Bargaining in the Shadow of Precedent: Asymmetric Stakes Revisited

37 Pages Posted: 16 Nov 2006 Last revised: 26 Nov 2007

See all articles by Alan C. Marco

Alan C. Marco

Georgia Institute of Technology - School of Public Policy

Kieran J. Walsh

Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Date Written: November 17, 2007

Abstract

We develop a model of bargaining and litigation in the context of patent licensing (or any contractual setting). Following Priest and Klein (1984)we developed a model that explicitly allows for (1) multiple parties (leading to asymmetry of stakes), (2) binding precedent, and (3) pre-dispute bargaining done in the 'shadow' of precedent-setting courts. The pre-dispute bargaining creates an endogenous opportunity cost of litigation for both plaintiff and defendant; i.e., the harm is endogenous. We show that the effects of asymmetric stakes on the litigation rate and plaintiff win rate are offset by opportunity costs forgone licensing). That is, including the downside of litigation we see that the degree of asymmetry does not appear to substantially impact the rate of litigation or the observed win rate of plaintiffs at trial. This result is in stark contrast to the previous theoretical literature, and has implications for interpreting the empirical literature. We discuss the implications of the model for the value of patent rights.

Keywords: bargaining, litigation, licensing, patents, selection, selection hypothesis, Priest and Klein, asymmetric stakes

JEL Classification: K0, K41, L0, L14

Suggested Citation

Marco, Alan C. and Walsh, Kieran J., Bargaining in the Shadow of Precedent: Asymmetric Stakes Revisited (November 17, 2007). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=944999 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.944999

Alan C. Marco (Contact Author)

Georgia Institute of Technology - School of Public Policy ( email )

685 Cherry St.
Atlanta, GA 30332-0345
United States

Kieran J. Walsh

Federal Reserve Bank of New York ( email )

33 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10045
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
113
Abstract Views
908
Rank
442,582
PlumX Metrics