ETRI Journal

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (한국전자통신연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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)
  • Received : 2019.08.22
  • Accepted : 2020.02.06
  • Published : 2020.11.16
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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

References

  1. F. Berger, K. Blind, and N. Thumm, Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards, Res. Policy 41 (2012), no. 1, 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.004
  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.004
  3. J. Lerner and J. Tirole, Standard-essential patents, J. Political Econ. 123 (2015), 547-586. https://doi.org/10.1086/680995
  4. H. Delcamp and A. Leiponen, Innovating standards through informal consortia: The case of wireless telecommunications, Int. J. Ind. Organization 36 (2014), 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2013.07.004
  5. K. Blind and S. Gauch, Trends in ICT standards: The relationship between European standardisation bodies and standards consortia, Telecommun. Policy 32 (2008), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2008.05.004
  6. K. Blind and N. Thumm, Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: Empirical evidence and policy implications, Res. Policy 33 (2004), 1583-1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.08.007
  7. 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.
  8. J. Bessen and M. J. Meurer, The direct costs from NPE disputes, Cornell Law Rev. 99 (2014), 387-659.
  9. T. Fischer and J. Henkel, Patent trolls on markets for technology-an empirical analysis of NPEs' patent acquisitions, Res. Policy 41 (2012), 1519-1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.002
  10. S. K. Shrestha, Trolls or market-makers? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities, Columbia Law Rev. 110 (2010), 114-160.
  11. C. A. Cotropia, J. P. Kesan, and D. L. Schwartz, Unpacking patent assertion entities, [PAEs] Minnesota Law Rev. 99 (2014), 649-703.
  12. M. A. Lemley and A. D. Melamed, Missing the forest for the trolls, Columbia Law Rev. 113 (2013), 2117-2189.
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.003
  14. A. Arora, A. Fosfuri, and A. Gambardella, Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
  15. K. G. Rivette and D. Kline, Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents, Harvard Business School Press, Brighton, MA, 2000.
  16. T. Jung, Uses and nonuses of patented inventions, Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2009.
  17. S. Yang and T. Jung, A firm-level portfolio of standard essential patents in mobile telecommunication, J. Intellect. Prop. 13 (2018), 171-206.
  18. B. Kang and R. Bekkers, Just-in-time patents and the development of standards, Res. Policy 44 (2015), 1948-1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.001
  19. B. Kang and K. Motohashi, The role of essential patents as knowledge input for future R&D, World Patent Inf. 38 (2014), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2014.05.001
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2015.1020606
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq037
  22. C. Barry et al., 2016 Patent litigation study - A change in patentee fortunes, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, London, UK, 2016.
  23. J. Bessen, J. Ford, and M. Meurer, The private and social costs of patent trolls, Regulation 34 (2012), 26.
  24. 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.
  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.007
  26. J. P. Walsh, Y.-N. Lee, and T. Jung, Win, lose or draw?, The Fate of Patented Inventions, Research Policy 45 (2016), 1362-1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.020
  27. C. Shapiro and H. R. Varian, The art of standards wars, California Manag. Rev. 41 (1999), 8-32.
  28. B. Kogut and U. Zander, Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology, Organization Sci. 3 (1992), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
  29. M. Rysman and T. Simcoe, Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-setting organizations, Manag. Sci. 54 (2008), 1920-1934. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0919
  30. 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.
  31. B. Kang and K. Motohashi, Essential intellectual property rights and inventors' involvement in standardization, Res Policy 44 (2015), 483-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.012
  32. 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.
  33. R. Millien and R. Laurie, Established and emerging IP business models, in The Eighth Annual Sedona Conference on Patent Litigation, Sedona, AZ, 2007.
  34. M. B. Jensen et al., Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Res. Policy 36 (2007), 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006
  35. R. Garud and P. Karnoe, Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship, Res. Policy 32 (2003), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00100-2
  36. D. J. Teece, G. P. Pisano, and A. Shuen, Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Manag. J. 18 (1997), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0208
  38. B. Ganglmair and E. Tarantino, Conversation with secrets, RAND J. Economics 45 (2014), 273-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12051
  39. A. Gambardella, P. Giuri, and A. Luzzi, The market for patents in Europe, Res. Policy 36 (2007), 1163-1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.07.006
  40. R. P. Merges and R. R. Nelson, On the complex economics of patent scope, Columbia Law Rev. 90 (1990), 839-916. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122920
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.009
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2008.11.003
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590903038256
  45. A. Gambardella, D. Harhoff, and B. Verspagen, The value of European patents, Eur. Manag. Rev. 5 (2008), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1057/emr.2008.10
  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. J. Lerner, The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis, RAND J. Economics 25 (1994), 319-333. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555833
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.013
  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. 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.
  52. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.01.001
  53. D. Harhoff, F. M. Scherer, and K. Vopel, Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights, Res. Policy 32 (2003), 1343-1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5
  54. U. Schmoch, Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2008.
  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.