Motives for patenting biotechnological inventions: an empirical investigation in Switzerland

2012

R & D Management

120

Managers make a number of strategic choices when trying to capture returns from innovation investments, including what appropriation strategy to use and whether or not to patent, strategic choices that depend among other things on firm size. Previous literature, being reviewed in this paper, shows that the patent propensity is lower in small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) than in large firms and that patenting as means for appropriation is of less importance among SMEs. Chief executive officers (CEOs) and/or research and development (R&D) managers of 26 entrepreneurial SMEs have been interviewed to explain these differences and to provide insight on how patenting is used in SMEs. The patent competence was low among the studied SMEs, and internal patent resources were found to be important for effective and efficient use of the patent system, for application as well as monitoring and enforcement. While of limited perceived importance for protecting inventions in entrepreneurial SMEs, patents were used to attract customers and venture capital, which is of utmost importance for the survival and growth of these firms. Thus, patenting has an important role to play even in firms where the protective function of patents is secondary.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent management in entrepreneurial SMEs: a literature review and an empirical study of innovation appropriation, patent propensity, and motives

2012

R & D Management

120

“…For example, early studies of patenting motives included to prevent imitation, to avoid litigation, to improve technology negotiation, to enable licensing, and to reward researchers (e.g., Arundel et al, 1995, Duguet andKabla, 1998). Subsequent studies have included additional motives, such as to block competitors from certain technological areas (Blind et al, 2006, Cohen et al, 2000, Granstrand, 1999, to improve reputation (Blind et al, 2006, Cohen et al, 2000, Thumm, 2004, and to attract capital (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2012, Holgersson, 2013, Keupp et al, 2009, de Rassenfosse, 2012. In this study the latter two motives are subdivided relating to different stakeholders and capital types, respectively.…”

Section: Motives To Patentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation

Granstrand

2017

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to empirically investigate firms' motives to patent in general, and more specifically how some of these motives depend upon firms' technology strategies and especially their level of open innovation. Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a questionnaire survey sent to CTOs (or equivalent) of the largest R&D spenders among Swedish large firms (e.g., ABB, AstraZeneca, Ericsson, and Volvo) and among Swedish small and mediumsized enterprises. Principal component analysis and multiple linear regressions were used to check the impact from open innovation upon the importance of 21 different motives to patent, with a specific focus on protection and bargaining related motives. FindingsThe most important motive to patent is to protect product technologies, but protecting freedom to operate is almost as important, followed by a number of other motives. Increasing importance of open innovation in firms is related to stronger bargaining motives to patent, and even stronger protection motives. In fact, when comparing with closed innovation the results show that open innovation is more strongly positively related with all different motives to patent except for one (to attract customers). This indicates that firms find it more important to patent when engaged in open innovation than when engaged in closed innovation. Originality/valueThe paper reports results from the first study that links patenting motives to technology strategies. It contributes to an emerging stream of empirical studies investigating the role of patents in external technology strategies and open innovation, showing that the motives to patent are strengthened within open innovation settings.

“…Technology exclusivity, in turn, can be protected by patents or trade secrets (Arundel, 2001, Granstrand, 1999. Numerous studies have found that the protection of innovations and prevention of imitation is the main motive for patenting (Arundel et al, 1995, Blind et al, 2006, Cohen et al, 2000, Duguet and Kabla, 1998, Giuri et al, 2007, Granstrand, 1999, Thumm, 2004a, Veer and Jell, 2012, Thumm, 2004b. Publishing is not associated with such benefits, while secrecy is (Arundel, 2001, Hannah, 2005.…”

Section: Innovation Appropriation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The patent management trichotomy: patenting, publishing, and secrecy

Wallin

2017

PurposeExtant research and practice of patent management are often occupied with how to best utilize patenting as a source of competitive advantage. This paper instead suggests a patent management trichotomy where firms make strategic decisions between patenting, publishing, and secrecy. ApproachThe paper is conceptual in nature and draws on received IP-management literature to develop an analytical framework. FindingsWe suggest that the choice between patenting, publishing, and secrecy can be understood in terms of differences in the degree to which the firm can appropriate value from the invention and the degree to which it can operate freely. Originality/valueThrough an analysis along the dimensions of direct and indirect appropriation as well as static and dynamic freedom to operate, the article conceptualizes the choice between patenting, publishing, and secrecy in a way useful for management decisions as well as for academics.