Search

Swedish Patent Litigation in Comparison to European

PublicationArticle (with peer review)
Anna Horn, Bengt Domeij, Financing of Innovations, Företagandets villkor, Innovation, Juridik, Patent, Per-Olof Bjuggren, Rättsekonomi

Abstract

Exclusivity and transferability are the main characteristics of a private property right. The owner of a private property right has the legal rights to exclude others from its use, to appropriate the income emanating from its use and to sell it on whatever terms he and the buyer find agreeable. Insecure property rights discourage investors from investing. Property rights in ideas are called intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights have a public good attribute. The protected information can be consumed by many at the same time. In order to give incentive to invest in innovations the use of the innovative idea has to be restricted (made exclusive). Without a possibility for an entrepreneur to charge for the use of innovative ideas there would be weak investment incentives. A patent is the intellectual property that intends to give an exclusive and transferable right to innovative technical ideas.
However, for a property right to be excludable and transferable it is crucial that it is well defined and legally enforceable. In this sense a patent differs from property rights to physical assets as e.g. ownership to land. To legally defend patents from infringements is costly and often results in a judicial decision that declares the patent invalid (revocation). In other words there is an uncertainty in the definition of the intellectual property right that makes the enforcement of patents costly. This transaction cost differs between jurisdictions. This paper studies different aspects of the legal enforceability of patents. More specifically we study how factors as legal costs, potential damages, duration of legal disputes, percentage of court decisions resulting in infringement or revocation differ between jurisdictions and are likely to affect the decisions of patentees to settle or to rely on a court decision. Litigation data from five different European jurisdictions is used.

Bjuggren, P-O., Domeij, B. & Horn, A. (2015). Swedish Patent Litigation in Comparison to European. Nordisk Immateriellt Rättsskydd, 2015(5), 504-522.


Similar content

Assessing user perceptions of the interplay between the sharing, access, platform and community‐based economies
Article (with peer review)Publication
Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Öberg, C., Sandström, C. & Suseno, Y.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

Purpose
Digitally intermediated peer-to-peer exchanges have accelerated in occurrence, and as a consequence, they have introduced an increased pluralism of connotations. Accordingly, this paper aims to assess user perceptions of the interplay between the sharing, access, platform, and community-based economies.

Design/methodology/approach
The sharing, access, platform, and community-based economies have been systematically tracked in the social media landscape using Social Media Analytics (SMA). In doing so, a total material of 62,855 publicly posted user-generated content concerning the four respective economies were collected and analyzed.

Findings
Even though the sharing economy has been conceptually argued to be interlinked with the access, platform, and community-based economies, the empirical results of the study do not validate this interlinkage. Instead, the results regarding user perceptions in social media show that the sharing, access, platform, and community-based economies manifest as clearly separated.

Originality/value
This paper contributes to existing literature by offering an empirical validation, as well as an in-depth understanding, of the sharing economy’s interlinkage to other economies, along with the extent to which the overlaps between these economies manifest in social media.

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – a critique of the entrepreneurial state
Article (with peer review)Publication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Working Paper no. 331: Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – A critique of the entrepreneurial state
Working paperPublication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C. & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Show more