2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2010.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal litigation strategies with observable case preparation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, if going to court decreases the joint expected value of winning a trial, the litigants may attempt to collect sufficient evidence during the pretrial negotiations to deter their opponent from taking the case to court. This may yield substantially different outcomes as compared to the existing literature (see Farmer and Pecorino ,; Hirshleifer and Osborne ; Robson and Skaperdas ; Choné and Linnemer ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…For instance, if going to court decreases the joint expected value of winning a trial, the litigants may attempt to collect sufficient evidence during the pretrial negotiations to deter their opponent from taking the case to court. This may yield substantially different outcomes as compared to the existing literature (see Farmer and Pecorino ,; Hirshleifer and Osborne ; Robson and Skaperdas ; Choné and Linnemer ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…While corporate litigation is recognized as an important tool in strategic competition, 7 despite the importance and frequent use of preliminary injunctions in court proceedings, the analysis of preliminary injunctions as an integral part of a plaintiff's . 5 For instance, in the Plavix case mentioned earlier Judge Stein wrote in his ruling that "Although there are competing and substantial public interests at stake on both sides of this litigation, the balance of those competing public interests slightly favors Sanofi.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 Cases where the public interest has been cited in denying a PI generally involve severe disruptions of supply chains or other strong adverse effects to non-litigants (see, e.g., Shapiro, 1993). 7 See, e.g., Bizjak and Coles (1995) or Briggs, et al (1996) concerning civil anti-trust litigation, or Meurer (1989) or Choi (1998) they do not consider these implications on the process of litigation as their focus is different. Recognizing the costs associated with PIs, including legal costs, they show that a patent holder may be motivated to ask for a preliminary injunction in order to impose financial stress on the defendant.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%