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101695
Xu, K., Hen, N. & Xiao, B. Patent decision-making Behaviour of Chinese Enterprises Based on Patent Litigation. Macroeconomic. 26 (1), 129–140 (2020). (In Chinese).
Hu, W., Yoshioka-Kobayashi, T. & Watanabe, T. Impact of patent litigation on the subsequent patenting behavior of the plaintiff small and medium enterprises in Japan. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 51, 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2017.06.002 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2017.06.002
Liu, C. Y., Wu, H. L. & Lee, C. Y. The relationship between patent attributes and patent litigation: considering the moderating effects of managerial characteristics. Asia Pac. Manag Rev. 23 (2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.05.001 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.05.001
Cohen, L., Gurun, U. G. & Kominers, S. D. Patent trolls: evidence from targeted firms. Manag Sci. 65 (12), 5461–5486. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3147 (2019).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3147
Manso, G. & Motivating innovation J. Finance 66(5), 1823–1860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01688.x (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01688.x
Lemley, M. A. & Shapiro, C. Probabilistic patents. J. Econ. Perspect. 19 (2), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330054048650 (2005).
doi: 10.1257/0895330054048650
Wu, P. & Weng, C. X. C. Old wine in a new bottle? Assessing the injunction remedy for intellectual property disputes in China. Queen Mary J. Intellect. Prop. 11 (3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.03.02 (2021).
doi: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.03.02
Karpoff, J. M. & Lott, J. R. Jr The reputational penalty firms bear from committing criminal fraud. J. Law Econ. 36 (2), 757–802. https://doi.org/10.1086/467297 (1993).
doi: 10.1086/467297
Melero, E., Palomeras, N. & Wehrheim, D. The effect of patent protection on inventor mobility. Manag Sci. 66 (12), 5485–5504. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3500 (2020).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3500
Yang, D. Patent litigation strategy and its effects on the firm. Int. J. Manag Rev. 21 (4), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12202 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12202
Deng, H., Xiong, L. & Xiao, L. Does patent infringement litigation affect stock price crash risk? Evidence from China. Acc. Finance. 63, 13139. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13139 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/acfi.13139
Priest, G. L. & Klein, B. The selection of disputes for litigation. J. Leg. Stud. 13 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/467732 (1984).
doi: 10.1086/467732
Lee, Y. H. A. & Klerman, D. The Priest-Klein hypotheses: proofs and generality. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 48, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2016.06.002 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2016.06.002
Cremers, K. et al. Patent litigation in Europe. Eur. J. Law Econ. 44, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-9529-0 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s10657-016-9529-0
Helmers, C. & McDonagh, L. Patent litigation in the U.K.: an empirical survey 2000–2008. J. Intellect. Prop. Law Pract. 8 (11), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt162 (2013).
doi: 10.1093/jiplp/jpt162
Jones, S. L., Leiponen, A. & Vasudeva, G. The evolution of cooperation in the face of conflict: evidence from the innovation ecosystem for mobile telecom standards development. Strateg Manag J. 42 (4), 710–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3244 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/smj.3244
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 18 (7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C;509::AID-SMJ882%3E;3.0.CO;2-Z (1997).
Yang, C. & Huang, C. Quantitative mapping of the evolution of A.I. policy distribution, targets and focuses over three decades in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 174, 121188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121188 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121188
An, T., Wei, J. & Shu, X. The measure of innovation in Chinese manufacturing enterprises - a intertemporal comparison based on micro-surveys. Soci Sci. China. 41 (3), 99–122 (2020). (In Chinese).
Zhang, C., Sun, P. & Xie, J. Does the position of the production chain affect the choice of Innovation modes? Theory and evidence based on Micro Perspective. J. Manag World. 36 (1), 45–59 (2020). (In Chinese).
Pan, X., Cheng, W. & Gao, Y. The impact of privatization of state-owned enterprises on innovation in China: a tale of privatization degree. Technovation. 118, 102587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102587 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102587
Coad, A., Segarra, A. & Teruel, M. Innovation and firm growth: does firm age play a role? Res. Policy. 45 (2), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.015 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.015
Liu, H., Xing, F., Li, B. & Yakshtas, K. Does the high-tech enterprise certification policy promote innovation in China? Sci. Public. Policy. 47 (5), 678–688. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa050 (2020).
doi: 10.1093/scipol/scaa050
Huergo, E. & Jaumandreu, J. How does Probability of Innovation Change with Firm Age? Small Bus. Econ. 22 (3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022220.07366.b5 (2004).
doi: 10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022220.07366.b5
Dong, G., Kokko, A. & Zhou, H. Innovation and export performance of emerging market enterprises: the roles of state and foreign ownership in China. Int. Bus. Rev. 31 (6), 102025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102025 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102025
Galasso, A. & Schankerman, M. Patents and cumulative Innovation: causal evidence from the courts. Q. J. Econ. 130 (1), 317–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju029 (2015).
doi: 10.1093/qje/qju029
Ernst, H. Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Res. Policy. 30 (1), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00098-0 (2001).
doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00098-0
Huang, K. G. L., Huang, C., Shen, H. & Mao, H. Assessing the value of China’s patented inventions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 170, 120868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120868 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120868
Byun, S. K., Jong-Min, O. & Han, X. Incremental vs. breakthrough innovation: the role of technology spillovers. Manag Sci. 67 (3), 1779–1802. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3507 (2021).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3507
Arts, S., Jianan, H. & Juan, C. G. Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: code, data, and new measures. Res. Policy. 50 (2), 104144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104144 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104144