MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198372056 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14090433

Financial Market Reaction to Patent Lawsuits against Integrated Circuit Design Companies

2021· article· en· W3198372056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Su‐Chen Yu, Kuang‐Hsun Shih

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPatent infringementProfit (economics)Upstream (networking)Industrial organizationCompetition (biology)Downstream (manufacturing)Supply chainInvestment (military)FinanceIntellectual propertyMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid advancement in technology, Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) design companies have made a mark in the international semiconductor industry but are unable to independently develop the key core technologies they need. Therefore, strategic alliances, competition and cooperation have become a means for enterprises to quickly obtain patents and capture the market. However, listed companies upstream and downstream of Taiwan’s supply chain have been facing patent infringement lawsuits in recent years. This research mainly aims to provide investors with investment strategies when companies face patent litigation, analyze the abnormal returns on the underlying stocks through the event research method, and use the cross-sectional multiple regression model to explore the changes in different factors based on the results. The empirical results show that positive abnormal returns are generated before and after a company faces patent litigation and the cumulative abnormal rewards are all positive and significant after the incident, which indicates that the company may still have an opportunity to make a profit when facing patent litigation, which can be used as a reference for investors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.121 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207