Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of managing intellectual property (IP) on a global basis has been widely acknowledged by scholars and practitioners alike. However, we still have limited understanding of how multinational enterprises (MNEs) choose – among all the countries they do business in – where to file for IP protection and where they exercise their IP rights through litigation. In this study, we examine MNEs’ strategic choices of patenting and litigation locations through the lens of global competition. We argue that, while IP protection is local, relying on local policies and institutions, firms engaging in litigation are global. Thus, they prefer to litigate in the few countries with substantial track records to send strong signals to competitors elsewhere. This is particularly true for highly concentrated industries, where the same competitors face off in various countries, and for firms with radical innovations, which require expertise for a convincing verdict. We find supportive evidence of country, industry, and firm effects from extensive interviews with industry insiders and a comprehensive dataset documenting all the IP-related activities of Fortune Global 500 companies from 2007 to 2014. We discuss how the strategic choices made by global firms, in turn, influence the effectiveness of local policies and IP harmonization efforts across countries.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R., Ganco, M., & Ziedonis, R. H. 2009. Reputations for toughness in patent enforcement: Implications for knowledge spillovers via inventor mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13): 1349–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., Beukel, K., & Cassiman, B. 2017. Capturing value from intellectual property (IP) in a global environment. In J. Alcácer, B. Kogut, C. Thomas, & B. Y. Yeung (Eds.), Geography, location, and strategy (advances in strategic management) (Vol. 36, pp. 163–228). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., Dezso, C. L., & Zhao, M. 2013. Firm rivalry, knowledge accumulation, and MNE location choices. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5): 504–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., & Zhao, M. 2012. Local R&D strategies and multilocation firms: The role of internal linkages. Management Science, 58(4): 734–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkaersig, L., Beukel, K., & Reichstein, T. 2015. Intellectual property rights management: Rookies, dealers, strategists and strategic dealers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. 1997. Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry. Research Policy, 26(4–5): 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Ceccagnoli, M. 2006. Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Science, 52(2): 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, H. 2017. Managing valuable knowledge in weak IP protection countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(7): 787–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. 2008. Patent failure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, L. G., Fisman, R., & Foley, C. F. 2006. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level panel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1): 321–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J., Hannigan, T. J., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. 2016. Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. 1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, W., & Alcácer, J. 2002. Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Science, 48(12): 1534–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cremers, K., Ernicke, M., Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., Helmers, C., McDonagh, L., et al. 2017. Patent litigation in Europe. European Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1): 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowrick, S., & DeLong, J. B. 2003. Globalization and convergence. In M. D. Bordo, A. M. Taylor, J. G. Williamson (Eds.), Globalization in historical perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Encaoua, D., & Lefouili, Y. 2005. Choosing intellectual protection: Imitation, patent strength and licensing. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 79: 241–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, C., & Sidhu, D. 2017. Global competition and the rise of China. Working paper 17-3. Peterson Institute for International Economics, https://piie.com/system/files/documents/wp17-3.pdf. Retrieved February 21, 2018.

  • Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. 2003. The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2): 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. 2007. Managing differences: The central challenge of global strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85(3): 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. 1987. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5): 425–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J. H., & Harhoff, D. 2014. Separating patent wheat from chaff: Would the US benefit from adopting patent post-grant review? Research Policy, 43(9): 1649–1659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Van Zeebroeck, N. 2014. Comparing patent litigation across Europe: A first look. Stanford Technology Law Review, 17: 655–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, M. F. 2003. Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry: Wholly owned and joint-venture manufacturing by South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. 2001. Uncertainty, imitation, and plant location: Japanese multinational corporations, 1990–1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 443–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymer, S. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of foreign direct investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. 2013. How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of Management, 39(5): 1123–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janicke, P., & Ren, L. 2006. Who wins patent infringement cases. Aipla Quarterly Journal, 34(1): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javorcik, B. S. 2004. The composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: Evidence from transition economies. European Economic Review, 48(1): 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayachandran, S., Gimeno, J., & Varadarajan, P. R. 1999. The theory of multimarket competition: A synthesis and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 63(3): 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesan, J., & Ball, G. 2011. Judicial experience and the efficiency and accuracy of patent adjudication: An empirical analysis of the case for a specialized patent trial court. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 24(2): 393–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Chang, S. J. 1991. Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3): 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. L. C. 1998. International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation. Journal of Development Economics, 55(1): 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J., & Lerner, J. 1998. The enforcement of intellectual property rights: A survey of the empirical literature. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49–50: 223–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1): 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. 2004. Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? Journal of Law and Economics, 47(1): 45–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiponen, A., & Byma, J. 2009. If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. Research Policy, 38(9): 1478–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. A., & Shapiro, C. 2005. Probabilistic patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2): 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. 1995. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics, 38(2): 463–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3): 783–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linden, G., & Somaya, D. 2003. System-on-a-chip integration in the semiconductor industry: Industry structure and firm strategies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3): 545–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., & Wagner, S. 1981. Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Economic Journal, 91(364): 907–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R. P., & Nelson, R. R. 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 90(4): 839–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A. 2003. Xenophobia in American courts. Northwestern University Law Review, 97(4): 1497–1550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandkumar, A., & Srikanth, K. 2016. Right person in the right place: How the host country IPR influences the distribution of inventors in offshore R&D projects of multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8): 1715–1733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., Paruchuri, S., & Khaire, M. 2007. Business method patents as real options: Value and disclosure as drivers of litigation. Real Options Theory, 24: 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. G. 2008. International patent protection: 1960–2005. Research Policy, 37(4): 761–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Carraher, S. M., & Shi, W. 2017. An institution-based view of global IPR history. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(7): 893–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. 2006. Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 35(8): 1122–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polidoro, F., Jr., & Toh, P. K. 2011. Letting rivals come close or warding the off? The effects of substitution threat on imitation deterrence. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, S. W., & Simons, K. L. 2014. Light emitting diodes and the lighting revolution: The emergence of a solid-state lighting industry. Research Policy, 43(10): 1730–1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2): 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Somaya, D. 2007. The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4): 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, E. F., & Teece, D. J. 2004. Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy, 33(2): 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. I. 2005. Can foreign firms bond themselves effectively by renting US securities laws? Journal of Financial Economics, 75(2): 319–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somaya, D. 2000. Obtaining and protecting patents in the United States, Europe and Japan. In R. Kagan & L. Axelrad (Eds.), Regulatory encounters: Multinational corporations and American adversial legalism (pp. 275–310). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somaya, D. 2003. Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1): 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somaya, D. 2012. Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1084–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somaya, D., & McDaniel, C. A. 2012. Tribunal specialization and institutional targeting in patent enforcement. Organization Science, 23(3): 869–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Cricuolo, C. 2013. Measuring patent quality: Indicators of technological and economic value. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, OECD Publishing 03.

  • Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation—Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public-policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2000. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: The role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning, 33(1): 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, W., Ceccagnoli, M., & Forman, C. 2016. Opening up intellectual property strategy: Implications for open source software entry by start-up firms. Management Science, 62(9): 2668–2691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westlaw. 2006. Patents throughout the world. New York: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T. Y., & Cannella, A. A. 2013. A comprehensive review of multimarket competition research. Journal of Management, 39(1): 76–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 5(8): 1185–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, M., & Yeung, B. 2008. National IPR policies and multinational R&D strategies: An interactive perspective. In R. Bird & S. Jain (Eds.), Global challenge of intellectual property rights. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziedonis, R. H. 2004. Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science, 50(6): 804–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Mack Institute for Innovation Management and the Dean’s Research Fund at the Wharton School for their generous financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Karin Beukel

  2. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Minyuan Zhao

Authors
  1. Karin Beukel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minyuan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Beukel.

Additional information

Accepted by Suma Athreye, Area Editor, 15 February 2018. This article has been with the authors for one revision and was single-blind reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beukel, K., Zhao, M. IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global. J Int Bus Policy 1, 53–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0002-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0002-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation