Skip to main content
Log in

Domestic patenting systems and foreign licensing choices

  • Published:
Journal of Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript


This paper examines a foreign technology holder’s licensing choices between royalty and fixed-fee scheme. We emphasize that foreign licensor chooses the quality of licensed technology when the licensee country does not implement perfect intellectual property protection for licensor’s technology. We study quality choice as the foreign licensor’s selection for a particular grade of technical skills. We show that fixed fee emerges as the equilibrium licensing scheme when both the transfer of his technology is relatively efficient and the licensee is sufficiently cost competitive in the domestic market, and that royalty licensing prevails otherwise. We further show it need not hold the general belief that welfare in the licensor country unambiguously rise with a stronger patenting system in the licensee country when, in particular, such patenting system in place is sufficiently lax.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. In this paper, the terms of “patenting” and “intellectual property protection” are used interchangeably.

  2. This requires USTR to identify as the “priority watch list” foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IPRs, or fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons that rely on IP protection. Indeed, The USTR has requested and received submissions from U.S. industries suggesting that several nations be included on priority, priority watch, and watch lists. These submissions include many of the nations, which opposed the TRIPS negotiations and putting it into force, such as India and Brazil.

  3. See Kabiraj and Marjit (1993), Maskus (1998), Yang and Maskus (2001) and Amir et al. (2011) for the impacts on licensing schemes under weak and strong patent system, respectively.

  4. Mukherjee and Tsai (2015) consider optimal quality choice of licensed technology under perfect patenting. And Amir et al. (2011) examine licensing schemes in a weak patent system when a patent might be invalidated if challenged in court.

  5. In an interesting contribution, Colombo and Filippini (2016) study different licensing schemes and compare two-part tariff to both schemes of ad valorem royalty contracts and revenue-royalty contracts, where the price, rather than the quantity, is the basis of the licensing contract.

  6. The authors thank an anonymous referee for suggesting a clarification on the linkage between quality choice and cost-reducing technology.

  7. See for example, Wang (1998), Sinha (2010) and San Martín and Saracho (2010). These papers consider merely the transfer of cost-reducing technology in licensing contract without exploring the role that quality choice plays in affecting the mode of technology licensing.

  8. Put differently, a weak domestic patenting implies the licensee’s output ex post licensing is not observable and, thus, royalty licensing is not feasible under WP.

  9. It is well documented that technology licensing requires significant amount of transaction costs (Teece 1976; Taylor 1993; Yang and Maskus 2009).

  10. In the output stage, the cost of transferring technology is sunk and, thus, has no effect on the equilibrium fixed licensing fee.

  11. Elsewhere, we explicit investigate the case of \(9\gamma -10<0\) and show that the licensor’s profit is convex in its choice of technology quality [see the discussion in Mukherjee and Tsai (2015, p. 68)].

  12. For any \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and \(\gamma >10/9\), it is easy to verify that \(s^{F}=\frac{2-10\alpha c}{9\gamma -10}<\alpha c\) holds for any \(\alpha c<\frac{1}{5}\) and \(\gamma >\frac{2}{9\alpha c}\), i.e., \(\frac{2}{9\gamma c}<\alpha <\frac{1}{5c}\) ; and that \(s^{F}=\alpha c\) holds for any \(\frac{10}{9}<\gamma <\frac{2}{9\alpha c}\) and \(\alpha c<\frac{1}{5}\), implying that \(\alpha c<\min \big \{\frac{2}{9\gamma },\frac{1}{5}\big \}=\frac{1}{5}\) and \(\gamma \le \frac{2}{9\alpha c}\).

  13. The authors thank an anonymous referee for suggesting a graphical presentation with numerical example for better presentation of the results.

  14. The licensee (firm 2) has no incentive to use the licensed technology if the ex post licensing contract is such that \(c-(s-r)>c\). It follows that the constraint \(r\le s\) must hold.

  15. The equilibrium royalty of \(r^{*}=(5-4c+4s)/10\) is obtained from solving Eq. (7). For any \(s\in [0,c]\) and \(c<1/2\), it is easy to verify that \(r^{*}=(5-4c+4s)/10<s\) holds only if \(s>1/2\), which violates \(s\in [0,c]\) and \(c<1/2\). Hence, the royalty rate in equilibrium must bind and is, therefore, given by \(r^{*}=s\).

  16. This is evident, from Eq. (10), that \(\partial \pi _1^R /\partial s \gg 0\) for any \(s\in [0,c]\) and \(c<1/2\) if \(\gamma \) approximates zero.

