Configuring intellectual property management strategies in co-creation: a contextual perspective

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

“…The first view generally assumes that appropriability provides necessary incentives for innovation and that suitable forms of protection enhance innovation collaboration by securing adequate control and offering the means for safe knowledge transfer (e.g., Cohen et al, 2000;Holgersson et al, 2018;Lauritzen and Karafyllia, 2019;Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013). The latter view juxtaposes appropriability with innovation collaboration and introduces appropriation as a paradoxical issue that creates tension (Belderbos et al, 2014;Bogers et al, 2017;Cassiman et al, 2009;Foege et al, 2019;Laursen and Salter, 2014;2020;Tekic and Willoughby, 2020;Stefan et al, 2021). In our data, 31 articles have this feature.…”

“…Studies often consider appropriability to be about having (specific kinds of) appropriability mechanisms and complementary assets (see, e.g., Pisano, 2006) or, even more narrowly, the selection of the isolating appropriability mechanisms (selection referring to a set of the appropriability mechanisms and/or the act of selecting the mechanisms) (Arundel, 2001;Cohen et al, 2000;Gallié and Legros, 2012;Hall et al, 2014;Holgersson et al, 2018;James et al, 2013;Teece, 2018;Thomä and Bizer, 2013;Zobel et al, 2017). The focus is often on comparing the effectiveness of formal or informal isolating appropriability mechanisms, and many studies indicate that an appropriability strategy is an issue of selecting the optimal mechanisms (see, e.g., Ceccagnoli and Rothaermel, 2016;Cohen et al, 2000;Colombelli et al 2019;James et al, 2013;Levin et al, 1987;Miric et al, 2019;Tekic and Willoughby, 2020;Veer et al, 2016).…”

“…This newly awakened interest is a product of changes in the operations environment and in forms of organizing (Arora et al, 2016;Hoffmann et al, 2018;Miric et al, 2019;Teece, 2018). The value creation logics have progressed to new frontiers, and trends like digitalization, openness, and collaboration have also shifted the bases of value capture (Appleyard and Chesbrough, 2017;Colm et al, 2020;Felin and Zenger, 2014;Koutroumpis et al, 2020;Manzini et al, 2017;Tekic and Willoughby, 2020;Zobel et al, 2017).…”

One for All and All for One: Collaboration and Cooperation in Triple Helix Knowledge Cocreation

“…Since a patent gives exclusive rights to an invention, companies’ concerns are understandable with regard to the ownership of these rights. However, in most cases, project contracts stipulate both the co-ownership of intellectual property and its licensing (Bengtsson 2017; Link and Scott 2005; Perkmann and West 2014; Tekic and Kelvin 2019). Companies, nonetheless, prefer to be the sole owners as well as to have exclusive control over marketing new products.…”

Navigating the open innovation paradox: an integrative framework for adopting open innovation in pharmaceutical R&D in developing countries

“…Firms employ various strategies to navigate the tension field such as pooled R&D, spinouts, restricting open innovation for complementary products (Gallagher, 2006 ) or by combining differentiation and integration strategies (Lauritzen, 2018 ). Other strategies include open knowledge exchange through layered collaboration (Bogers, 2011 ) and configuration of specific appropriation practices based on firm size, trust, and type of collaborative project (Foege et al, 2019 ; Tekic & Willoughby, 2019 ). Global leading pharmaceutical firms have also implemented various risk sharing strategies that allow to circumvent the intellectual protection challenges (Gassmann et al, 2018 ).…”