臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：專利主張實體、專利訴訟及創新策略之研究
作者：李美萱
作者(外文)：Mei-Xuan Li
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：財務金融學研究所
指導教授：王衍智
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2022
主題關鍵詞：反專利流氓法；專利主張實體；專利流氓；訴訟；創新戰略；Anti-patent Troll Law；Patent Assertion Entity；Patent Troll；Litigation；Innovation Strategy
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:0
專利主張實體（Patent Assist Entities，PAEs），亦被稱為專利流氓，此種實體透過向其他公司或發明人購買專利以積累專利組合，但不對該專利進行後續技術開發或商業化，其目的在於針對潛在專利侵權者提起侵權訴訟，以獲取侵權賠償或其他金錢利益。專利主張實體在過去十年中已成為專利訴訟的主要參與者，但其對公司研發創新活動的影響仍存在爭議。本研究旨在探討專利主張實體發起的專利訴訟將如何影響公司的創新戰略。本研究以差異中的差異估計法證明了專利主張實體發起的專利訴訟將不利於創新活動，因為它阻礙了公司間的技術合作與知識交流。具體而言，我發現被專利主張實體所針對的公司將轉向內向型創新戰略，亦即，這些公司在未來從事研發創新的過程中將更依賴內部技術，而那些處於相關技術領域的同業公司也將採取預防性舉措，透過重組其技術軌跡以減少自身被專利主張實體提告之風險。專利主張實體將對承受更高創新成本或處於激烈競爭市場中的公司帶來更嚴峻的影響。此外，本研究亦發現，反專利流氓法會為公司提供有效的相應保護，這一證據支持了政府在專利主張實體監管和專利制度完善方面的努力。
Patent assertion entities (PAEs), also known as patent trolls, are the entities that usually do not engage in technology development and commercialization, but acquire and accumulate patents from other companies or inventors to reap the monetary profits from the patent infringement lawsuits filed against potential infringers. PAEs have become a major player in patent litigation over the past decade, but remain controversial over their role in innovation activities. This study focuses on how the PAE-initiated patent litigation could affect firms’ innovation strategies. I demonstrate that PAE-initiated patent litigation is detrimental to innovation activities as it deters technology collaboration and knowledge exchange. Specifically, I find that a firm targeted by PAEs would shift to an inward-oriented innovation strategy that relies more on in-house technologies, and that peer firms in the related technology areas would take preemptive moves that reorganize their technology locus so as to reduce the PAE risks. Higher innovation cost and more intensive product market competition would exacerbate the effect. Furthermore, I show that the legislation of anti-patent troll laws is providing corresponding protection to firms, which support the government’s efforts on PAE regulation and patent system improvement.
1. Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774-779.
2. Angus, R. W. (2019). Problemistic search distance and entrepreneurial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 40(12), 2011-2023.
3. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010a). Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 775-803.
4. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010b). The market for technology. Hall BH, Rosenberg, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 641-678.
5. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in R. R. Nelson, ed. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 609-626.
6. Baggs, J., & De Bettignies, J. E. (2007). Product market competition and agency costs. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 55(2), 289-323.
7. Bessen, J., Ford, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2011). The private and social costs of patent trolls. Regulation, 34(4), 26-35.
8. Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2012). The private costs of patent litigation. Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, 9, 59-80.
9. Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2013). The direct costs from NPE disputes. Cornell Law Review, 99(2), 387-424.
10. Bloom, N., M. Schankerman, and J. Van Reenen (2013). Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry. Econometrica, 81, 1347-1393.
11. Brown, J. R., Fazzari, S. M., & Petersen, B. C. (2009). Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. Journal of Finance, 64(1), 151-185.
12. Chatain, O. (2014). How do strategic factor markets respond to rivalry in the product market?. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 1952-1971.
13. Chen, S., Chen, Y., Liang, W. & Wang, Y. (2013). R&D spillover effects and firm performance following R&D increases. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48(5), 1607-1634.
14. Chen, I. J., Hsu, P. H., Officer, M. S., & Wang, Y. (2020). The Oscar goes to…: High-tech firms’ acquisitions in response to rivals’ technology breakthroughs. Research Policy, 49(7), 104078.
15. Cho, D. S., Kim, D. J., & Rhee, D. K. (1998). Latecomer strategies: evidence from the semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea. Organization Science, 9(4), 489-505.
16. Cohen, L., Golden, J. M., Gurun, U. G., & Kominers, S. D. (2017). Troll Check: A Proposal for Administrative Review of Patent Litigation. Boston University Law Review, 97(5), 1775-1841.
17. Cohen, L., Gurun, U. G., & Kominers, S. D. (2016a). The growing problem of patent trolling. Science, 352(6285), 521-522.
18. Cohen, L., Gurun, U. G., & Kominers, S. D. (2019). Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms. Management Science, 65(12), 5461-5486.
