Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4218/etrij.2019-0401

Technological importance and breadth of standard essential patents: A comparison between practicing and non-practicing entities for mobile telecommunication technologies  

Yang, Sangoon (Graduate School of Technology & Innovation Management, Hanyang University)
Jung, Taehyun (Graduate School of Technology & Innovation Management, Hanyang University)
Publication Information
ETRI Journal / v.42, no.5, 2020 , pp. 734-747 More about this Journal
Abstract
Using 23 867 standard essential patents claimed for three different wireless telecommunication standards (GSM, WCDMA, and LTE), this research examined the difference in technological importance and breadth of patents between practicing and non-practicing entities. We discovered that compared to manufacturers and service providers, organizations who do not appropriate innovation-derived profits directly from product or service markets tended to have relatively low-quality but broadly scoped technologies for the claimed standard essential patents. These relationships between the characteristics of inventions and the organizational types were consistently held across different generations of wireless standards as indicated by regressions run for each sample split by generation. Furthermore, the theory and policy implications of our results and arguments are presented herein.
Keywords
mobile telecommunication; non-practicing entity; patent assertion entity; standard; standard essential patent;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 M. Reitzig, J. Henkel, and C. Heath, On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey - Unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of being infringed, Res. Policy 36 (2007), 134-154.   DOI
2 A. Arora, A. Fosfuri, and A. Gambardella, Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
3 K. G. Rivette and D. Kline, Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents, Harvard Business School Press, Brighton, MA, 2000.
4 T. Jung, Uses and nonuses of patented inventions, Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2009.
5 S. Yang and T. Jung, A firm-level portfolio of standard essential patents in mobile telecommunication, J. Intellect. Prop. 13 (2018), 171-206.
6 F. Berger, K. Blind, and N. Thumm, Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards, Res. Policy 41 (2012), no. 1, 216-225.   DOI
7 M. Reitzig, J. Henkel, and F. Schneider, Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: How patent sharks operate in markets for technology, Ind. Corporate Change 19 (2010), 947-967.   DOI
8 B. Kang and R. Bekkers, Just-in-time patents and the development of standards, Res. Policy 44 (2015), 1948-1961.   DOI
9 B. Kang and K. Motohashi, The role of essential patents as knowledge input for future R&D, World Patent Inf. 38 (2014), 33-41.   DOI
10 B. Kang and K. Motohashi, Essential intellectual property rights and corporate technology strategy: Manufacturing firms vs. non-practicing entities, Asian J. Technol. Innovation 23 (2015), 53-68.   DOI
11 C. Barry et al., 2016 Patent litigation study - A change in patentee fortunes, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, London, UK, 2016.
12 J. Bessen, J. Ford, and M. Meurer, The private and social costs of patent trolls, Regulation 34 (2012), 26.
13 K. Blind and N. Thumm, Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: Empirical evidence and policy implications, Res. Policy 33 (2004), 1583-1598.   DOI
14 J. R. Allison, M. A. Lemley, and J. Walker, Extreme values or trolls on top? The characteristics of the most litigated patents, Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 158 (2009), 1-37.
15 R. Bekkers, R. Bongard, and A. Nuvolari, An empirical study on the determinants of essential patent claims in compatibility standards, Res. Policy 40 (2011), no. 7, 1001-1015.   DOI
16 J. Lerner and J. Tirole, Standard-essential patents, J. Political Econ. 123 (2015), 547-586.   DOI
17 H. Delcamp and A. Leiponen, Innovating standards through informal consortia: The case of wireless telecommunications, Int. J. Ind. Organization 36 (2014), 36-47.   DOI
18 K. Blind and S. Gauch, Trends in ICT standards: The relationship between European standardisation bodies and standards consortia, Telecommun. Policy 32 (2008), 503-513.   DOI
19 A. K. Armstrong, J. J. Mueller, and T. Syrett, The smartphone royalty stack: Surveying royalty demands for the components within modern smartphones, SSRN Working Paper, 2014, No. 2443848, pp. 1-69.
20 J. Penin, Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: A story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls, J. Econ. Behav. Org. 84 (2012), 633-641.   DOI
21 J. P. Walsh, Y.-N. Lee, and T. Jung, Win, lose or draw?, The Fate of Patented Inventions, Research Policy 45 (2016), 1362-1373.   DOI
22 C. Shapiro and H. R. Varian, The art of standards wars, California Manag. Rev. 41 (1999), 8-32.
23 B. Kogut and U. Zander, Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology, Organization Sci. 3 (1992), 383-397.   DOI
24 M. Rysman and T. Simcoe, Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-setting organizations, Manag. Sci. 54 (2008), 1920-1934.   DOI
25 B. H. Hall and R. H. Ziedonis, The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, RAND, J. Econ. 32 (2001), 101-128.
