IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v23y2012i3p869-887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tribunal Specialization and Institutional Targeting in Patent Enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Deepak Somaya

    (College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois 61820)

  • Christine A. McDaniel

    (United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20436)

Abstract

Recent scholarship on nonmarket strategies has sought to understand organizational decisions to target specific institutional venues for nonmarket actions. We contribute to this emerging literature by studying institutional targeting between specialized and general-purpose tribunals, which are available to resolve disputes in a number of settings. Whereas prior work on institutional targeting has primarily focused on the differences in the policy preferences of public actors and the susceptibility of policy positions to influence activities, we focus on the differences in expertise and procedural flexibility that typically accompany tribunal specialization. We develop a theory about targeting decisions (forum shopping) in such contexts, which suggests two main drivers of tribunal targeting—expected settlement and expected returns. Drawing on these mechanisms, we formulate hypotheses linking tribunal targeting decisions to firm-level attributes such as (market) strategic stakes, institutional distance from competitors, and tribunal-specific capabilities. Our hypotheses are tested using a novel data set of patent enforcement against U.S. imports, which also sheds light on nonmarket strategies in patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Deepak Somaya & Christine A. McDaniel, 2012. "Tribunal Specialization and Institutional Targeting in Patent Enforcement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 869-887, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:3:p:869-887
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0669
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0669
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1110.0669?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
    ---><---

    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. Jean‐Philippe Bonardi, 2004. "Global and political strategies in deregulated industries: the asymmetric behaviors of former monopolies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 101-120, February.
    3. Guy L. F. Holburn, 2004. "Influencing Agencies Through Pivotal Political Institutions," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 458-483, October.
    4. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), 2007. "Handbook of Law and Economics," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    5. Jean Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 1998. "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 223-246.
    6. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    7. Vanden Bergh, Richard G. & Holburn, Guy L.F., 2007. "Targeting Corporate Political Strategy: Theory and Evidence from the U.S. Accounting Industry," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 1-31, August.
    8. Sartori, Anne E., 2003. "An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 111-138, April.
    9. Anne Parmigiani, 2007. "Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 285-311, March.
    10. Zaheer, Srilata, 2002. "The liability of foreignness, redux: a commentary," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 351-358.
    11. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "The Deadline Effect in Bargaining: Some Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 806-823, September.
    12. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    13. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    14. Scott F. Turner & Will Mitchell & Richard A. Bettis, 2010. "Responding to Rivals and Complements: How Market Concentration Shapes Generational Product Innovation Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 854-872, August.
    15. Ma, Ching-To Albert & Manove, Michael, 1993. "Bargaining with Deadlines and Imperfect Player Control," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1313-1339, November.
    16. De Figueiredo, John M. & De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Working papers 4247-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. de Figueiredo, John M. & de Figueiredo, Rui J.P., 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 161-181, August.
    18. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), 2007. "Handbook of Law and Economics," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    19. Sidney G. Winter, 2003. "Understanding dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 991-995, October.
    20. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    21. Kathryn E. Spier, 1992. "The Dynamics of Pretrial Negotiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(1), pages 93-108.
    22. David P. Baron, 1997. "Integrated Strategy and International Trade Disputes: The Kodak‐Fujifilm Case," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 291-346, June.
    23. Oxley, Joanne E., 1999. "Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: the impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 283-309, March.
    24. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
    25. Carsten Fink & Keith E. Maskus, 2005. "Intellectual Property and Development : Lessons from Recent Economic Research," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7443.
    26. Rubin, Paul H & Curran, Christopher & Curran, John F, 2001. "Litigation versus Legislation: Forum Shopping by Rent Seekers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(3-4), pages 295-310, June.
    27. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    28. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:49-50:p:08 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. Witold J Henisz, 2003. "The power of the Buckley and Casson thesis: the ability to manage institutional idiosyncrasies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 34(2), pages 173-184, March.
    30. Peter C. Cramton, 1992. "Strategic Delay in Bargaining with Two-Sided Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(1), pages 205-225.
    31. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    32. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    33. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    34. Heckman, James J, 1974. "Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 679-694, July.
    35. John M. de Figueiredo & Rui J.P. de Figueiredo, 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," NBER Working Papers 8981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    36. Thomas P. Murtha & Stefanie Ann Lenway, 1994. "Country capabilities and the strategic state: How national political institutions affect multinational Corporations' Strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S2), pages 113-129, June.
    37. Baron, David P., 1999. "Integrated Market and Nonmarket Strategies in Client and Interest Group Politics," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 7-34, April.
    38. Figueiredo John M. de & J. P. de Figueiredo Jr Rui, 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-22, August.
    39. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, June.
    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. Minyuan Zhao, 2020. "China’s intellectual property rights policies: A strategic view," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 73-77, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Juranek, Steffen, 2018. "Investing in legal advice," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 28-46.
    4. Zhang, Ya-Feng & Li, Li-Ming & Xu, Ke, 2022. "Do specialized intellectual property courts show a pro-patent propensity? Evidence from China," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Su-Chen Yu & Kuang-Hsun Shih, 2021. "Financial Market Reaction to Patent Lawsuits against Integrated Circuit Design Companies," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Wenjing Wang & Yiwei Liu, 2022. "Industrial funding and university technology transfer: the moderating role of intellectual property rights enforcement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1549-1572, October.
    11. Tatiana Kostova & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & W. Richard Scott & Vincent E. Kunst & Chei Hwee Chua & Marc Essen, 2020. "The construct of institutional distance through the lens of different institutional perspectives: Review, analysis, and recommendations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(4), pages 467-497, June.

    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. Hong Luo & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2017. "Copyright Enforcement: Evidence from Two Field Experiments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 499-528, June.
    2. Bogdan Genchev & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2016. "Empirical Evidence on Conditional Pricing Practices," NBER Working Papers 22313, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. White, George O. & Hemphill, Thomas A. & Joplin, Janice R.W. & Marsh, Laurence A., 2014. "Wholly owned foreign subsidiary relation-based strategies in volatile environments," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 303-312.
    6. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    7. Virginia Rosales-López, 2008. "Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 231-251, June.
    8. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    9. Julian Schumacher & Christoph Trebesch & Henrik Enderlein, 2015. "What Explains Sovereign Debt Litigation?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    10. 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).
    11. J.J. Prescott & Kathryn E. Spier & Albert Yoon, 2014. "Trial and Settlement: A Study of High-Low Agreements," NBER Working Papers 19873, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, 2017. "Understanding the Time to Court Case Resolution: A Competing Risks Analysis Using Belgian Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 6450, CESifo.
    13. Graevenitz, Georg von, 2007. "Which Reputations Does a Brand Owner Need? Evidence from Trade Mark Opposition," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 215, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    14. Zhou, J., 2010. "Access to justice : An economic approach," Other publications TiSEM 9d70f451-35c4-4878-92bf-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Peter Grajzl & Katarina Zajc, 2017. "Litigation and the timing of settlement: evidence from commercial disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 287-319, October.
    16. John M. de Figueiredo, 2009. "Integrated Political Strategy," NBER Working Papers 15053, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Cremers, Katrin, 2004. "Determinants of Patent Litigation in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-72, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Patent Thickets and the Market for Innovation: Evidence from Settlement of Patent Disputes," CEP Discussion Papers dp0889, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:3:p:869-887. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.