International Journal of Contents

The Korea Contents Association (한국콘텐츠학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Patented Knowledge And Its Commercialization

  • Jeong, Eui Kyo (Department of Business Administration, Myongji University)
  • Received : 2013.05.10
  • Accepted : 2013.06.11
  • Published : 2013.06.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We examine whether the attributes of patented knowledge have any impact on its chances of commercialization. It has been hypothesized that the scope and cumulativeness of patented knowledge would positively affect the likelihood of its commercialization. The hypotheses were tested using patents data on the US biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We found support for the prediction that the scope of patented knowledge increases the likelihood of commercialization, but we didn't find support for the cumulativeness aspect. These findings have important implications for firms that develop patentable knowledge, license-out patents, license-in patents from external sources, or debate about patenting strategy.

Keywords

References

  1. W. B. Arthur, The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Free Press, New York, 2009.
  2. D. Foray, Economics of knowledge.: MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
  3. R. Ng, Drugs : From discovery to approval. Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, N.J., 2004.
  4. T. L. Wherry, Patent searching for librarians and inventors. American Library Association, Chicago, 1995.
  5. G. Ahuja, and C. M. Lampert, "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 6-7, 2001, pp. 521-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.176
  6. P. Almeida, and B. Kogut, "Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks." Management Science, vol. 45, no. 7, 1999, pp. 905-917. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.7.905
  7. A. Arundel, and I. Kabla, "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms." Research Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, 1999, pp. 127-141.
  8. M. Ceccagnoli, "Appropriability, Preemption, and Firm Performance." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, 2009, pp. 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.723
  9. W. M. Cohen, and D. A. Levinthal, "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation." Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, 1990, pp. 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  10. D. M. DeCarolis, and D. L. Deeds, "The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 10, 1999, pp. 953-968. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199910)20:10<953::AID-SMJ59>3.0.CO;2-3
  11. C. Dhanaraj, M. A. Lyles, H. K. Steensma, and L. Tihanyi, "Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in lJVs: the role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance." Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 35, no. 5, 2004, pp. 428-442. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400098
  12. D. Dranove, and D. Meltzer, "Do important drugs reach the market sooner?" RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 25, no. 3, 1994, pp. 402-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555769
  13. R. Gilbert, and C. Shapiro, "Optimal patent length and breadth." RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 21, no. 1, 1990, pp. 106-112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555497
  14. B. Gomes-Casseres, J. Hagedoorn, and A. B. Jaffe, "Do alliances promote knowledge flows?" Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 80, no. 1, 2006, pp. 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.08.011
  15. B. H. Hall, A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, "Market value and patent citations." Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 36, no. 1, 2005, pp. 16-38.
  16. B. H. Hall, A. B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, "The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools." NBER Working Paper Series, No. 8498, 2001.
  17. B. H. Hall, and R. H. Ziedonis, "The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995." Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 32, no. 1, 2001, pp. 101-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696400
  18. M. T. Hansen, "The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits." Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no, 1, 1999, pp. 82-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667032
  19. M. T. Hansen, M. L. Mors, and B. Lovas, "Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases." Academy of Management Journal, vol. 48, no. 5, 2005, pp. 776-793. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803922
  20. D. Harhoff, "Strategic spillovers and incentives for research and development." Management Science, vol. 42, no. 6, 1996, pp. 907-925. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.6.907
  21. D. Harhoff, F. Narin, F. M. Scherer, and K. Vopel, "Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions." Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 81, no. 3, 1999, pp. 511-515. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465399558265
  22. G. Hoetker, and R. Agarwal, "Death hurts, but it isn't fatal: The postexit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies." Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, 2007, pp. 446-467. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634858
  23. A. B. Jaffe, "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Values." American Economic Review, vol. 76, no. 5, 1986, pp. 984-1001.
  24. A. B. Jaffe, "Demand and supply influence in R&D intensity and productivity growth." Review of Economics & Statistics, vol. 70, no. 3, 1988, pp. 431-437.. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926781
  25. A. B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, and M. S. Fogarty, "Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors." American Economic Review, vol. 90, no. 2, 2000, pp. 215-218. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.2.215
  26. A. B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson, "Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations." Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108, no. 3, 1993, pp. 577-598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
  27. P. Klemperer, "How broad should the scope of patent protection be?" RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 21, no. 1, 1990, pp. 113-130. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555498
  28. P. J. Lane, J. E. Salk, and M. A. Lyles, "Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 12, 2001, pp. 1139-1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.206
  29. J. O. Lanjouw, and M. Schankerman, "Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition." RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 32, no. 1, 2001, pp. 129-151. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696401
  30. J. Lerner, "The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis." RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 25, no. 2, 1994, pp. 319-333. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555833
  31. J. G. March, "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning." Organization Science, vol. 2, no.1, 1991, pp. 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  32. S. F. Matusik, "An empirical investigation of firm public and private knowledge." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 5, 2002, pp. 457-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.238
  33. R. G. McGrath, and A. Nerkar, "Real options reasoning and a new look at the R&D investment strategies of pharmaceutical firms." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 25, no.1, 2004, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.358
  34. D. C. Mowery, J. E. Oxley, and B. S. Silverman, "Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, 1996, pp. 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171108
  35. A. Nerkar, and P. W. Roberts, "Technological and product-market experience and the new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 25, no. 8/9, 2004, pp. 779-799. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.417
  36. A. Nerkar, and S. Shane, "Determinants of invention commercialization: An empirical examination of academically sourced inventions." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 11, 2007, pp. 1155-1166. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.643
  37. M. Reitzig, "What determines patent value?: Insights from the semiconductor industry." Research Policy, 32(1), 2003, pp. 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00193-7
  38. L. Rosenkopf, and P. Almeida, "Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility." Management Science, vol. 49, no. 6, 2003, pp. 751-766. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.6.751.16026
  39. M. A. Schilling, and C. C. Phelps, "Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation." Management Science, vol. 53, no. 7, 2007, pp. 1113-1126. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624
  40. G. Szulanski, "Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, 1996, pp. 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171105
  41. M. Trajtenberg, R. Henderson, and A. Jaffe, "University versus corporate patents: A window of the basicness of invention." Economics of Innovation & New Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, 1997, pp. 19-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599700000006
  42. E. von Hippel, "Economics of product development by users: The impact of "sticky" local information." Management Science, vol. 44, no. 5, 1998, pp. 629-644. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.5.629
  43. R. H. Ziedonis, "Don't fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms." Management Science, vol. 50, no. 6, 2004, pp. 804-820. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0208