Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking

Mark A. Lemley, C. Shapiro
{"title":"Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking","authors":"Mark A. Lemley, C. Shapiro","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/akyqz","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We study several interconnected problems that arise under the current U.S. patent system when a patent covers one component or feature of a complex product. This situation is common in the information technology sector of the economy. Our analysis applies to cases involving reasonable royalties, but not lost profits. First, we show using bargaining theory that the threat to obtain a permanent injunction greatly enhances the patent holder’s negotiating power, leading to royalty rates that exceed a natural benchmark range based on the value of the patented technology and the strength of the patent. Such royalty overcharges are especially great for weak patents covering a minor feature of a product with a sizeable price/cost margin, including products sold by firms that themselves have made substantial R&D investments. These royalty overcharges do not disappear even if the allegedly infringing firm is fully aware of the patent when it initially designs its product. However, the hold-up problems caused by the threat of injunctions are reduced if courts regularly grant stays to permanent injunctions to give defendants time to redesign their products to avoid infringement when this is possible. Second, we show how hold-up problems are magnified in the presence of royalty stacking, i.e., when multiple patents read on a single product. Third, using third-generation cellular telephones and Wi-Fi as leading examples, we illustrate that royalty stacking can become a very serious problem, especially in the standard-setting context where hundreds or even thousands of patents can read on a single product standard. Fourth, we discuss the use of “reasonable royalties” to award damages in patent infringement cases. We report empirical results regarding the measurement of “reasonable royalties” by the courts and identify various practical problems that tend to lead courts to over-estimate “reasonable royalties” in the presence of royalty stacking. Finally, we make suggestions for patent reform based on our theoretical and empirical findings.","PeriodicalId":90732,"journal":{"name":"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"454","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/akyqz","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 454

Abstract

We study several interconnected problems that arise under the current U.S. patent system when a patent covers one component or feature of a complex product. This situation is common in the information technology sector of the economy. Our analysis applies to cases involving reasonable royalties, but not lost profits. First, we show using bargaining theory that the threat to obtain a permanent injunction greatly enhances the patent holder’s negotiating power, leading to royalty rates that exceed a natural benchmark range based on the value of the patented technology and the strength of the patent. Such royalty overcharges are especially great for weak patents covering a minor feature of a product with a sizeable price/cost margin, including products sold by firms that themselves have made substantial R&D investments. These royalty overcharges do not disappear even if the allegedly infringing firm is fully aware of the patent when it initially designs its product. However, the hold-up problems caused by the threat of injunctions are reduced if courts regularly grant stays to permanent injunctions to give defendants time to redesign their products to avoid infringement when this is possible. Second, we show how hold-up problems are magnified in the presence of royalty stacking, i.e., when multiple patents read on a single product. Third, using third-generation cellular telephones and Wi-Fi as leading examples, we illustrate that royalty stacking can become a very serious problem, especially in the standard-setting context where hundreds or even thousands of patents can read on a single product standard. Fourth, we discuss the use of “reasonable royalties” to award damages in patent infringement cases. We report empirical results regarding the measurement of “reasonable royalties” by the courts and identify various practical problems that tend to lead courts to over-estimate “reasonable royalties” in the presence of royalty stacking. Finally, we make suggestions for patent reform based on our theoretical and empirical findings.
专利持有和版税堆积
我们研究了当前美国专利制度下出现的几个相互关联的问题,当专利涵盖一个复杂产品的一个组件或特征时。这种情况在经济的信息技术部门很常见。我们的分析适用于涉及合理版税的案件,但不适用于利润损失。首先,我们利用议价理论表明,获得永久禁令的威胁极大地增强了专利权人的谈判能力,导致特许权使用费超过了基于专利技术价值和专利强度的自然基准范围。对于价格/成本利润率相当大的产品,包括本身已进行大量研发投资的公司销售的产品,涉及产品的一个小功能的弱专利,这种特许权使用费超额收费尤其严重。即使被指控侵权的公司在最初设计产品时完全了解该专利,这些超额版税也不会消失。然而,如果法院定期批准暂停执行永久禁令,让被告有时间重新设计他们的产品,以便在可能的情况下避免侵权,那么由禁令威胁造成的拖延问题就会减少。其次,我们展示了在版税叠加的情况下,拖延问题是如何被放大的,即当多个专利读到一个产品上时。第三,以第三代移动电话和Wi-Fi为例,我们说明了版税堆叠可能成为一个非常严重的问题,特别是在标准制定的背景下,在单一产品标准上可以阅读数百甚至数千项专利。第四,我们讨论了在专利侵权案件中使用“合理版税”来裁决损害赔偿。我们报告了有关法院衡量“合理版税”的实证结果,并确定了各种实际问题,这些问题往往导致法院在版税堆叠的情况下高估“合理版税”。最后,根据本文的理论和实证研究结果,对专利改革提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信