IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v69y2016i5p1634-1638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A preemptive power to offensive patent litigation strategy: Value creation, transaction costs and organizational slack

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Yi-Min
  • Liu, Hsin-Hsien
  • Liu, Yu-Siang
  • Huang, Huei-Ting

Abstract

Offensive patent litigation is an increasingly important part of the firm's corporate strategy to protect the values of its intellectual property rights. Building on the value creation and transaction costs perspectives, this study explores how the preemptive power is most important to a firm's offensive patent litigation strategy through two key mechanisms. By applying an experimental design method to develop scenarios for top executives of publicly-traded companies and small- and medium-sized enterprises, the results show that both the patents' value creation based on their transaction costs and market positions influence the propensity of preemptive power separately through perceived benefits and organizational slack, and accordingly affect the offensive patent litigation strategy. These findings not only broaden the resource-based, transaction cost and value creation explanations of offensive patent litigation decisions, but also facilitate the formulation of the codes of conduct for the managerial capability in the contexts of offensive patent litigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Yi-Min & Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Liu, Yu-Siang & Huang, Huei-Ting, 2016. "A preemptive power to offensive patent litigation strategy: Value creation, transaction costs and organizational slack," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1634-1638.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:5:p:1634-1638
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296315004531
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.030?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. Lanjouw, Jean O & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Tilting the Table? The Use of Preliminary Injunctions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 573-603, October.
    3. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    4. Markus Reitzig & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 765-789, July.
    5. Chen, Yi-Min & Ni, Yu-Ting & Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Teng, Ying-Maw, 2015. "Information- and rivalry-based perspectives on reactive patent litigation strategy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 788-792.
    6. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    7. Kirsten Foss & Nicolai J. Foss, 2005. "Resources and transaction costs: how property rights economics furthers the resource‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 541-553, June.
    8. Rajshree Agarwal & Martin Ganco & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, 2009. "Reputations for toughness in patent enforcement: implications for knowledge spillovers via inventor mobility," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(13), pages 1349-1374, December.
    9. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    10. Bhagat, Sanjai & Brickley, James A. & Coles, Jeffrey L., 1994. "The costs of inefficient bargaining and financial distress *1: Evidence from corporate lawsuits," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 221-247, April.
    11. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
    12. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1982. "Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 280-312, August.
    13. Chen, Yi-Min & Yang, De-Hsin & Lin, Feng-Jyh, 2013. "Does technological diversification matter to firm performance? The moderating role of organizational slack," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1970-1975.
    14. Coase, R H, 1988. "The Nature of the Firm: Meaning," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 19-32, Spring.
    15. Barzel,Yoram, 1997. "Economic Analysis of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521597135, February.
    16. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    17. Dominique Guellec & Catalina Martinez & Pluvia Zuniga, 2012. "Pre-emptive patenting: securing market exclusion and freedom of operation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 1-29, October.
    18. Christoph Grimpe & Katrin Hussinger, 2014. "Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: The role of intellectual property rights," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1762-1780, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz & J. Alberto Aragon-Correa & Andrew G. Earle, 2022. "Innovating for Good in Opportunistic Contexts: The Case for Firms’ Environmental Divergence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 705-721, April.
    2. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    3. Tang, Xudong & Wang, Lin, 2024. "When your friend takes a fall: Spillovers of patent infringement lawsuits on firm innovation via cross-owners," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    6. Roberto Hernández-Chea & Pratheeba Vimalnath & Nancy Bocken & Frank Tietze & Elisabeth Eppinger, 2020. "Integrating Intellectual Property and Sustainable Business Models: The SBM-IP Canvas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-30, October.

    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. Gnekpe, Christian & Jimenez, Alfredo, 2023. "Smoke signal: When firms' patent strategy and local patent protection system affect equity stakes in cross-border acquisitions," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(6).
    2. Chih-Yi, Su & Bou-Wen, Lin, 2021. "Attack and defense in patent-based competition: A new paradigm of strategic decision-making in the era of the fourth industrial revolution," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    5. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    6. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    7. Yu-Shan Chen & Yu-Hsien Lin & Tai-Hsi Wu & Shu-Tzu Hung & Pei-Ju Lucy Ting & Chen-Han Hsieh, 2019. "Re-examine the determinants of market value from the perspectives of patent analysis and patent litigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Cremers, Katrin & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian & Lefouili, Yassine, 2016. "Invalid but infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 218-242.
    10. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    11. Chen, Yi-Min & Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Wu, Hsin-Yi, 2016. "Reputation for toughness and anti-dumping rebuttals: Competitive rivalry, perceived benefits, and stage of the product life cycle," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2145-2150.
    12. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    13. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman & Carlos J. Serrano, 2013. "Trading and enforcing patent rights," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 275-312, June.
    14. Papageorgiadis, Nikolaos & Procopiou, Andreas & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2023. "Unintended consequences of outcome based compensation – How CEO bonuses, stocks and stock options affect their firms' patent litigation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    15. Francesco SCHETTINO & Alessandro STERLACCHINI, 2007. "European Patenting and the Size of Inventors," Working Papers 308, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    16. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2010. "Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 472-503, September.
    17. Katrin Cremers & Paula Schliessler, 2015. "Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 185-208, October.
    18. Joshi, Amol M. & Hemmatian, Iman, 2018. "How do legal surprises drive organizational attention and case resolution? An analysis of false patent marking lawsuits," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1741-1761.
    19. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.

    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:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:5:p:1634-1638. 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/jbusres .

    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.