Pursuing justice or protecting local firms? Shenzhen courts move beyond judicial local protectionism

Abstract

Emerging economies represent a vivid market for firms worldwide who are massively investing in R&D. This tendency is generating an increase in the number of intellectual property (IP) registrations and is expanding the markets for IP. However, emerging economies tend to show unfair judicial systems, being unable to ensure IP rights protection, and to allow companies to benefit from their inventions. China is one of the most important emerging economies, and both domestic and foreign companies are investing a considerable amount of money in R&D and IP activities, especially in innovative cities such as Shenzhen. In this study, we aim to investigate whether the Chinese judicial system, using the city of Shenzhen as our empirical context, is fair in protecting IP rights. We use data about IP litigations from 2014 to 2016, targeting the three most relevant outcomes: settlement, judgment, and the amount of damage awards recognized by the court. The study shows no evidence that Shenzhen courts rule in favor of local firms, and the findings show consistency regarding settlement, the winning probability in judgment, and amount of damage awards. Accordingly, we derive managerial implications demonstrating that Shenzhen is a very international arena and firms act following the classic strategic theories of innovation appropriation.

The top‐down pattern of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Bricolage and agility in response to COVID‐19: cases from China

“…The COVID‐19 outbreak has led to an extreme shortage of medical supplies; factory shutdowns and poor logistics, caused by the lockdown of cities and the entire country, have exacerbated the shortage. Also, as widely recognized, China is a developing economy with a central strategy planned economy aimed at developing and transferring ‘domestic innovation’ to the global market (Yao et al, 2020; Zhang et al, 2020). Accordingly, during the COVID‐19 outbreak, Chinese institutions have made great efforts to boost entrepreneurial activities to respond to the crisis’s social needs.…”

Technology transfer and team boundary‐spanning activities and their antecedents: do the classic measures apply to China?

“…Moreover, Chinese institutions have taken a positive approach by issuing policies to boost technology‐transfer activities. Indeed, the Chinese government has issued a multidimensional strategy to boost indigenous technology transfer, which is a part of its broader strategy to catch up technologically with forerunner countries (Prud’homme et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2020).…”

“…Nowadays, the classic paradigm of technology transfer, according to which innovation takes place in the west and flows to the east, is shifting toward a more complex and geographically comprehensive model (Häussler, 2010; Chen et al, 2012; Corsi et al, 2014; Zhang et al, 2020). In the global economy, perspectives seem to be changing because of the intensifying presence of emerging economies in the international landscape (Govindarajan and Ramamurti, 2011).…”

R&D employee tenure in MNC subsidiaries: the role of institutional distance and experience

“…Here, we focus on regulatory institutions because they are the most relevant for R&D. 2 A regulatory system's strength influences the design and implementation of intellectual property (IP) protection routines (Keupp et al, 2009), which are central to R&D. MNCs from strong regulatory regimes (e.g., USA) tend to implement formal IP protection routines for preventing knowledge spillovers, e.g., assignment provisions, non-compete, non-solicitation and nondisclosure (NDA) contracts (Harwood, 2006;Marx et al, 2015;Manzini and Lazzarotti, 2016). If a contract is breached, companies would approach the judiciary and pursue legal cases against the R&D employee (Zhang et al, 2020). Strong regulatory regimes offer 'legal recourse for victims of opportunistic conducts that negate the original terms of the contract' (Zhou and Poppo, 2010, p. 865).…”