Abstract
An important reason why intellectual property is far less effective for generating innovation than it could be is the excessively high cost of resolving disputes. This largely reflects the use of ordinary court arrangements to determine what are essentially technical issues. Compulsory expert arbitration, with legal aid for the party that doesnot appeal to the court from a ruling, is proposed as an alternative. A full-scale working model of such a system is shown to exist in the interference procedure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. That no more than 4 percent of court appeals from decisions in this are even partially successful augurs well for the potential value of the arrangements proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bouju, André. (1988).Patent Infringement Litigation Costs. London: Longman for the Commission of the European Communities.
Calvert, I.A., and M. Sofocleous. (1989). “Interference Statistics for Fiscal Years 1986 to 1988.”Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 71, pp. 399–410.
Calvert, I.A., and M. Sofocleous. (1992). “Interference Statistics for Fiscal Years 1989 to 1991.”Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 74, pp. 822–826.
Commission on Patent Law Reform. (1992). Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. (1993).Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Courts of Justice of the European Communities. (1981). Case No. 144,Keurkoop v. Nancy Kean Gifts.
Courts of Justice of the European Communities. (1987). Case No. 35,Thetford Corporation v. Fiamma SpA.
Creel, Thomas L. (1987).Guide to Patent Arbitration. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Edwards, K.L., and J.L. Gordon. (1984).Characteristics of Innovations Introduced into the United States Market. Washington, D.C.: Small Business Administration, SAB 6050-1782.
Hansen, J.A., J.I. Stern and T.S. Moore. (1984).Industrial Innovation in the United States: a Study of Three Hundred Companies. Washington, D.C.: Small Business Administration.
Kingston, William. (1987).Direct Protection of Innovation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kingston, William. (1990).Innovation, Creativity and Law. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levin, Richard C., Alvin K. Klevorick, Richard R. Nelson, and Sidney G. Winter. (1987). “Yale Study of R&D Appropriability Methods.”Brookings Economic Papers.
Nelson, Richard R., and Robert P. Merges. (1990). “On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope.”Columbia Law Review. 90, p. 908.
Pearson, Harry. (1989).Rolls-Royce and the Rateau Patents. Derby: Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kingston, W. Reducing the cost of resolving intellectual property disputes. Eur J Law Econ 2, 85–92 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01540825
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01540825