The impact of open IP platforms on IP-strategy norms in life sciences

Thornblad, Tobias; Hedner, Thomas

doi:10.1504/ijtip.2012.047378

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, surveys (Dries, Pascucci, Torok & Toth, 2014;Pellegrini et al, 2014) and interviews with managers (Beckeman, Bourlakis & Olsson, 2013;Ruitenburg, Fortuin & Omta, 2014) were conducted, but a significant part was based on single or multiple case studies (Hergenröther & Siemes, 2010;Remon, 2011;Thornblad & Hedner, 2012;Klerkx & Nettle, 2013).…”

Section: Bibliometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Innovation in Agrifood Chain: A Systematic Review

Medeiros

Binotto

Caleman

et al. 2016

Journal of Technology Management & Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the practice of open innovation being consolidated, scientific publications are still limited, particularly when related to agribusiness. Through bibliometric technique and content analysis, this study aimed to analyze the state of the art on the subject, explaining the development of open innovation in agribusiness and highlight future research opportunities. The risk of sharing valuable knowledge is the main barrier to adoption. For mitigate it, there is a need for internal organizational changes, the support of communication tools and an intellectual property model that encourage knowledge sharing. Open innovation is a field that needs to be explored in different links in the chain, locations and contexts, in order to help ensure that organizations can benefit from this strategy.

show abstract

Section: Bibliometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Innovation in Agrifood Chain: A Systematic Review

Medeiros

Binotto

Caleman

et al. 2016

Journal of Technology Management & Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, especially in R&D intensive firms, OI processes require Intellectual Property (IP) with the involvement of various research partners, such as customers, suppliers and employees (Howells, 2008). For this reason a proper IP protection strategy should be sought (Thornblad and Hedner, 2012), using all the available tools, such as registered and unregistered IP rights (IPR) (patents, copyrights, trademarks, secrecy) (Manzini and Lazzarotti, 2016). From this point of view, for a long time, talking of IPR led to a substantial misunderstanding that treated "patents" as the main available tool, often seen in a negative meaning, considering that companies have been making use of them in order to block other competitors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides patents, firms may adopt formal appropriation strategies (IP protection and related management), informal appropriation strategies (relating to lead-time, first mover advantage, and industrial secrecy), or finally a combination of these approaches (Huizingh, 2010). In a formal strategy, IPR can facilitate sharing of information and knowledge, preventing exclusive appropriation, especially when firms are involved in collaborative R&D activity and, for this reason, IP management becomes a priority challenge in firms involved in OI processes (Thornblad and Hedner, 2012). In the same way, integration with informal strategies could allow IP protection, but also profiting from it and exploiting new technologies for new products and services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open innovation and intellectual property strategies

Toma

Secundo

Passiante

2018

BPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main Intellectual Property (IP) protection strategies adopted in the R&D phases of a company operating in the bio-pharmaceutical industry, according to an open innovation (OI) approach. Design/methodology/approach -In order to assess how R&D intensive firms adopt IP strategies during OI practices, this research uses a single case-study design. The case has been studied over an extended period of time ( from 2008 to 2015), triangulating data and information by means of multiple interviews with different key informants and projects documents. The novelty of the research justifies the use of a single case study. Findings -The study reveals how a mix of formal and informal tools for IP protection are used, with a final attempt to maintain control over different technological solutions during their validation process and profiting from stable R&D collaborations with research partners. Research limitations/implications -Limitations of the study relate to the single case study methodology as well as to some peculiarities of the analyzed company and of the Bio-Pharmaceutical industry. Practical implications -Research managers could find some food for thought in the adoption of OI approaches for reducing costs and risks associated with technological uncertainty, with particular attention to the strategic role of IP rights. Originality/value -Despite knowledge protection being widely recognized to be a critical issue for implementing OI approaches, how IP strategies should be used in the different phases of R&D is still debatable. Moreover, few empirical studies relate to the adoption of optimal combinations of IP tools in relation to the different R&D phases in such technology intensive industries as the bio-pharmaceutical industry.

show abstract

The Bioeconomy as Political Project

Goven

Pavone

2014

Science, Technology, & Human Values

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bioeconomy is becoming increasingly prominent in policy and scholarly literature, but critical examination of the concept is lacking. We argue that the bioeconomy should be understood as a political project, not simply or primarily as a technoscientific or economic one. We use a conceptual framework derived from the work of Karl Polanyi to elucidate the politically performative nature of the bioeconomy through an analysis of an influential Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) initiative, The Bioeconomy to 2030. We argue that this initiative is a response to some of the most acute challenges facing the current neoliberal-capitalist accumulation regime, which seeks to protect and extend that regime, through both what it occludes and what it promotes. Rather than taking the bioeconomy as a description of some subset of economic activity, we regard it as a promissory construct that is meant to induce and facilitate some actions while deterring others; most explicitly, it is meant to bring about a particular set of political-institutional changes that will shape the parameters of possible future action. The bioeconomy concept highlights

show abstract

The impact of open IP platforms on IP-strategy norms in life sciences

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Open Innovation in Agrifood Chain: A Systematic Review

Open Innovation in Agrifood Chain: A Systematic Review

Open innovation and intellectual property strategies

The Bioeconomy as Political Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About