The Private Costs of Patent Litigation. James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer

Similar documents
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

An Empirical Look at Software Patents (Working Paper )

The Patent Litigation Explosion

Raising the Stakes in Patent Cases

The Patent Litigation Explosion

THE MAEKET RESPONSE OF PATENT LITIGATION ANNOUMENTMENT TOWARDS DEFENDANT AND RIVAL FIRMS

Brian J. Love Assistant Professor of Law, Santa Clara

Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study

小心站台空隙. Don Merino Vice President and General Manager, Asia Licensing Sales. December 2, 2011

Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study

Patents as Indicators

Patent. Fish &Richardson

Issues and Possible Reforms in the U.S. Patent System

Enterprise Patent Portfolio Commercialization: Trends and Opportunities

Infringement and Enforcement Panel How can you identify infringement and enforce your rights?

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?

Managing IP Assets Throughout the. Patent Lifecycle

The Objective Valuation of Non-Traded IP. Jonathan D. Putnam

Are large firms withdrawing from investing in science?

U.S. Patent-Antitrust Interface. Alden F. Abbott, Heritage Foundation Oxford Competition Law Centre June 28, 2014

Outline. Patents as indicators. Economic research on patents. What are patent citations? Two types of data. Measuring the returns to innovation (2)

FTC Panel on Markets for IP and technology

Introducing TMI Associates

Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy. Bronwyn H. Hall UC Berkeley and NBER

Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy

ARTICLE A GENERATION OF SOFTWARE PATENTS. Author information: 202 High Head Rd. Harpswell, ME ABSTRACT

Invest in Growth How LOT Network Addresses the PAE Problem. Ken Seddon CEO, LOT Network September 8, 2017

Contents. 1 Introduction... 1

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) SME SCOREBOARD 2016

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) SME SCOREBOARD 2016

François G. Laugier's Representative Experience

Career Education Corporation Bear Stearns 2007 SMid-Cap Investor Conference

The America Invents Act: Policy Rationales. Arti K. Rai Duke Patent Law Institute May 13, 2013

Getting the Most From Your IP Budget: Strategies for IP Portfolio Management and Litigation Avoidance

Swedish Patent Litigation Survey of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?

Patent Insurance/Collective Approaches to Managing Patent Risk

Intellectual Ventures

Journey towards success: From idea to market a real case study. Dr. Wolfram Meyer Malta

EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 2015

Green policies, clean technology spillovers and growth Antoine Dechezleprêtre London School of Economics

Slide 25 Advantages and disadvantages of patenting

Lawyers sued over advice to board

The valuation of patent rights sounds like a simple enough concept. It is true that

Private Equity and Long Run Investments: The Case of Innovation. Josh Lerner, Morten Sorensen, and Per Stromberg

Observations from Pharma

Post-Grant Patent Review Conference on Patent Reform Berkeley Center for Law and Technology April 16, 2004

BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Mergers and Acquisitions/ Private Equity. Providing In-Depth Deal Coverage for Buyers, Sellers, and Investors. Attorney Advertising

Patent Litigation Weekly: Data Shows That Troll Problem Persists

SOLAR. Representing clients across the renewable energy industry. Troutman Sanders LLP. troutman.com

Trademarks. Fortune 500 companies and organizations of all sizes trust Lathrop Gage to help establish, guard, maintain and enforce trademarks.

2011 IPO Corporate IP Management Benchmarking Survey. November Intellectual Property Owners Association

WHAT S WRONG WITH THE ARGUMENTS FOR PATENT REFORM

The Litigation of Financial Innovations

Patents and the Transfer of Knowledge

EDUCATION. Our Clients

Public Hearings Concerning the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace

HOW TO READ A PATENT. To Understand a Patent, It is Essential to be able to Read a Patent. ATIP Law 2014, All Rights Reserved.

Effective Utilization of Patent Searches in the Wake of the AIA Patent Reform Law. April 30, 2012

What Is That Patent Really Worth? Courts Take a Hard Look at the "Reasonable Royalty" Calculation Jonathan D. Putnam Competition Dynamics

WILLIAM M. OJILE, JR.

MICHAEL RYNGAERT Graham-Buffett Professor of Finance at University of Florida

Research on the Impact of R&D Investment on Firm Performance in China's Internet of Things Industry

PATENT PROPERTIES ANNOUNCES SECOND QUARTER 2015 RESULTS. Announces Name Change to Walker Innovation Inc.

Joseph Arellano Principal

Represented publicly-traded pharmaceutical company in false advertising and trademark

Key Strategies for Your IP Portfolio

Workshop on International R&D and Technology Transfer Contracts Negotiations, Intellectual Property Rights and Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property Initiatives

How Patent Damages Skew Licensing Markets

Patents and innovation (and competition) Bronwyn H. Hall UC Berkeley, U of Maastricht, NBER, and IFS London

Rural Venture Capital: 1 st RFP

Firm Overview. The firm includes 25 professionals, including 19 lawyers and 6 patent agents and technical specialists, of whom 10 hold Ph.D. degrees.