19. Eisdorfer, A., & Hsu P. H. (2011). Innovate to survive: The effect of technology competition on corporate bankruptcy. Financial Management, 40(4), 1087-1117.
20. Fishwick, L. (2013). Mediating with Non-Practicing Entities. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 27, 331-348.
21. Fosfuri. A., & Rønde T. (2004). High-tech clusters, technology spillovers, and trade secret laws. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(1), 45-65.
22. Frésard, L., Hoberg, G., & Phillips, G. M. (2020). Innovation activities and integration through vertical acquisitions. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(7), 2937-2976.
23. Greene, W. (2004). The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects. The Econometrics Journal, 7(1), 98-119.
24. Grinvald, L. C. (2015). Policing the cease-and-desist letter. University of San Francisco Law Review, 49, 411-468.
25. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16-38.
26. Hoberg, G., & Phillips, G. (2010). Product market synergies and competition in mergers and acquisitions: A text-based analysis. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(10), 3773-3811.
27. Hoberg, G., & Phillips, G. (2016). Text-based network industries and endogenous product differentiation. Journal of Political Economy, 124(5), 1423-1465.
28. Hrdy, C. A. (2018). The Reemergence of State Anti-Patent Law. University of Colorado Law Review, 89(1), 133-218.
29. Hu, A. G. Z., & Png, I. P. L. (2013). Patent rights and economic growth: Evidence from cross-country panels of manufacturing industries. Oxford Economic Papers, 65(3), 675-698.
30. Huang, K. G., & Li, J. (2019). Adopting knowledge from reverse innovations? Transnational patents and signaling from an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1078-1102.
31. Huang, K. G., & Murray, F. E. (2009). Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1193-1221.
32. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value. American Economic Review, 76, 984-1001.
33. Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 665-712.
34. Krieger, J. L. (2021). Trials and terminations: Learning from competitors’ R&D failures. Management Science, 67(9), 5525-5548.
35. LaLonde, A., & Gilson, J. (2017). Adios to the irreparable harm presumption in the trademark law. The Trademark Reporter, 107(5), 913-959.
36. Levin, R, Klevorick A, R., Nelson, & S., Winter. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 18(3), 783-832.
37. Liang, M. (2010). The Aftermath of TS Tech: The End of Forum Shopping in Patent Litigation and Implications for Non-Practicing Entities. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 19(1), 29-78.
38. Love, B. J., & Yoon, J. (2017). Predictably Expensive: A Critical Look at Patent Litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Stanford Technology Law Review, 20(1), 1-38.
39. Martyn, S. (2014). I'll Have a Latte, Scone, and Your Online Data, Please. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 12(2), 499-522.
40. Mezzanotti, F., & Simcoe, T. (2019). Patent policy and American innovation after eBay: An empirical examination. Research Policy, 48(5), 1271-1281.
41. Miller, S. P. (2018). Who's Suing Us: Decoding Patent Plaintiffs since 2000 with the Stanford NPE Litigation Dataset. Stanford Technology Law Review, 21(2), 235-275.
42. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648-687.
43. Prince, D. W., & Rubin, P. H. (2002). The effects of product liability litigation on the value of firms. American Law and Economics Review, 4(1), 44-87.
44. Rivera-Batiz, L. A., & Romer, P. M. (1991). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 531-555.
45. Samuels, J. (2013). Patent trolls hurt innovation. Politico. March, 6. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/patent-trolls-are-draining-our-innovation-economy-088517
46. Schmidt, K. M. (1997). Managerial incentives and product market competition. The Review of Economic Studies, 64(2), 191-213.
47. Schwartz, D. L. (2012). The rise of contingent fee representation in patent litigation. Alabama Law Review, 64(2), 335-388.
48. Shrestha, S. K. (2010). Trolls or market-makers-an empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities. Columbia Law Review, 110, 114-160.
49. Sorenson, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research policy, 33(10): 1615-1634.
50. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg, 80-108.
51. Thoman, E. M. (2014). A Modern Adaptation of Three Billy Goats Gruff: Is Vermont's Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Statute Strong Enough to Help Patent Owner's Safely Cross the Bridge. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 83(3), 989-1008.
52. Tseng, K. (2022). Learning from the Joneses: Technology spillover, innovation externality, and stock returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 101478.
53. Urbanek, J. H. (2008). postmortem for permanent injunctions against business method patent infringement in the wake of EBay v. MercExchange. DePaul Law Review, 57(2), 607-638.
54. Vogel, N. (2015). Patently Preempted, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 268 (2015). The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 14(2), 269-291.
55. Yang, H., & Steensma, H. K. (2014). When do firms rely on their knowledge spillover recipients for guidance in exploring unfamiliar knowledge?. Research policy, 43(9), 1496-1507.
56. Yun, W., Kim, D., & Kim, J. (2017). Multi-categorical social media sentiment analysis of corporate events. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2017: 1-8.
57. Zhao, M. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management science, 52(8), 1185-1199.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：830（臺灣：829，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2042760 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67840387
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上