IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uts/ecowps/2019-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pay-for-delay with Follow-on Products

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Lemus

    (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)

  • Emil Temnyalov

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

We study pay-for-delay settlements between a patent holder and a challenger when the patent holder can introduce follow-on products. We show that ignoring follow-on products biases the inferred competitive harm of pay-for-delay settlements (the �Actavis inference�). The reason is that patent invalidation triggers an earlier introduction of follow-on products which changes pay-for-delay negotiation�s payoffs relative to the case of no follow-on products. When follow-on products are ignored, we show that an inference based on a reverse payment over-estimates patent strength. If parties cannot use payments (as in pure-delay settlements), follow-on products may push the parties to settle on an earlier entry date relative to the entry date negotiated in the absence of follow-on products, and litigation may arise in equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Lemus & Emil Temnyalov, 2019. "Pay-for-delay with Follow-on Products," Working Paper Series 2019/09, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    • Handle: RePEc:uts:ecowps:2019/09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/Emil%20T%20final%20WP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    2. Ruben Jacobo-Rubio & John L. Turner & Jonathan W. Williams, 2020. "The Distribution of Surplus in the US Pharmaceutical Industry: Evidence from Paragraph iv Patent-Litigation Decisions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(2), pages 203-238.
    3. Hovenkamp, Erik & Lemus, Jorge, 2018. "Delayed entry settlements at the patent office," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 30-38.
    4. Jeremy Bulow, 2004. "The Gaming of Pharmaceutical Patents," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 145-187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. 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.
    6. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    7. Heyes, Anthony & Rickman, Neil & Tzavara, Dionisia, 2004. "Legal expenses insurance, risk aversion and litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 107-119, March.
    8. Che, Yeon-Koo & Yi, Jong Goo, 1993. "The Role of Precedents in Repeated Litigation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 399-424, October.
    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. Sencer Ecer & Rodrigo Montes & David Weiskopf, 2020. "On the Application of Nash Bargaining in Reverse Payment Cases in the Pharmaceutical Industry," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 133-147, August.
    2. Ahn, Kiefer & Trujillo, Antonio & Gibbons, Jason & Bennett, Charles L. & Anderson, Gerard, 2023. "Settled: Patent characteristics and litigation outcomes in the pharmaceutical industry," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Anton‐Giulio Manganelli, 2021. "Reverse payments, patent strength, and asymmetric information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 20-35, January.
    4. Manganelli, Anton-Giulio, 2023. "Pay-for-delay settlements and patent expansion practices," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Roger D. Blair, 2020. "The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 557-561, 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. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    2. Chopard, Bertrand & Cortade, Thomas & Langlais, Eric, 2010. "Trial and settlement negotiations between asymmetrically skilled parties," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 18-27, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Bar, Talia & Kalinowski, Jesse, 2019. "Patent validity and the timing of settlements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Hans K. Hvide & Eirik Gaard Kristiansen, 2012. "Management of Knowledge Workers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(4), pages 815-838.
    6. McBride, Michael & Skaperdas, Stergios & Tsai, Pi-Han, 2018. "Why go to court? Bargaining failure under the shadow of trial with complete information," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 151-168.
    7. Buzzacchi, Luigi & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2008. "Patent litigation insurance and R&D incentives," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 272-286, December.
    8. Duy Vu, 2018. "To Settle or to Fight to the End? Case-level Determinants of Early Settlement of Investor-State Disputes," GREDEG Working Papers 2018-36, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Feb 2020.
    9. 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.
    10. Keith N. Hylton & Haizhen Lin, 2009. "Trial Selection Theory: A Unified Model," Working Papers 2009-06, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    11. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Anton‐Giulio Manganelli, 2021. "Reverse payments, patent strength, and asymmetric information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 20-35, January.
    14. Steven Shavell, 2003. "Economic Analysis of Litigation and the Legal Process," NBER Working Papers 9697, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    16. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Xinyu Hua & Kathryn E. Spier, 2005. "Information and Externalities in Sequential Litigation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(2), pages 215-232, June.
    18. Hyde, Charles E. & Williams, Philip L., 2002. "Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-152, August.
    19. Nathalie Chappe & Raphaël Giraud, 2013. "Confidence, Optimism and Litigation: A Litigation Model under Ambiguity," Working Papers hal-04287896, HAL.
    20. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1995. "Keeping Society in the Dark: On the Admissibility of Pretrial Negotiations as Evidence in Court," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 203-221, Summer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pay-for-delay; product hopping; evergreening; antitrust; litigation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D2 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uts:ecowps:2019/09. 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: Duncan Ford (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edutsau.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.