Are Litigated Patents More Valuable? The Case of LEDs

  • Cédric Gossart
  • Altay Özaygen
  • Müge ÖzmanEmail author


Recently the LED sector has been going through a period of rapid technological change and intensive competition. In rapidly growing technological systems, incumbent firms use a range of intellectual property rights (IPR)-related strategies to gain competitive advantage. This is often accompanied by an increased number of patent lawsuits, which signals a strong IPR regime and can be detrimental to innovation as previously shown for various sectors. In this article we examine the nature of LED-related litigated and non-litigated patents and explore the main drivers of patent lawsuits. From our analysis we obtain four results. First, litigated LED patents are of significantly higher quality compared to non-litigated ones. Second, even though the quality of defended patents is high, two leading plaintiffs are non-practicing entities. Third, litigations generally occur between incumbent firms. Fourth, the 2005 US Energy Policy Act seems to have reshaped the dynamics of innovation in the sector. We discuss the implications of these results with respect to the literature on the effect of litigations on innovation in general, and on eco-innovations in particular.


Patents Litigations LED Lighting Eco-innovation Barriers 


Funding Information

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under REA grant agreement no. 282793.


  1. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2003). Valuable patents. Boalt Working Papers in Public Law, 28.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., & Walker, J. H. (2009). Extreme value or trolls on top? The characteristics of the most litigated patents. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158(1).Google Scholar
  3. Allred, B. B., & Park, W. G. (2007). The influence of patent protection on firm innovation investment in manufacturing industries. Journal of International Management, 13(2), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andenas, J. (1966). The general preventive effects of punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114(7), 949–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 419–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arundel, A., & Patel, P. (2003). New trends in IPR policy. Background report for the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop.Google Scholar
  7. Belenzon, S., & Patacconi, A. (2013). Innovation and firm value: an investigation of the changing role of patents, 1985-2007. Research Policy, 42(8), 1496–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bessen, J. E. (2006). Patent litigation with endogenous disputes. American Economic Review, 96(2), 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bessen, J., & Hunt, R. M. (2007). An empirical look at software patents. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(1), 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. (2005). The patent litigation explosion. Boston University School of Law Working Paper, 05–18.Google Scholar
  11. Bessen, J. E., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). The private costs of patent litigation. Boston University School of Law Working Paper, 07-08.Google Scholar
  12. Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: an analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., Gossart, C., & Özman, M. (2014). Technological pervasiveness and variety of innovators in green ICT: a patent-based analysis. Research Policy, 43(10), 1827–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, Y.-S., & Chen, B. Y. (2011). Utilizing patent analysis to explore the cooperative competition relationship of the two LED companies: Nichia and Osram. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chien, C. (2011). Predicting patent litigation. Texas Law Review, 90(283), 48.Google Scholar
  17. Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical?: defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Almeida, A., Santos, B., Bertoldi, P., & Quicheron, M. (2014). Solid state lighting review: potential and challenges in Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dosi, G., Marengo, L., & Pasquali, C. (2006). How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), 1110–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, T., & Henkel, J. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology: an empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9), 1519–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 909–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghiglino, C., & Kuschy, N. (2010). Are patent citations driven by quality?, University of Essex Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series, No. 692.Google Scholar
  23. Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, XXVIII, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, B. (2007). Patents. The New Palgrave: a dictionary of economics. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  27. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer F. M., & Vopel K. (1999) Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.Google Scholar
  28. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harris, R. (2014). Patent assertion entities & privateers: economic harms to innovation and competition. The Antitrust Bulletin, 59(2), 281–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huang, H. C., Shih, H. Y., Ke, T. H., & Liu, P. Y. (2015). Elucidating how environment affects patterns of network change: a case study of the evolution of an industrial network in the flat panel display sector. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(1), 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jang, S. (2010). Efficient and eco-friendly LED lighting in spotlight. SERI Quarterly, 3(2), 30–38.Google Scholar
  33. Kajikawa, Y., & Takeda, Y. (2009). Citation network analysis of organic LEDs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(8), 1115–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim, Y. J. (2017). Accelerating energy innovation: can energy efficiency policy make a difference? PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy.Google Scholar
  35. Lane, E. (2010). Keeping the LEDs on and the electric motors running: clean tech in court after eBay. Duke Law & Technology Review, 9, 1–32.Google Scholar
  36. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: value, scope, ownership. NBER Working Paper, no. 6297. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemley, M. A., & Moore, K. A. (2004). Ending abuse of patent continuations. Boston University Law Review, 84(63).Google Scholar
  40. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. The Rand Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu, C.-Y., Wu, H.-L., & Lee, C.-Y. (2017). The relationship between patent attributes and patent litigation: considering the moderating effects of managerial characteristics. Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(2), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ma, D., & Hung, S. W. (2015). An integrated framework for the selection and acquisition of core technologies: the case of Taiwan’s LED industry. Long Range Planning, 48(6), 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson, R. R. (1998). The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nelson, R. (1994). Intellectual property protection for cumulative systems technology. Columbia Law Review, 94(8), 2674–2677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panagopoulos, A. (2011). The effect of IP protection on radical and incremental innovation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Panagopoulos, A., & Park, I. (2017). Patents as negotiating assets: patenting versus secrecy for startups. The Economic Journal.Google Scholar
  47. Pénin, J. (2012). Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: a story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(2), 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Putnam, J. (1996). The value of international patent rights. PhD Thesis. Yale University, Yale.Google Scholar
  49. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., & Heath, C. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey: unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed”. Research Policy, 36(1), 134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schulte-Römer, N. (2015). Innovating in Public: the introduction of LED lighting in Berlin and Lyon. PhD thesis, Fakultät VI – Planen Bauen Umwelt, Technischen Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  51. Sovacool, B. K. (2009). Placing a glove on the invisible hand: how intellectual property rights may impede innovation in energy research and development (R&D). Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 18(2), 381–440.Google Scholar
  52. Su, H.-N., Chen, C. M.-L., & Lee, P.-C. (2012). Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010. Scientometrics, 92(1), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tang, V., & Huang, B. (2002). Patent litigation as a leading market indicator. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 1(3), 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. US Government Accountability Office. (2013). Assessing factors that affect patent infringement litigation could help improve patent quality. Report n°GAO-13-465.Google Scholar
  56. Useche, D. (2014). Are patents signals for the IPO market? An EU–US comparison for the software industry. Research Policy, 43(8), 1299–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Zeebroeck, N. (2011). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(1), 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2011). The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verspagen, B. (2007). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citations networks. A study on the history of fuel cell research. Advances in Complex Systems, 10, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Viikari, M., Puolakka, M., Halonen, L., & Rantakallio, A. (2012). Road lighting in change: user advice for designers. Lighting Research and Technology, 44(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zheludev, N. (2007). The life and times of the LED: a 100-year history. Nature Photonics, 1(4), 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LITEM, Univ Evry, IMT-BSUniversité Paris-SaclayEvryFrance
  2. 2.RITM, Univ Paris SudUniversité Paris-SaclaySceauxFrance

Personalised recommendations