The patent management trichotomy: patenting, publishing, and secrecy

Holgersson, Marcus; Wallin, Martin W.

doi:10.1108/md-03-2016-0172

Cited by 34 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 93 publications

(135 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This in turn means that other actors cannot patent that same invention and the patent holder can therefore not be excluded from using its own invention. While this motive has not been explicitly covered by most previous studies, it likely plays an important role in the decision to patent (Granstrand, 1999, Holgersson andWallin, 2017) and it is therefore included here.…”

Section: Motives To Patentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation

Holgersson

Granstrand

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Motives To Patentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation

Holgersson

Granstrand

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many publications [4][5][6] simplify the process of IP management to patenting and insist that the efficiency of IP management depends on timely patenting. The reason for this is the objective difficulties associated with the registration of patents for IP objects.…”

Section: Literature Review and Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the authors of scientific works [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] solve the problems of creating IP objects, protection of rights, management mechanisms. But in the works there is no clear structure, components and tools of the IP management mechanism.…”

Section: Literature Review and Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of scientific and methodological approach to quantitative and qualitative assessment of intellectual property management in industrial enterprises

Райко

Черепанова

Sylka

et al. 2021

EEJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The competitiveness, market value and income of an enterprise depend on the level of intellectual property management. Therefore, the aim of research is to develop, substantiate and test a scientific and methodological approach to a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the management of intellectual property of industrial enterprises. The originality of the proposed approach is that on the basis of the concept of "management of intellectual property" a procedure for current management has been developed, the main stage of which is a quantitative and qualitative assessment. The assessment is based on the structural and logical model, which is built according to two criteria. The criteria make it possible to determine the current state of the use of intellectual property (intangible assets) – a quantitative assessment, and the prospect of further use (intellectual potential) – a qualitative assessment. A quantitative assessment involves the calculation of indicators characterizing the state of assets, the dynamics of the impact on the market value of the enterprise, the profitability of production, which is proposed to be determined through the net cash flow from operating activities. A qualitative assessment is carried out in terms of components (information and investment, organizational and legal, economic, personnel and motivation), tools and relative indicators that characterize the intellectual potential of an industrial enterprise. The assessment is carried out using a general integral indicator, which is of practical importance, since it shows the existing level of intellectual property management and directions for improvement in the future. The approbation of the scientific and methodological approach was carried out on the example of three Ukrainian coke-chemical enterprises (CJSC Avdeevka Coke Plant, CJSC Zaporozhkoks, CJSC Yuzhkoks) of the American association SUNCOKE ENERGY, INC and the Polish association J.S.W. S.A. Group. Empirical studies for the period from 2015 to 2019 made it possible to build a scale for assessing the level of intellectual property management according to the Harrington function

show abstract

“…Also, innovation often takes place in complex multi-technology systems with complementary innovations spread across actors (Granstrand et al, 1997;Hall & Ziedonis, 2001;Bessen, 2004;Teece, 2009;Somaya et al, 2011;Granstrand & Holgersson, 2013). In such settings, IP strategy impacts appropriability both directly, through improved and protected sales and margins, and indirectly, for example through cross-licensing agreements, improved negotiation positions, standard setting, blocking of others' R&D, and improved provision of complementary innovations (Arundel et al, 1995;Duguet & Kabla, 1998;Granstrand, 1999;Bekkers et al, 2002a;Baldwin & von Hippel, 2011;Holgersson & Wallin, 2017). Moreover, a specific firm's freedom to operate, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, a specific firm's freedom to operate, i.e. the ability to do business without being excluded by the IP rights (IPRs) of others, is impacted by the firm's own IP strategy (Granstrand, 1999;Lemley & Shapiro, 2007;Bessen & Maskin, 2009;Somaya et al, 2011;Holgersson & Wallin, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intangible assets as “nucleus” of process innovation

Marín

Boanţă

2018

Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper adds practical experience to the current IP literature and shows a case study upon a start-up company from Romania benefits of its intangible assets in increasing its competitiveness performances, showing how technology-focused SMEs can use IP effectively to support their business models. So, we provide practical means for understanding one practical way in which an innovative SME profits from patents and standards for creating value, also revealing a good practice in IP strategy and management (awareness and involvement at senior management level, pragmatic and innovative use of the flexibility offered by IP) and facilitating the transfer of knowledge of one IP strategy and management associated to a real innovative business example.

show abstract

The patent management trichotomy: patenting, publishing, and secrecy

Cited by 34 publications

References 93 publications

Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation

Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation

Development of scientific and methodological approach to quantitative and qualitative assessment of intellectual property management in industrial enterprises

Intangible assets as “nucleus” of process innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About