The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Impact on Patent Litigation

Henry, Matthew D.; Turner, John L.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.713622

Cited by 30 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirically, Henry and Turner (2006) and Marco (2004) find that the CAFC accounts for a significant increase in the probability of validity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…So, for a patent born in the Fourth Circuit, upon which the patentee initiates litigation in 1974, home valid adv is the validity rate for the Fourth Circuit for 1969-73 minus the aggregate validity rate for all circuits for 1969-73. The reason we construct home valid adv this way is that, given the structural break in overall validity rates at the onset of the CAFC (see Henry and Turner 2006), valid rate5 home is itself non-stationary. By subtracting valid rate5 all, we remove the non-stationarity while retaining the key informational feature of the home validity rate, namely its relationship to the overall rate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping, and the Federal Circuit

Atkinson¹,

Marco

Turner³

2009

The Journal of Law and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1982, the US Congress established the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) as the sole appellate court for patent cases. Ostensibly, this court was created to eliminate inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of patent law across federal courts, and thereby mitigate the incentives of patentees and alleged infringers to "forum shop" for a preferred venue. We perform the first econometric study of the extent of non-uniformity and forum shopping in the pre-CAFC era and of the CAFC's impact on these phenomena. We find that in patentee-plaintiff cases the pre-CAFC era was indeed characterized by significant non-uniformity in patent validity rates across circuits and by forum shopping on the basis of validity rates. We find weak evidence that the CAFC has increased uniformity of validity rates and strong evidence that forum shopping on the basis of validity rates ceased several years prior to the CAFC's establishment. In patentee-defendant cases, we find that validity rates are lower on average, but do not find either significant non-uniformity of validity rates across circuits or significant forum shopping.

show abstract

“…Empirically, Henry and Turner (2006) and Marco (2004) find that the CAFC accounts for a significant increase in the probability of validity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping, and the Federal Circuit

Atkinson¹,

Marco

Turner³

2009

The Journal of Law and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Henry and Turner [] find empirical support for such a pro‐patent shift. They document a structural break associated with the creation of the CAFC that reduced the incidence of invalidity decisions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inventors and Impostors: An Analysis of Patent Examination with Self‐Selection of Firms into R&D

Schuett

2013

The J Industrial Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present a model in which firms differing in R&D productivity choose between ambitious research projects, which are socially desirable, and unambitious ones, which are socially undesirable. The patent office must decide how rigorously to examine applications, which affects the probability of weeding out bad applications but also how firms self‐select into R&D. I show that when a subset of firms is financially constrained, the patent office should examine their applications more rigorously. This generates a number of predictions that I test by exploiting the 1982 reform that introduced firm‐size dependent fees in the United States.

show abstract

“…Moreover, the rate of preliminary injunctions increased dramatically (Lanjouw and Lerner 1998). In a recent study using modern time series methods and taking account of the sequence of appeals decisions, Henry and Turner (2006) find robust evidence that the CAFC was less likely to invalidate patents than earlier courts but no less likely to affirm or reverse infringement findings. Some commentators have argued that a specialized patent court is more likely to be "captured" by the patent bar and those whose interests are served by strong patents of any kind, and that this outcome should be viewed as a cautionary tale when considering creation of a similar court for European patents.…”

Section: Recent Patenting Trends (I) Policy Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%