  17. Colombo and Filippini (2016) distinguish ad valorem royalty from revenue royalty and argue that “revenue royalty” allows the patentee for extracting a quota of the licensee’s revenues.

  18. The authors thank an anonymous referee for raising this issue.

  19. This is evident from the unambiguously negative impact on licensor’s output of a lax domestic IPRs system, i.e., \(\frac{\partial ^{2}y_1^F }{\partial \alpha ^{2}}=\frac{2}{9}\big (c-\frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }\big )^{2}>0\), and the ambiguous effect on the gains from licensing, \(\frac{\partial ^{2}F^{*}}{\partial \alpha ^{2}}=\frac{2}{9}\left[ {(-2)\left\{ {\big (-2c+\frac{-10c}{9\gamma -10}\big )\frac{9\gamma c}{9\gamma -10}-(-2c^{2})} \right\} } \right] \frac{>}{<}0\), which obviously rests upon the interplays between efficiency of technology transfer and post-licensing marginal cost of the licensee.

  20. The authors thank an anonymous referee for raising this issue.

  21. See Levhari and Peles (1973) for a justification on this characterization.


  • Amir R, Encaoua D, Lefouili Y (2011) Per-unit royalty vs fixed fee: the case of weak patents. Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00595493, HAL

  • Colombo S, Filippini L (2016) Revenue royalties. J Econ 118:47–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doane M (1994) TRIPS and international intellectual property protection in an age of advancing technology. Am Univ J Int Law Policy 9:465–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabiraj T, Marjit S (1993) International technology transfer under potential threat of entry: a Cournot–Nash framework. J Dev Econ 42:75–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levhari D, Peles Y (1973) Market structure, quality and durability. Bell J Econ Manag Sci 4:235–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskus Keith E (1998) The international regulation of intellectual property. Weltwirtschaftliches Arch (Rev World Econ) 123:186–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee A, Tsai Y (2015) Does two-part tariff licensing agreement enhance both welfare and profit. J Econ 116:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockett K (1990) The quality of licensed technology. Int J Ind Organ 8:559–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • San Martín M, Saracho A (2010) Royalty licensing. Econ Lett 107:284–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha UB (2010) Strategic licensing, export, FDI, and host country welfare. Oxf Econ Pap 62:114–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SM (1993) TRIPS, trade, and technology transfer. Can J Econ 26:625–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece D (1976) The multinational corporation and resource cost of international technology transfer. Ballinger Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2004) U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: final results from the 1999 Benchmark Survey. Government Printing Office, Washington

  • Vishwasrao S (2007) Royalties vs. fees: how do firms pay for foreign technology? Int J Ind Organ 25:741–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang XH (1998) Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model. Econ Lett 60:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Development Indicators (WDI Online) (2016) World DataBank. The World Bank Group. Accessed June 2016

  • Yang G, Maskus KE (2001) Intellectual property rights, licensing, and innovation in an endogenous product-cycle model. J Int Econ 53:169–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang L, Maskus KE (2009) Intellectual property rights, technology transfer and exports in developing countries. J Dev Econ 90:231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang L, Tsai Y, Mukherjee A (2016) Intellectual property rights and the quality of transferred technology in developing countries. Rev Dev Econ 20(1):239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Yingyi Tsai grateful acknowledges partial financial support from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan under Research Grant No.: MOST 103-2923-H-390-001-MY2. The authors thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments and A. Hsu excellent research assistance in revising this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingyi Tsai.


Appendix 1

Notice, under a strong patenting system in the licensee country, that fixed-fee licensing emerges as the equilibrium scheme if and only if \(\pi _1^F >\pi _1^R \). Using Eqs. (12a)–(12c) and (13a)–(13c), it is easy to verify, for any of the following conditions: (i) \(\gamma >\max \left\{ {\frac{2}{9c},\;\frac{1-2c}{3c}} \right\} =\frac{2}{9c}\) and \(c\in (1/6,\;1/5)\), (ii) \(\gamma >\max \left\{ {\frac{2}{9c},\;\frac{1-2c}{3c}} \right\} =\frac{1-2c}{3c}\) and \(c\in (0,\;1/6)\) [cf. Eqs. (12a) and (13a)], (iii) \(\gamma <\min \left\{ {\frac{2}{9c},\;\frac{1-2c}{3c}} \right\} =\frac{2}{9c}\) and \(c\in (0,\;1/6)\), and (iv) \(\gamma <\min \left\{ {\frac{2}{9c},\;\frac{1-2c}{3c}} \right\} =\frac{1-2c}{3c}\) and \(c\in (1/6,\;1/5)\) [cf. Eqs. (12b) and (13b)], that \(\pi _1^F>\pi _1^R \) if and only if \(Z>0\), where

$$\begin{aligned} Z\equiv & {} \left[ {\frac{(1-2c+2s^{F})^{2}-(1-2c)^{2}}{9}-\frac{3s^{R}(1-2c)}{9}} \right] \nonumber \\&\quad +\, \left[ {\frac{(1+c-s^{F})^{2}}{9}-\frac{(1+c)^{2}}{9}} \right] -\frac{\gamma }{2}\left[ {(s^{F})^{2}-(s^{R})^{2}} \right] , \end{aligned}$$

