IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v10y2008i1d10.1007_s10796-007-9036-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry

Author

Listed:
  • T. S. Raghu

    (Arizona State University)

  • Wonseok Woo

    (Ewha University)

  • S. B. Mohan

    (SBM Associates)

  • H. Raghav Rao

    (325C Jacobs Management Center)

Abstract

Intellectual property portfolios that include unique inventions and discoveries are potentially inimitable resources that provide strategic leverage to Information Technology (IT) firms. The increasing patent related litigations in the IT industry, and the high costs associated with litigations make this an economically significant activity. Taking a market oriented view to this issue we investigate the economic impact of patent infringement litigation on both the plaintiff and the defendant firms in IT industry. Event study methodology is used to assess the effect of the litigation on the stock market returns around the date of litigation announcement as well as the date of settlement/termination. Our results suggest that the news of patent infringement litigation was unfavorably accepted in the stock market for the defendants. On the other hand, abnormal returns for plaintiff firms around litigation announcement date as well as settlement/termination date were significantly positive. We find evidence to the effect that patent litigations are not zero-sum games since combined abnormal returns for the plaintiff and defendant firms are negative. Patents belonging to the electronic and electric categories are more likely to influence market returns, whereas computer and communications patent categories are less likely to do so. Patent importance (as measured by patent citations) is found to be an important contributor to market’s evaluation of a patent litigation’s impact.

Suggested Citation

  • T. S. Raghu & Wonseok Woo & S. B. Mohan & H. Raghav Rao, 2008. "Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 61-75, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:10:y:2008:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-007-9036-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-007-9036-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-007-9036-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-007-9036-5?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. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-423, May.
    3. Dodd, Peter & Warner, Jerold B., 1983. "On corporate governance : A study of proxy contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 401-438, April.
    4. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    5. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    6. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    7. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 1994. "Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-402, August.
    8. C. Ranganathan & Carol V. Brown, 2006. "ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms: Toward an Understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 145-161, June.
    9. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 4(1), pages 141-168, January.
    10. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    11. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law - Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2475, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jan 2002.
    13. Ohlson, Ja, 1980. "Financial Ratios And The Probabilistic Prediction Of Bankruptcy," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 109-131.
    14. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    15. Wier, Peggy, 1983. "The costs of antimerger lawsuits : Evidence from the stock market," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 207-224, April.
    16. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, April.
    17. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    18. Sanjai Bhagat & John Bizjak & Jeffrey L. Coles, 1998. "The Shareholder Wealth Implications of Corporate Lawsuits," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 27(4), Winter.
    19. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    20. Brian L. Dos Santos & Ken Peffers & David C. Mauer, 1993. "The Impact of Information Technology Investment Announcements on the Market Value of the Firm," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 1-23, March.
    21. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    22. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part II: Empirical Studies of Corporate Law," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 4(2), pages 380-423.
    23. 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.
    24. Koku, Paul Sergius & Qureshi, Anique A. & Akhigbe, Aigbe, 2001. "The effects of news on initial corporate lawsuits," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 49-55, July.
    25. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, "undated". "Event Studies and the Law: Part II--Empirical Studies and Corporate Law," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1019, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    26. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, "undated". "Event Studies and the Law--Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1021, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    27. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    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. Kuang-Hsun Shih & Fu-Ju Yang & Jhih-Ta Shih & Yi-Hsien Wang, 2020. "Patent Litigation, Competitive Dynamics, and Stock Market Volatility," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. 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).
    3. Omer Unsal & M. Kabir Hassan, 2020. "Employee lawsuits and capital structure," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 663-704, June.
    4. Michael Firth & Oliver M. Rui & Wenfeng Wu, 2011. "The Effects of Political Connections and State Ownership on Corporate Litigation in China," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(3), pages 573-607.
    5. Ormosi, Peter L., 2012. "Claim efficiencies or offer remedies? An analysis of litigation strategies in EC mergers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 578-592.
    6. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    7. 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).
    8. Stuart, Graham & Higgins, Matthew, 2007. "The Impact of Patenting on New Product Introductions in the Pharmaceutical Industry," MPRA Paper 4574, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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).
    10. Ueda, Masako & Hirukawa, Masayuki, 2008. "Venture Capital and Industrial ''Innovation''," CEPR Discussion Papers 7089, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J Bommarito II & Tyler Soellinger & James Ming Chen, 2015. "Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making," Papers 1508.05751, arXiv.org, revised May 2017.
    12. Kimberlee Weatherall & Elizabeth Webster, 2014. "Patent Enforcement: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 312-343, April.
    13. Kimmel, Randall K. & Antenucci, Robert & Hasan, Shahriar, 2017. "Investor perception and business method patents: A natural experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-48.
    14. Peter Ormosi, 2010. "The determinants of merger litigation strategies: An empirical analysis of EC mergers," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2010-01, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    15. Utpal Bhattacharya & Neal Galpin & Bruce Haslem, 2007. "The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(4), pages 625-660.
    16. Cremers, K. J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2013. "Staggered Boards and Firm Value, Revisited," Working Papers 13-36, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Weiss Center.
    17. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    18. Gokhale, Jayendra & Brooks, Raymond M. & Tremblay, Victor J., 2014. "The effect on stockholder wealth of product recalls and government action: The case of Toyota's accelerator pedal recall," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 521-528.
    19. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    20. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "The Financing of Innovative Firms," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 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:spr:infosf:v:10:y:2008:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-007-9036-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.