IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/253661.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining over Royalties in the Shadow of Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Griem, Fabian
  • Inderst, Roman

Abstract

We model negotiations over patent royalties in the shadow of litigation through a Nash-in-Nash approach, where outside options, triggered in case of disagreement, are derived from a subsequent game of litigation. The outcome of litigation depends both on "hard determinants", such as relative patent strength, and on "soft determinants", such as parties' efficacy in litigation or their (known) preparedness to disrupt negotiations in favor of litigation. Amongst other things, this has implications for the interpretation of observed royalties in empirical analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Griem, Fabian & Inderst, Roman, 2020. "Bargaining over Royalties in the Shadow of Litigation," EconStor Preprints 253661, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:253661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/253661/1/Bargaining_over_Royalties_in_the_Shadow_of_Litigation_03.20%20%281%29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Michaela Draganska & Daniel Klapper & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2010. "A Larger Slice or a Larger Pie? An Empirical Investigation of Bargaining Power in the Distribution Channel," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 57-74, 01-02.
    3. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    4. Sergio Meza & K. Sudhir, 2010. "Do private labels increase retailer bargaining power?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 333-363, September.
    5. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Aviv Nevo & Robert Town, 2015. "Mergers When Prices Are Negotiated: Evidence from the Hospital Industry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 172-203, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Katz, Michael L, 1987. "The Welfare Effects of Third-Degree Price Discrimination in," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(1), pages 154-167, March.
    8. Stergios Skaperdas, 1996. "Contest success functions (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 283-290.
    9. Gilbert, Richard J., 2011. "Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations in Standard-Setting Organizations," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt6kv798tf, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    10. Gregory S. Crawford & Ali Yurukoglu, 2012. "The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 643-685, April.
    11. Matthew Grennan, 2014. "Bargaining Ability and Competitive Advantage: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3011-3025, December.
    12. Céline Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2016. "Organic Label, Bargaining Power, and Profit-sharing in the French Fluid Milk Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(1), pages 113-133.
    13. Kennan, John & Wilson, Robert, 1993. "Bargaining with Private Information," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 45-104, March.
    14. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    15. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    16. Massimiliano Granieri & Maria Isabella Leone & Raffaele Oriani, 2011. "Patent Licensing Contracts," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Mariko Sakakibara, 2010. "An empirical analysis of pricing in patent licensing contracts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 927-945, June.
    18. Matthew Grennan, 2013. "Price Discrimination and Bargaining: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 145-177, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1984. "Involuntary Unemployment as a Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(6), pages 1351-1364, November.
    21. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, September.
    22. Haucap, Justus & Heimeshoff, Ulrich & Klein, Gordon J. & Rickert, Dennis & Wey, Christian, 2013. "Bargaining power in manufacturer-retailer relationships," DICE Discussion Papers 107, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    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. Johannes Münster & Markus Reisinger, 2021. "Sequencing Bilateral Negotiations with Externalities," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 096, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Carlos Noton & Andrés Elberg, 2013. "Revealing Bargaining Power through Actual Wholesale Prices," Documentos de Trabajo 304, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    3. Björn Brügemann & Pieter Gautier & Guido Menzio, 2019. "Intra Firm Bargaining and Shapley Values," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(2), pages 564-592.
    4. Matthew Grennan & Ashley Swanson, 2020. "Transparency and Negotiated Prices: The Value of Information in Hospital-Supplier Bargaining," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1234-1268.
    5. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Aviv Nevo & Robert Town, 2015. "Mergers When Prices Are Negotiated: Evidence from the Hospital Industry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 172-203, January.
    6. Howard Smith & Walter Beckert & Yuya Takahashi, 2020. "Competition in a spatially-differentiated product market with negotiated prices," Economics Series Working Papers 921, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Germain Gaudin, 2018. "Vertical Bargaining and Retail Competition: What Drives Countervailing Power?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(614), pages 2380-2413, September.
    8. Aghadadashli, Hamid & Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Wey, Christian, 2016. "The Nash bargaining solution in vertical relations with linear input prices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 291-294.
    9. Allan Collard-Wexler & Gautam Gowrisankaran & Robin S. Lee, 2019. ""Nash-in-Nash" Bargaining: A Microfoundation for Applied Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 163-195.
    10. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Molina, Hugo, 2016. "The Welfare Effects of Brand Portfolio Strategies in the Soft Drink Industry: A Structural Bargaining Approach with Limited Data," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 245168, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Matthew Backus & Thomas Blakee & Brad Larsen & Steven Tadelis, 2020. "Sequential Bargaining in the Field: Evidence from Millions of Online Bargaining Interactions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1319-1361.
    12. Daniel P. O'Brien, 2014. "The welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination in intermediate good markets: the case of bargaining," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 92-115, March.
    13. Harold Houba, 2005. "Stochastic Orders of Proposing Players in Bargaining," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 05-063/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Liang Mao, 2017. "Subgame perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model with deterministic procedures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 485-500, April.
    15. Mao, Liang, 2015. "Subgame Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model with Deterministic Procedures," MPRA Paper 67859, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Smith, Howard & Beckert, Walter & Takahashi, Yuya, 2020. "Competition in a spatially-differentiated product market with negotiated prices," CEPR Discussion Papers 15379, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Shohei Yoshida, 2018. "Bargaining power and firm profits in asymmetric duopoly: an inverted-U relationship," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 139-158, June.
    18. Walter Beckert, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Countervailing Power in Business-to-Business Bargaining," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(3), pages 369-402, May.
    19. Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2005. "Strategic union delegation and strike activity," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 149-173, February.
    20. Herr, A. & Saric, A., 2016. "The Welfare Effects of Single Rooms in German Nursing Homes: A Structural Approach," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/23, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Royalties; Litigation; Nash-in-Nash;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D45 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Rationing; Licensing
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:zbw:esprep:253661. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.