We study the effect of fee shifting rules on litigation. First, we build a model to study the theoretical effect of a change in cost-recovery rules on case filings, (postfiling) settlement, win rates, and plaintiffs’ average litigation expenditures. We then undertake an empirical analysis of the introduction of an intermediate cost shifting rule that falls between the English and American Rules: a reform that limits the size of fee awards to successful litigants in cases decided by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), one of two venues where IP cases may be filed in England and Wales. Our empirical analysis takes advantage of heterogeneity among case types and compares IPEC cases with intellectual property cases litigated at the PHC of England and Wales, which was not subject to this reform. We find that patent case filings increased following the IPEC’s shift from a pure English Rule to a rule that caps costs awards. Consistent with our model’s predictions, we also find evidence that smaller plaintiffs both won less often and settled more often postreform, as well as evidence that larger plaintiffs spent less on litigation postreform.

中文翻译：

---

费用转移对诉讼的影响：来自中间成本转移政策创新的证据

我们研究了费用转移规则对诉讼的影响。首先，我们建立一个模型来研究成本回收规则的变化对立案、（立案后）和解、胜诉率和原告平均诉讼支出的理论影响。然后，我们对引入介于英美规则之间的中间成本转移规则进行实证分析：在知识产权企业法院 (IPEC) 裁决的案件中，一项限制对成功诉讼当事人的费用裁决规模的改革，可以在英格兰和威尔士提起知识产权案件的两个地点。我们的实证分析利用了案件类型之间的异质性，并将 IPEC 案件与在英格兰和威尔士的 PHC 提起的知识产权案件进行了比较，后者不受该改革的约束。我们发现，随着 IPEC 从纯英文规则转变为限制成本裁决的规则，专利案件申请量有所增加。与我们模型的预测一致，我们还发现证据表明，较小的原告在改革后的胜诉频率和解决频率都较低，以及较大的原告在改革后的诉讼上花费较少的证据。