26 B. Kang and K. Motohashi, Essential intellectual property rights and inventors' involvement in standardization, Res Policy 44 (2015), 483-492.   DOI
27 W. M. Cohen, R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh, Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why us manufacturing firms patent (or not), NBER Working Paper no. 7552, Feb. 2000.
28 R. Millien and R. Laurie, Established and emerging IP business models, in The Eighth Annual Sedona Conference on Patent Litigation, Sedona, AZ, 2007.
29 M. B. Jensen et al., Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Res. Policy 36 (2007), 680-693.   DOI
30 J. Bessen and M. J. Meurer, The direct costs from NPE disputes, Cornell Law Rev. 99 (2014), 387-659.
31 T. Fischer and J. Henkel, Patent trolls on markets for technology-an empirical analysis of NPEs' patent acquisitions, Res. Policy 41 (2012), 1519-1533.   DOI
32 S. K. Shrestha, Trolls or market-makers? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities, Columbia Law Rev. 110 (2010), 114-160.
33 C. A. Cotropia, J. P. Kesan, and D. L. Schwartz, Unpacking patent assertion entities, [PAEs] Minnesota Law Rev. 99 (2014), 649-703.
34 M. A. Lemley and A. D. Melamed, Missing the forest for the trolls, Columbia Law Rev. 113 (2013), 2117-2189.
35 R. P. Merges and R. R. Nelson, On the complex economics of patent scope, Columbia Law Rev. 90 (1990), 839-916.   DOI
36 R. Garud and P. Karnoe, Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship, Res. Policy 32 (2003), 277-300.   DOI
37 D. J. Teece, G. P. Pisano, and A. Shuen, Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Manag. J. 18 (1997), 509-533.   DOI
38 R. H. Ziedonis, Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms, Manage. Sci. 50 (2004), 804-820.   DOI
39 B. Ganglmair and E. Tarantino, Conversation with secrets, RAND J. Economics 45 (2014), 273-302.   DOI
40 A. Gambardella, P. Giuri, and A. Luzzi, The market for patents in Europe, Res. Policy 36 (2007), 1163-1183.   DOI
41 R. Bekkers and A. Martinelli, Knowledge positions in high-tech markets: Trajectories, standards, strategies and true Innovators, Technol. Forecast. Social Change 79 (2012), 1192-1216.   DOI
42 R. Bekkers and J. West, The limits to IPR standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in UMTs, Telecommun. Policy 33 (2009), 80-97.   DOI
43 B. H. Hall, A. B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools, NBER, No. 8498, 2001.
44 N. van Zeebroeck, The puzzle of patent value indicators, Economics Innovation New Technol. 20 (2010), 33-62.   DOI
45 A. Gambardella, D. Harhoff, and B. Verspagen, The value of European patents, Eur. Manag. Rev. 5 (2008), 69-84.   DOI
46 S. Nagaoka, K. Motohashi, and A. Goto, Patent statistics as an innovation indicator, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Vol. 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2010, pp. 1083-1127.
47 E. Fuchs, Tech's 8 most fearsome 'patent trolls', 2012 cited June 26, 2017, available at http://www.busin essin sider.com/bigge st-patent-holding-companies-2012-11.
48 T. Fischer and J. Leidinger, Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value-An empirical analysis of ocean TOMO patent auctions, Res. Policy 43 (2014), 519-529.   DOI
49 United States District Court Northern District of California, Federal Trade Commission V. Qualcomm Incorporated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of, Law, United States District Court Northern District of California, no. 17-CV-00220-LHK. 2019.
50 T. Yanagisawa and D. Guellec, The emerging patent marketplace, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers2009 (2009), 1-52.
51 D. Harhoff and M. Reitzig, Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, Int. J. Ind. Organization 22 (2004), 443-480.   DOI
52 D. Harhoff, F. M. Scherer, and K. Vopel, Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights, Res. Policy 32 (2003), 1343-1363.   DOI
53 U. Schmoch, Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2008.
54 J. Lerner, The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis, RAND J. Economics 25 (1994), 319-333.   DOI
55 J. S. Long and J. Freese, Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata, Stata Press, College Station, Texas, 2014.
56 Federal Trade Commission, Patent assertion entity activity: An FTC study, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C., 2016.
57 Federal Trade Commission, The evolving IP marketplace: Aligning patent notice and remedies with competition, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C., 2011.