Location choice in global patent litigation: Does the landscape matter?

Research Summary Firms asserting their patents globally face a dilemma: a legal verdict is binding only in the country of litigation, and yet litigating country by country is prohibitively expensive. Thus, firms have to be strategic in deciding where to sue. In this paper, we argue that global patent litigation is not only about winning a case, but also about making a case, that is, leveraging litigation in one country to shape expectations on litigation outcomes elsewhere. Our analyses on patent litigation in 50 countries over 13 years show that firms tend to concentrate litigation in few countries when the relevant markets historically share similar litigation outcomes, so litigation in one country can effectively inform the litigants of future trajectories, reducing the need for repetitive litigation across countries. Managerial Summary While legal enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights remains national, the battleground for IP has become increasingly global, especially for firms competing across countries. In this paper, we argue that the location choice for global patent litigation depends not only on country characteristics, such as market size and competition intensity, but also on the relationships across countries, that is, how similar or different the IP regimes are. When the relevant countries historically share similar litigation outcomes, firms can use litigation in one country to influence the expectations of litigants and potential infringers in other markets, which reduces the need for repetitive litigation. Thus, examining the global landscape of patent litigation as a whole can provide insight beyond the sum of IP strategies in individual countries.