Davé Law Group s Unique Value Proposition

Geoffrey L. Oberhaus Partner

Confirms 2013 Financial Guidance

B U R F O R D QUARTERLY

5 Ways To Ramp Up Your Patent Portfolio

Filippo Mezzanotti, Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management. Timothy Simcoe, Boston University Questrom School of Business and NBER

Patents: Who uses them, for what and what are they worth?

LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998

COLLABORATIVE R&D & IP ISSUES IN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING

Leveraging Intellectual Property for Success

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Who s On First? Understanding Insolvency. SFS Law Group Insolvency Insights. November 2008

US Patent Litigation Trends in Cloud Computing IPlytics GmbH

Patent Due Diligence

The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature

8(A) CONTRACTING, MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM, & JOINT VENTURES. March 9, 2010 William T. Welch

Benton T. Wheatley. Overview. Education. Bar Admissions. Related Practices. Related Industries. Dallas Austin Houston. Attorneys & Counselors

Enayat Qasimi. Partner. Experience M Street, NW Suite 450N Washington, DC Phone: Fax:

Textron Reports Second Quarter 2014 Income from Continuing Operations of $0.51 per Share, up 27.5%; Revenues up 23.5%

In Case You Missed It: EDITORIAL CARTOON THE GRIZZLE BEAR

FFIRS 03/20/2012 3:57:48 Page 1 Patent Valuation

WIPO-IFIA INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF INVENTIONS IN THE GLOBAL MARKET

I. Financial Markets and the Corporation. Role of Financial Management. II. What is Financial Management? Financial Markets

SCOTT K. BEHRENDT, Senior Attorney

Supplementary data for MLP SE (in line with the German

Transcription:

The Private Costs of Patent Litigation James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer

Benefits Policy: benefits & costs Social (welfare, R&D) Private (value of patents) Patentee costs Patent prosecution costs Post-issue costs reflected in value Post-issue Costs to other parties Clearance Opinion letters Disputes

Private Costs of Disputes Act as tax With inadvertent infringement Disputes > litigation > trial Some settle before filing Some after Expected cost = risk Not just legal costs

Risk to alleged infringer Legal costs Management distraction Loss of market Delay loss of lead time / first mover advantage Financial distress / credit costs Transfer to patentee

Literature Cutler & Summers (1988) Pennzoil v Texaco Bhagat et al. (1994, 98); Lerner (1995) Patent filings Small number of observations Lunney (2004), Haslem (2005) Patent settlements

Change in stock value (WSJ) 0.0% day - 2 day - 1 announcement day day + 1 day + 2-1.0% Defendant Plaintiff -2.0% -3.0%

Event Study Assumption IF news of lawsuit filing does not reveal information about firm s prospects not related to lawsuit itself THEN stock change reveals expected change in discounted firm profits = cost

Event Study (Salinger) Normal returns (market model) r t r t m t Abnormal returns r t r t m I t t 200 day pre-event window Cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) Average CARs Multiple defendants

Data Derwent LitAlert Under-reporting Eliminate duplicates, transfers, counter-suits Identify declaratory actions v. infringement suits patentee litigant v. alleged infringer Compustat & CRSP Name-matching software Manual inspection Validity checks NBER patent data

Samples Public alleged infringers 1984 99 2,648 lawsuits 2,887 parties (multiple defendants) Both parties public, 1984 99 750 patentee litigants 747 alleged infringers Checked WSJ Suit reported Possibly confounding information 86 plaintiffs / 82 defendants

WSJ Sample CARs Event window WSJ article Suit filing Bhagat et al. T-2 to T+1 T-1 to T+24 (1998) Patentee Litigant (Plaintiff) mean -0.30% -0.10% -0.31% median 0.00% 0.90% no. of observations 86 86 Alleged Infringer (Defendant) mean median no. of observations -2.60% -1.80% -1.50% -1.40% -1.90% 82 82 Combined (matched parties) mean median no. of observations Addendum: mean combined abnormal returns Bhagat et al. (1994) Lerner (1995) -2.60% -2.50% -1.80% -0.50% 80 80-3.13% -2.00%

Standard Results Defendants lose Plaintiffs lose, but less NOT simple wealth transfer likely confounded with information revelation