To prove the result contained in Proposition 3, we sketch our proof by contradiction and proceed in three steps.


First, given the SPE outcome of \(s^{F}\) and \(s^{R}\), we rewrite Z as

$$\begin{aligned} Z\equiv & {} \underbrace{\left[ {\frac{4(1-2c)s^{F}+4[(s^{F})^{2}-(1-c)s^{R}]+s^{R}}{9}} \right] }_\Delta \nonumber \\&\quad +\,\underbrace{\left[ {\frac{[(1+c-s^{F})+(1+c)]}{9}-\frac{[(1+c-s^{F})-(1+c)]}{9}} \right] }_{\Omega \;\gg \,0}-\frac{\gamma }{2}\underbrace{\left[ {(s^{F})^{2}-(s^{R})^{2}} \right] }_\Psi ,\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$

and we note that Z consists of three terms \(\Delta , \Omega \) and \(\Psi \), where \(\Omega \) is strictly positive and \(\Psi \) is nonnegative if \(s^{F}-s^{R}\ge 0\). Hence, Z is strictly positive provided that \(\Delta \) is non-negative. It is evident, for any \(s^{F}-s^{R}>0\), that \(\Delta \) is strictly positive if and only if

$$\begin{aligned} (1-2c)+\frac{s^{R}}{4s^{F}}>-\left[ (1-c)\left( 1-\frac{s^{R}}{s^{F}}\right) +(s^{F}-c)\right] . \end{aligned}$$

Rewriting Eq. (17), we have \(\frac{s^{R}}{4(1-c)s^{F}}+\frac{4(1-c)(s^{F}-s^{R})}{4(1-c)s^{F}}>\frac{4s^{F}(1-c-s^{F})}{4(1-c)s^{F}}\), i.e., \(4{(s^{F})^{2}}-[4(1-c)-1]s^{R}>0\). Given \(s^{R}\), it is evident that \(\Delta \) is strictly convex in \(s^{F}\). Hence, \(\Delta \) rises with an increase in \(s^{F}\) for any \(s^{F}\in [s^{{F}^{*}},\;c)\), where \(s^{{F}^{{*}}}\equiv \frac{\sqrt{(3-4c)s^{R}}}{2}\). Note the sign of \(s^{F}-s^{R}\) is decisive in identifying that of Z, we investigate further in the next two steps.

Second, we note that \(s^{F}-s^{R}<0\) occurs if \(s^{F}\equiv \frac{2(1-5c)}{9\gamma -10}<c\) for any \(\frac{10}{9}<\frac{2}{9c}<\gamma \) and \(c\in (1/6,\;1/5)\) and \(s^{R}=c\) for any \(\gamma \le \frac{1-2c}{3c}\) and \(c\in (1/6,\;1/5)\). The boundary conditions of \(\frac{2}{9c}<\gamma \) and \(\gamma \le \frac{1-2c}{3c}\), however, violates \(c\in (1/6,\;1/5)\). Hence, \(s^{F}-s^{R}<0\) does not hold. Next, we study whether or not \(s^{F}-s^{R}\ge 0\) can hold. It is evident \(s^{F}=c\) for any \(c\in (0,\;1/5)\) and \(\frac{10}{9}<\gamma \le \frac{2}{9c}\), and \(s^{R}=\frac{1-2c}{3\gamma }<c\) for any \(\gamma >\frac{1-2c}{3c}\) and \(c\in (0,\;1/6)\). Again, the boundary conditions of \(\frac{2}{9c}<\gamma \) and \(\gamma >\frac{1-2c}{3c}\) fails to meet the condition of \(c\in (0,\;1/6)\).

