English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons130180

Gaessler,  Fabian
MPI for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons130171

Harhoff,  Dietmar
MPI for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons181321

Sorg,  Stefan
MPI for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Society;

Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., Sorg, S., & Graevenitz, G. v. (2024). Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition. Management Science, forthcoming.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000E-75B3-4
Abstract
We study the blocking effect of patents on follow-on innovation by others. We posit that follow-on innovation requires freedom to operate (FTO), which firms typically obtain through a license from the patentee holding the original innovation. Where licensing fails, follow-on innovation is blocked unless
firms gain FTO through patent invalidation. Using large-scale data from post-grant oppositions at the European Patent Office, we find that patent invalidation increases follow-on innovation, measured in citations, by 16% on average. This effect exhibits a U-shape in the value of the original innovation.
For patents on low-value original innovations, invalidation predominantly increases low-value follow-on innovation outside the patentee’s product market. Here, transaction costs likely exceed the joint surplus of licensing, causing licensing failure. In contrast, for patents on high-value original innovations,
invalidation mainly increases high-value follow-on innovation in the patentee’s product market. We attribute this latter result to rent dissipation, which renders patentees unwilling to license out valuable technologies to (potential) competitors.