Full Sample CARs Mean CAR Median CAR Observations Sample: Matched Parties Patentee Litigants Base -0.38% (0.30%) 0.00% 667 Definite infringement suits -0.63% (0.37%)* -0.45% 412 Alleged Infringers Base -0.62% (0.33%)* -0.97% 661 Definite infringement suits -0.77% (0.42%)* -0.83% 407 With possibly confounding events -0.45% (0.31%) -0.57% 743 Sample: All alleged infringers Base Single defendants Multiple defendants Single defendants, definite infringement -0.50% (0.16%)** -0.51% 2887-0.61% (0.18%)** -0.54% 2460-0.01% (0.39%) -0.39% 427-0.63% (0.27%)** -0.42% 1108

Table 4. Differences in Mean CARs by Characteristics Sample: Matched Parties Firm characteristic Alleged Infringer Patentee Litigant Employees < 500-3.20% (2.32%) -3.18% (2.45%) R&D / Sales >.15 0.22% (2.16%) -0.53% (1.22%) Total liabilities / Total Assets >.5 1.40% (0.87%) -2.35% (0.75%)** Capital / Employee > $100,000-0.02% (0.93%) -1.02% (0.74%) Current Assets / current liabilities < 1.5 0.94% (1.00%) -1.91% (0.87%)* Newly public firm -0.94% (1.78%) -1.92% (2.56%) Rival characteristic Employees < 500 1.06% (1.19%) -1.37% (1.07%) R&D / Sales >.15 0.23% (1.62%) 0.81% (0.97%) Total liabilities / Total Assets >.5-0.15% (0.86%) -0.35% (0.80%) Capital / Employee > $100,000-0.99% (0.95%) 1.02% (0.74%) Current Assets / current liabilities < 1.5 1.69% (1.11%) 1.19% (0.86%) Newly public firm 3.77% (1.51%)** 0.32% (1.05%) Other Characteristics Year > 1989-0.15% (0.82%) 0.09% (0.77)% Firms in same SIC4 primary industry 2.67% (1.16%)** -0.11% (0.78%)

Table 5. Differences in Mean CARs by Firm Characteristics Sample: All alleged infringers Employees < 500-1.70% (0.92%)* R&D / Sales >.15-1.79% (0.80%)* Total liabilities / Total Assets >.5 0.05% (0.33%) Capital / Employee > $100,000-0.26% (0.44%) Current Assets / current liabilities < 1.5 0.11% (0.34%) Year > 1989-0.56% (0.32%)* Patentee is public firm -0.12% (0.35%) Industry SIC = 28 (chemicals, inc. pharma) -0.41% (0.41%) SIC = 35,36,73 (electronics, computer,sw) 0.06% (0.38%) Other manufacturing 0.16% (0.33%)

Differences Patentee Litigants High debt lose more (pursue more marginal lawsuits) Financially distressed Reduced agency problems (Haslem) Alleged Infringers lose more: Patentee outside the industry Patentee is established firm Small (floor of legal costs) In 1990s

Interpretation Loss = cost of litigation OR Revelation of information about future profits systematic private information

1. Suit reveals competition Private info: plans to enter market Hypothesis: suit reveals patentee will enter But few plaintiffs enter defendants lose LESS when plaintiff is entrant

2. Suit reveals poor management Private info: management effort Hypothesis: suit reveals defendant managers cut corners BUT losses are GREATER for surprise suits plaintiff outside the industry suit filed same year patent issues losses do not decrease after multiple suits

3. Suit reveals tech quality Private info: quality of technology Hypothesis: suit reveals tech opportunity greater than realized MAYBE, but this would make losses smaller

Conclusion Cost to alleged infringer - loss

Cost of Litigation to Alleged Infringers Loss of wealth = CAR x common stock cap $52.4m ($4.5m median) in 1992$ Lerner biotech (joint loss): $67.9m ($20.0m median) Does not include losses in other securities Investment cost = Loss of wealth / Tobin s Q $28.7m ($2.9 median) in 1992$ Corrects for bubble

Annual risk to alleged infringers 20 15 Billions $92 10 5 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Risk measures Aggregate Annual Cost of Litigation to Alleged Infringers (billion $92) Annual Firm Infringement Risk (million $92) Aggregate Risk / R&D 1984 2.0 1.3 4.9% 1999 16.1 7.0 19.3% 1996-99 All firms 14.9 4.5 14.0% Small firms (employees <500) 0.1 0.1 1.3% Large firms (employees>=500) 14.8 9.8 14.9% SIC = 28 (chemicals, inc. pharma) SIC = 35,36,73 (electronics, computer, software) 3.4 9.7 14.1% 6.8 5.7 14.8% Other manufacturing 1.7 2.3 5.3%

Conclusion Infringement risk grew dramatically in 1990s Large compared to estimates of patent value ESR s 10-15%, (Arora et al., 17%) Not apples-to-apples Risk only of US lawsuits; ESRs worldwide Risk only public firms; ESRs (except Arora et al.) include other inventors Current litigation costs compared to future profits