Third, we then examine whether or not \(s^{F}-s^{R}\ge 0\) given that \(s^{F}=c\) for any \(c\in (0,\;1/5)\) and \(\frac{10}{9}<\gamma \le \frac{2}{9c}\), and \(s^{R}=c\) for any \(\gamma \le \frac{1-2c}{3c}\) and \(c\in (1/6,\;1/5)\). It is easy to verify that \(s^{F}-s^{R}\ge 0\) if and only if \(\frac{10}{9}<\gamma<\frac{1-2c}{3c}<\frac{2}{9c}\) and \(c\in (1/6,\;3/16)\).

Hence, we have established that \(\pi _1^F >\pi _1^R \) if and only if \(\frac{10}{9}<\gamma<\frac{1-2c}{3c}<\frac{2}{9c}\) and \(c\in (1/6,\;3/16)\).

Appendix 2

Welfare in the licensor’s country is now simplified to \(W_N^F =\pi _1^F\). Using Eqs. (5) and (6), we differentiate \(\pi _1^F\) with respect to \(\alpha \) and obtain that

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{dW_N^F }{d\alpha }\equiv \frac{d\pi _1^F }{d\alpha }=\frac{dy_1^F }{d\alpha }+\frac{dF^{*}}{d\alpha }-\gamma s^{F}\frac{ds^{F}}{d\alpha }. \end{aligned}$$


$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial y_1^F}{\partial \alpha }= & {} \frac{2}{9}\left( 1+\alpha c-s^{F}\right) \left( c-\frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }\right) ,\hbox { and}\\ \frac{\partial F^{*}}{\partial \alpha }= & {} \frac{2}{9}\left[ {(1-2\alpha c+s^{F})(-2)\left( c-\frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }\right) -(1-2\alpha c)(-2c)} \right] . \end{aligned}$$

Using the results contained in Propositions 1 and 2, we have

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }= & {} \left\{ {{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{-10c}{9\gamma -10},&{}\quad \forall \,\,\frac{2}{9\gamma c}<\alpha<\frac{1}{5c} \\ c,&{}\quad \forall \,\, \frac{10}{9c}<\alpha<\frac{2}{9\gamma c}, \\ \end{array} }} \right. \\ \frac{\partial y_1^F }{\partial \alpha }= & {} \left\{ {{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{2(1+\alpha c-s^{F})}{9}\frac{9\gamma c}{9\gamma -10},&{}\quad \forall \;\frac{2}{9\gamma c}<\alpha<\frac{1}{5c} \\ 0,&{}\quad \forall \;\frac{10}{9\gamma }<\alpha <\frac{2}{9\gamma c}\\ \end{array} }} \right. ,\hbox { and}\\ \frac{d\pi _1^F}{d\alpha }= & {} \frac{2}{9}\left[ {(1+\alpha c-5s^{F})\underbrace{\left( c-\frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }\right) }_{\ge 0}+2(1-2\alpha c)\frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }} \right] -\gamma s^{F}\frac{\partial s^{F}}{\partial \alpha }. \end{aligned}$$

Hence, we have established that

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{d\pi _1^F }{d\alpha }=\left\{ {{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{2c}{9(9\gamma -10)^{2}}\omega , &{}\quad \forall \,\,\frac{2}{9\gamma c}<\alpha<\frac{1}{5c} \\ \frac{4c-(8+9\gamma )\alpha c^{2}}{9}, &{}\quad \forall \,\,\frac{10}{9\gamma }<\alpha <\frac{2}{9\gamma c}, \\ \end{array}}} \right. \end{aligned}$$

where \(\omega =A\alpha +B, A=[(9\gamma +4)(9\gamma -10)-50(9\gamma -1)]c\) and \(B=[(9\gamma -2)(9\gamma -10)+10(9\gamma -1)]\).

It follows that \(\frac{d\pi _1^F }{d\alpha }\gg 0\) for any \(\frac{10}{9\gamma }<\alpha \le \frac{2}{9\gamma c}\) since \(\alpha <\frac{4}{(8+9\gamma )c}\) trivially satisfies the boundary condition, and that, for any \(\frac{2}{9\gamma c}<\alpha<\frac{1}{5c}, \frac{d\pi _1^F}{d\alpha }<0\) if \(\alpha \le \tilde{\alpha }\) and otherwise if \(\alpha >\tilde{\alpha }\), where \(\tilde{\alpha }=\frac{(9\gamma -2)(9\gamma -10)+10(9\gamma -1)}{[(9\gamma +4)(9\gamma -10)-50(9\gamma -1)]c}\) and \(\tilde{\alpha }\in \big (\frac{1}{5c},\;1\big )\).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsai, Y., Mukherjee, A. Domestic patenting systems and foreign licensing choices. J Econ 121, 173–191 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


JEL Classification