CHEN Xuanjuan HU Tao YANG Gang DONG Ying
2025, 3(15): 179-203.
Innovation is the important driving force for enterprise development and economic growth, and the protection of intellectual property rights is the protection of innovation. China’s intellectual property law and reform and opening up march side by side. From the 1980s to the early 1990s, the Trademark Law, Patent Law, Copyright Law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law and other laws and regulations have been promulgated, establishing the basic framework of intellectual property laws. After entering the 21st century, several rounds of revisions were made to the above laws, making it possible for China to complete the course of intellectual property law development in western countries over the past hundred years in only forty years, and the achievements in the construction of the rule of law have been remarkable.
Although China has achieved remarkable results in IPR legislation, it still has a long way to go in IPR judicial protection. According to “The Status of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts”, there were over 540,000 new intellectual property cases in the year 2023, while during the same period, according to the U.S. Patent and Goodwill Office, the number of new intellectual property cases in the U.S. was just over 3,000 cases nationwide. In practice, the United States and other developed countries from the 1980s, the requirements of a certain size of enterprises must be established above the Chief Legal Officer (CLO) position, as the company’s executives and members of the board of directors is a core member of corporate governance. The CLO is the best strategic partner of the CEO and CFO, and the three are jointly involved in the planning and decision-making of the company’s strategy. Chinese companies are lagging behind in their efforts to “govern by law”. It was not until October 2022 that the Measures for Compliance Management of Centralized Enterprises came into force, requiring that centralized enterprises should, in light of the actual situation, set up a chief compliance officer, who is concurrently appointed by the general counsel and is accountable to the main person in charge of the enterprise. Another typical fact is that, according to the statistics of China’s Ministry of Justice, as of the end of 2022, there were more than 651,600 practicing lawyers nationwide, of which more than 504,700, or 77.46%, were full-time lawyers, while more than 29,900, or 4.6%, were corporate lawyers, and the percentage of corporate lawyers was much lower than that of full-time lawyers. This shows that in the internal governance of Chinese enterprises, the construction of the legal system is at a low level.
The paper attempts to analyze, from a micro perspective, the impact of external lawyers’ services on firms’ innovation and its mechanism of action in the context of Chinese firms’ low level of in-house legal construction. Specifically, we will answer three research questions. First, do lawyer services have an impact on corporate innovation? We use the number of law firms within a certain range around listed companies to measure the level of lawyer service supply in the region based on the data on the geographic location of listed companies’ headquarters and law firms, and use the number of corporate patent applications as an indicator of innovation output to analyze the impact of lawyer service supply on corporate innovation. The results show that the higher the level of lawyer service supply, the higher the level of innovation output of enterprises; the impact of lawyer service supply on enterprise innovation not only stays at the level of quantity, but also has a significant enhancement effect on high-quality invention patents, and this effect is stronger in the enterprises whose CEOs have the background of production and research and development, the enterprises of hi-tech industry, and the enterprises which are supported by the industrial policy. Secondly, how do attorney services affect enterprise innovation? On the one hand, lawyers’ services can help enterprises to protect their own interests by applying for patents, and on the other hand, they can help enterprises to minimize their losses when they face lawsuits. This allows the economic benefits of innovation to be preserved, which in turn promotes innovation output. We introduce two variables of infringement risk and judicial protection intensity to test these two influence mechanisms, and the results show that both influence mechanisms exist. Finally, do lawyers’ services have an impact on firm value while promoting firm innovation? We find that the market valuation of firms is higher under the joint effect of lawyer services and firm innovation.
Relative to the existing literature, the possible innovations and marginal contributions of the paper are mainly in the following three aspects: first, the paper expands the research perspective of law and firm innovation. Most of the existing literature analyzes the impact of intellectual property protection on corporate innovation based on the perspective of the firm’s external judicial system. Different from that, based on the basic fact that lawyers’ legal services are embedded in the enterprise legal system, the paper examines the effect and mechanism of the influence of the internal legal force on the enterprise’s innovative behavior through the construction of a theoretical framework and a systematic empirical study, which enriches the existing literature. Secondly, the paper deepens the theoretical knowledge of lawyers’ service to the real economy. Most of the related literature in the legal field on lawyers’ influence on economic development adopts the normative analysis paradigm, lacking systematic and complete empirical evidence. The paper, however, is based on the geographical distribution of law firms as a way to analyze the impact of lawyers’ legal service supply on corporate innovation, which can provide empirical evidence for related studies in the legal field and deepen the theoretical knowledge of lawyers’ service to the real economy. Thirdly, the paper has inspirational significance for enterprises to promote the rule of law and improve the construction of legal system. Given that the development of enterprise legal affairs in China stays in the primary stage, characterized by uneven development and insufficient cognition. The empirical analysis of the paper reveals the importance and value of enterprise legal work, and provides a policy basis for enterprises to promote the rule of law and improve the construction of legal system.