In an era of geopolitical tension and global rivalry for technology leadership, enforcing intellectual property (IP) has become as strategic as creating it.
Our paper, “Location Choice in Global Patent Litigation: Does the Landscape Matter?” that was recently published in the Strategic Management Journal, examines how firms decide where to assert their IP rights in a world with diverse laws, norms, and national interests. We show that IP cases are not isolated local events but part of an interconnected system in which actions in one jurisdiction shape expectations and leverage in others. Therefore, understanding the full landscape is essential for an effective global IP strategy.
IP enforcement is territorial: a legal verdict is binding only within the country or region where the case is tried. Yet, litigating country by country is prohibitively expensive. Firms must therefore balance the cost of defending IP everywhere with the risk of leaving some markets unprotected. Conventional wisdom focuses on country-level factors, prioritizing countries with large markets or strong IP protection. This paper introduces an important new dimension: the relationships across countries.
Drawing on global data on patent litigation by leading technology firms across 50 countries over 13 years, the study shows that firms tend to concentrate their lawsuits geographically when markets have historically produced similar legal outcomes. A win in one court can then inform expectations elsewhere, reducing the need for repetitive litigation and strengthening the firm’s global bargaining position.
In contrast, when outcomes diverge across countries, firms diversify their litigation locations for “another draw of luck.” Thus, while the characteristics of individual markets are still important—as firms tend to litigate in countries with large assets or fierce competition, for example—similarity across countries significantly shape the attractiveness of these venues.
Two shocks demonstrate this logic in action. The 2012 U.S.–China national security dispute reduced cross-country consistency in rulings, prompting competitors from these two countries to spread their lawsuits more widely. By contrast, the 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision increased consistency in software-related rulings between the U.S. and the rest of the world, encouraging firms in affected technological sectors to reconcentrate. These patterns show that firms continuously adapt their IP strategies to shifting geopolitical and legal conditions.
Our findings also have important policy implications. For example, the efforts to harmonize global IP enforcement are expected to generate even distribution of IP cases across countries. However, if verdicts from one country can effectively shape expectations in similar countries, it is entirely possible that the flatter the world is, the more concentrated IP enforcement activities are. The same interdependence also explains why multinationals are closely following the new USPTO leadership, whose stance on AI patents will shape IP creation and assertion far beyond U.S. borders.
In a world where legal, political, and technological systems are tightly interlinked, IP litigation is not just about winning a case; it is about shaping a message that travels across borders. An effective global IP strategy means coordinating actions across jurisdictions so that each legal move reinforces a firm’s credibility and influence in the global innovation landscape.
Minyuan Zhao is an Associate Professor of Strategy at WashU Olin. Her research examines the interactions between firm strategy and external environment in a global context.
