Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 191–206 | Cite as

Patent Infringement: Lessons from Industrial Economics

  • Bryan R. Krouse
  • Clement G. Krouse


Once a patent is found to have been infringed the law generally entitles the patentholder to monetary losses suffered as the result of the illegal conduct. It is shown here that there are important differences between the losses awarded under U.S. case law and those that economic models of competition indicate would allow patentholders to just capture the social value of their innovations and, with that, provide private incentives for efficient levels of innovation. The prevailing case law generally overestimates the harm, providing an incentive for the patentholder to opportunistically claim infringement. In the end this increases the reward to innovation and encourages overinvestment. The record of the widely read State Industries vs. Mor-Flo Manufacturing Co. (883 F.2d 1573, Fed. Cir. 1989, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022, 1990) provides a case study.

patent infringement law and economics industrial economics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K., “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation,” in Nelson, R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Innovative Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Conley, N., “An economic approach to patent damages,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal, vol. 15, pp. 354–390, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. Culbertson, J. and Weinstein, R., “Product substitutes and the calculation of patent damages,” Journal of Patent Trademark Office Society, vol. 44, pp. 749–764, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. Dam, K., “The economic underpinings of patent law,” Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 23, pp. 107–122, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. Grady, M. and Alexander, J., “Patent law and rent dissipation,” Virginia Law Review, vol. 78, pp. 310–316, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. Kamien, M. and Tauman, Y., “Fee versus royalties and the private value of a patent,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 99, pp. 471–491, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. Katz, M. and Shapiro, C., “On the licensing of innovations,” Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 16, pp. 504–520, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. Katz, M. and Shapiro, C., “How to license intangible property,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 101, pp. 567–590, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. Krouse, C., Theory of Industrial Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. Krouse, C., “But-for markets and reasonable royalties: the Rite-Hite vs. Kelley misdirection,” Jurimetrics, vol. 43, pp. 229–242, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. McGee, J., “Patent exploitation: some economic and legal problems,” Journal of Law and Economics, pp. 135–162, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. Rapp, R. and Beutel, P., “Patent damages: rules on the road to economic rationality,” Patent Litigation (Practicing Law Institute), vol. 2, pp. 337–353, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. Waterson, M., “The economics of patents,” American Economic Review, vol. 81, pp. 860–869, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan R. Krouse
    • 1
  • Clement G. Krouse
    • 2
  1. 1.California State UniversityNorthridgeU.S.A
  2. 2.California State UniversityNorthridgeU.S.A

Personalised recommendations