← SearchMichigan2024Disadvantage
Opening Word document…

Court efficiency is key patent protections and innovation

Gwendolyn G. Ball 10, Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, Jay P. Kesan, J.D from Georgetown Law Center, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 4-30-10, “Judges, Courts and Economic Development: The Impact of Judicial Human Capital on the Efficiency and Accuracy of the Court System,” https://extranet.sioe.org/uploads/isnie2011/Ball_Courts_paper.pdf

While most economic scholarship analyzing the importance of the courts has focused on disputes over real property, the relationship between the court system and investment is no less strong for intellectual property. And to a large extent, the relationship between the courts and the patent system depends on the quality of “judicial human capital.”

In the United States, as in many countries, the courts are a crucial part of the patent system to the extent that the patent system is can be termed a two-stage process. In the first stage, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants property rights to inventors. In the second stage, inventors can protect those rights through patent infringement suits in the courts and alleged infringers have the right to challenge improvidently granted patents and have them declared invalid. As a consequence, some authors have referred to patent rights as being “probabilistic,” depending not only on whether the innovation embodied in the patent has commercial value, but also on the refinement of that patent property right after litigation.15

Just as with real property, the management of the court system has an impact on both patenting behavior and on investment in research and development. While the majority of all patents are not litigated, those that are disputed in the courts are among the most valuable.16 The rules governing the court system may even “feed back” into patenting behavior; some authors have found evidence that the increasingly “patent friendly” rules17 adopted by the courts are a major factor in the surge in patenting since the 1980s.18 Moreover, the ability to define the “probabilistic” property rights is an important element in determining whether patents fulfill their purpose of promoting innovation.19 Finally, the costs associated with the patent systems can be reduced by an efficient court system; firms may hesitate to invest in new products and technologies which may infringe on existing patents, so any additional delay or cost in clarifying existent rights may slow the process of innovation. The more quickly and cheaply these rights are defined, the more beneficial the patent system will be in promoting and not inhibiting innovation and investment.

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.