Exclusion and coordination in collaborative innovation and patent law

Lee, Na Ri

doi:10.1504/ijipm.2009.022957

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other scholars discovered an ambivalent role of intellectual property in open innovation and contradictive treatment of collaborative innovation in patent law (Bensoussan et al, 2013;Lee, 2009). For example, West (2006) identified that tight appropriability limits information exchange, increasing necessary communication efforts to attune strategies for effective collaboration while decreasing own abilities to capture value from open innovation.…”

Section: Intellectual Property As Ambivalent To Open Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a first contribution, we identify three strains of research. While one strain regards intellectual property rights to enable open innovation (Dubiansky, 2006;Lichtenthaler, 2010;Pisano and Teece, 2007) and a second strain identifies hindrance (De Laat, 2005;Simcoe, 2006;Von Hippel and Von Krogh, 2003), the majority of scholars detect an ambivalent role of intellectual property rights (Bogers et al, 2012;Lee, 2009;Lee et al, 2010). Here, a peak point for protection is reached turning positive effects negative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing knowledge in open innovation processes: an intellectual property perspective

Bican

Guderian

Ringbeck

2017

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose As firms turn their innovation activities toward collaborating with external partners, they face additional challenges in managing their knowledge. While different modes of intellectual property right regimes are applied in closed innovation systems, there seems to be tension between the concepts of “open innovation” and “intellectual property rights”. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how firms best manage knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Design/methodology/approach Following a mixed methods approach, the authors review relevant literature at the intersection of knowledge management, intellectual property rights, strategic management of intellectual property rights and the open innovation process. The authors identify success drivers through the lenses of – but not limited to – intellectual property rights and classify them in five distinct groups. Expending the view on open innovation beyond its modus operandi, the authors develop the Open Innovation Life Cycle, covering three stages and three levels of the open innovation process. The authors apply their findings to a case study in the pharmaceutical industry. Findings The authors provide four key contributions. First, existing literature yields inconclusive results concerning the enabling or disabling function of intellectual property rights in open innovation processes, but the majority of scholars detect an ambivalent relation. Second, they identify and classify success drivers of successful knowledge management via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Third, they advance literature on open innovation beyond its modus operandi to include three stages and three levels. Fourth, they test their findings to a case study and show how management leverages knowledge by properly using intellectual property rights in open innovation. Practical implications The findings support firms in managing knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Management should account for the peculiarities of open innovation preparation and open innovation termination to prevent unintentional knowledge drain. Originality/value This is one of the first studies to view open innovation as a process beyond its modus operandi by considering the preparations for and termination of open innovation activities. It also addresses the levels involved in managing knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation from individual (personal) to project and firm level.

show abstract

Section: Intellectual Property As Ambivalent To Open Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing knowledge in open innovation processes: an intellectual property perspective

Bican

Guderian

Ringbeck

2017

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, firms active in OI would face all the contractual intricacies that play a role in standard inter-firm exchanges. Lee (2009) and Lee, Nystén-Haarala, and Huhtilaienen (2010) also stress the role that inter-firm contracts and firms' contracting capabilities should play in OI to establish ownership and to control appropriation and contingencies. Interestingly, these authors add that, given the dynamic nature of OI, these OI contracts will to a large extent remain incomplete and subject to what we could refer to as flexible private ordering, where contract parties accept the incomplete nature of their contracts and adjust their joint efforts if circumstances so dictate (see also Almirall and Casadesus-Masanell 2010).…”

Section: Literature Background On Oi and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation

Hagedoorn

Zobel

2015

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our exploratory empirical study, based on interviews and a survey of firms, addresses a number of questions on the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights (IPR) in the context of firm-to-firm open innovation (OI). We find that firms active in OI have a very strong preference for the governance of their OI relationships with other firms through formal contracts. Also, despite the open nature of OI, firms still see IPR as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. We find the degree of openness of firms, their formal legal attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to the preference of OI firms for IPR. Furthermore, the strength of firms' internal R&D capabilities increases the positive relationship between openness and the preference for IPR.

show abstract

“…However any contracting for intangible innovation is extremely challenging as the parties would not be able to specify the result of their cooperation. (Lee 2009) contracting for these types of innovation may seem highly incomplete even. The incompleteness also makes it difficult to agree beforehand on the sharing of the profits and costs as well as on the ownership and use of the result of cooperation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%