IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/inecon/v140y2023ics002219962200126x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual property infringement by foreign firms: Import protection through the ITC or court

Author

Listed:
  • Brander, James A.
  • Spencer, Barbara J.

Abstract

This paper examines intellectual property litigation as a method of protection from patent-infringing imports. Claims against patent-infringing imports entering the United States may be filed before the International Trade Commission (ITC) or in district court. The ITC applies injunctions (import prohibitions) that would seem to provide more protection from infringing imports than the standard license fee remedy in court. Settlements prior to legal adjudication are common in both venues. Using a model with Nash bargaining and Cournot competition, we show that an ITC filing may restrict imports by less than in court. This result tends to apply if product differentiation is high and the size of the patented cost-reducing innovation is large.

Suggested Citation

  • Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 2023. "Intellectual property infringement by foreign firms: Import protection through the ITC or court," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:140:y:2023:i:c:s002219962200126x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2022.103694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002219962200126X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jinteco.2022.103694?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. Mutti, John & Yeung, Bernard, 1996. "Section 337 and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the United States: The Complainants and the Impact," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(3), pages 510-520, August.
    3. Mr. Douglas A. Irwin, 2005. "The Rise of U.S. Antidumping Activity in Historical Perspective," IMF Working Papers 2005/031, International Monetary Fund.
    4. Larry D. Qiu & Huayang Yu, 2010. "Does the Protection of Foreign Intellectual Property Rights Stimulate Innovation in the US?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 882-895, November.
    5. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2015. "Standard-Essential Patents," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(3), pages 547-586.
    6. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Phillip McCalman, 2005. "Who enjoys `TRIPs' abroad? An empirical analysis of intellectual property rights in the Uruguay Round," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 574-603, May.
    8. Eric W. Bond & Kamal Saggi, 2023. "Patent protection in developing countries and global welfare: WTO obligations versus flexibilities," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 22, pages 505-520, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Maskus, Keith E. & Penubarti, Mohan, 1995. "How trade-related are intellectual property rights?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 227-248, November.
    10. 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).
    11. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Chen, Yongmin & Ishikawa, Jota & Yu, Zhihao, 2004. "Trade liberalization and strategic outsourcing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 419-436, July.
    13. Douglas A. Irwin, 2005. "The Rise of US Anti‐dumping Activity in Historical Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 651-668, May.
    14. Belderbos, R. & Vandenbussche, H. & Veugelers, R., 2004. "Antidumping duties, undertakings, and foreign direct investment in the EU," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 429-453, April.
    15. Shin Kishimoto & Shigeo Muto, 2012. "Fee Versus Royalty Policy In Licensing Through Bargaining: An Application Of The Nash Bargaining Solution," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 293-304, April.
    16. Aoki, Reiko & Prusa, Thomas J., 1993. "International standards for intellectual property protection and R & D incentives," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3-4), pages 251-273, November.
    17. Kara Reynolds, 2013. "Under the Cover of Antidumping: Does Administered Protection Facilitate Domestic Collusion?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 415-434, June.
    18. Gallaway, Michael P. & Blonigen, Bruce A. & Flynn, Joseph E., 1999. "Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 211-244, December.
    19. Shin Kishimoto, 2020. "The welfare effect of bargaining power in the licensing of a cost-reducing technology," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 173-193, March.
    20. Hylton, Keith N. & Zhang, Mengxi, 2017. "Optimal remedies for patent infringement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 44-57.
    21. Catherine Y. Co, 2004. "How Valuable are the Patents Behind Section 337 Cases?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 525-539, April.
    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. 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).
    2. Ray-Yun Chang & Hong Hwang & Cheng-Hau Peng, 2020. "Antidumping protection and welfare in a differentiated duopoly," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 421-446, July.
    3. Michel DE VROEY, 2013. "What can civil society expect from academic macroeconomics?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013022, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    4. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bruce A. Blonigen & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2004. "Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Antidumping Policy: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 134-154, March.
    6. Archontakis, Fragiskos & Varsakelis, Nikos C., 2017. "Patenting abroad: Evidence from OECD countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 62-69.
    7. Laura Rovegno, 2013. "Trade protection and market power: evidence from US antidumping and countervailing duties," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(3), pages 443-476, September.
    8. Laura ROVEGNO, 2013. "Endogenous trade restrictions and exporters’ pricing," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    9. Bown, Chad P., 2009. "The global resort to antidumping, safeguards, and other trade remedies amidst the economic crisis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5051, The World Bank.
    10. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2013. "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(2), pages 295-320, June.
    11. Chihcheng Lo, 2015. "Institutional Void And The Evolution Of Appropriability Regime - The Case Of The Transition Of Intellectual Property Rights Policy In Taiwan," Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences 2303747, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    12. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    13. Chang, Yang-Ming & Raza, Mian F., 2023. "Dumping, antidumping duties, and price undertakings," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 131-151.
    14. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    15. Taylor, Christopher T., 2004. "The economic effects of withdrawn antidumping investigations: is there evidence of collusive settlements?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 295-312, March.
    16. Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan, Arevik & Hoffstadt, Martin, 2020. "Use and Abuse of Antidumping by Global Cartels," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-677, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    17. repec:lic:licosd:34213 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    19. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    20. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    21. Colin A. Carter & Caroline Gunning-Trant, 2010. "U.S. trade remedy law and agriculture: trade diversion and investigation effects," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 97-126, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intellectual property; Patent infringement; Royalty; International Trade Commission; Import injunctions; Administered protection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General

    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:eee:inecon:v:140:y:2023:i:c:s002219962200126x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505552 .

    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.