Towards advanced Intellectual property management - Events and stages during the development. Evidence from the biotech sector

During recent years the management of Intellectual Property (IP) underwent major changes. IP management systems became increasingly complex nowadays actively handling an integrated mix of intellectual assets rather than just administrating patents or trademarks as single, independently treated assets. Our paper describes and analyses the historic development of IP management in German and Swedish Dedicated Biotechnology Firms (DBFs) with our main focus on the following two issues: (1) Which events trigger the development towards an advanced IP management? (2) Can distinctive stages be identified in the development of IP management systems and if yes, how are they characterised? Our study draws primarily on 12 personal interviews with leading managers from six larger German and Swedish DBFs with rich experience in IP management that were founded between 1984 and 1997. During our study we found that shifts towards an advanced IP management were triggered by single crucial events (e.g. litigation) or an accumulated sum of incremental events, of either internal or external nature. Up to four different stages of IP management were found throughout the development of the case companies, while six criteria were identified that can be applied to characterize an IP management stage. --Intellectual Property Management,Dedicated Biotechnology Firm,Germany,Sweden

Towards a Theory of Innovation Governance and the Role of IPRs

This paper theorizes about innovation governance, especially about governance of open innovation and the nature and role of IPRs. A reinterpretation of open innovation is offered in terms of the emergence of various types of markets for inputs to and outputs from innovative activities. These open innovation markets are typically markets for ideas, technologies, knowledge and data such as licensing markets, equity markets, and matching markets for innovation collaborations and correspond to various types of open innovation strategies viewed from the inside out in a focal firm\u27s perspective. Open innovation-seen as a set of quasi-integrated organizational forms for innovative activities in between market and hierarchical firm organizations-is then explainable in terms of determinants of supply and demand. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) then play a new role as tools for innovation governance, thereby economizing on governance costs in an extended transaction cost framework. Licensing of usage rights is key to using IPRs for innovation governance. The by now standard property rights approach to rights in intellectual resources has to be challenged, however, and referred to as \u27intellectual rights\u27 rather than IPRs. In addition, the governing role of IPRs can be improved by combining them with liabilities into a hybrid approach. Organizational responsibilities provide still another institutional arrangement for innovation governance, and integration of rights, liabilities and responsibilities provide a new theoretical perspective on innovation governance-a perspective that also can provide links between organization theory, transaction cost economics and property rights theory

Current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system

The European Parliament has been working towards building a discussion platform and a resource for further policy actions in the field of intellectual property rights. The Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel has set the goal of further enlarging the area of investigation in light of recent policy developments at the European level. In particular, the current study covers current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system, such as the backlog issue, the enhancement of patent awareness within the European Parliament, patent enforcement, the regional dimension of intellectual property in Europe, patents and standardisation, the use of existing patents, and patents and competition. These issues were discussed in the conference with stakeholders from European to national patent offices, from private to public sector actors. As a result of the conference, it was stated the need for an IP strategy for Europ

Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition

The concept of innovation ecosystems has become popular during the last 15 years, leading to a debate regarding its relevance and conceptual rigor, not the least in this journal. The purpose of this article is to review received definitions of innovation ecosystems and related concepts and to propose a synthesized definition of an innovation ecosystem. The conceptual analysis identifies an unbalanced focus on complementarities, collaboration, and actors in received definitions, and among other things proposes the additional inclusion of competition, substitutes, and artifacts in conceptualizations of innovation ecosystems, leading to the following definition: An innovation ecosystem is the evolving set of actors, activities, and artifacts, and the institutions and relations, including complementary and substitute relations, that are important for the innovative performance of an actor or a population of actors. This definition is compatible with related conceptualizations of innovation systems and natural ecosystems, and the validity of it is illustrated with three empirical examples of innovation ecosystems

Value capture in open innovation markets: the role of patent rights for innovation appropriation

PurposeThe role of patents for appropriating (capturing) value from innovation investments has for decades been of major interest to both practitioners and academics in innovation management. Many studies have implicitly assumed that firms appropriate value through in-house creation and marketing of innovative products and services, and that the main function of patents is to protect the exclusive sales in product and service markets. We challenge this assumption in light of the variety of business models, strategies and markets now being available, including different organizational and market forms of open innovation.Design/methodology/approachA conceptual framework and typology of open innovation markets is developed, and the role of patents for appropriation is investigated in these markets among 172 Swedish technology-based firms.FindingsThe results show that the importance of patents has a skewed distribution with some firms rating patents very important and with a fat tail of firms rating patents less important. Most importantly, the results indicate that patents are enabling exchange and technology trade in various types of open innovation markets rather than only supporting vertically integrated business models. Thus patents were found to help rather than hinder the use of open innovation markets.Originality/valueThe paper makes two main contributions. First a theoretical reinterpretation of open innovation with a conceptualization of open innovation markets for appropriation of innovation values. Second an empirical illustration of new roles of patents for appropriating innovation values in these markets. The paper in addition illustrates the use of a counterfactual approach to questionnaire surveys, as well as the complementarities between patents and other means of appropriation

Fairness in intellectual property valuation and value-sharing: Towards fair pricing in technology trade and licensing

In today\u27s complex and digital business landscape, innovation is typically not an effort of a lonely genius or an activity confined to a single corporate R&D lab. Instead, the innovation process often involves open innovation, technology trade, and intellectual property (IP) licensing between multiple firms in what is sometimes referred to as an innovation ecosystem. While this interaction is conducive to value creation, it also creates a pressing need for better methods and principles for fairly capturing and sharing value among contributors. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the plurality and specificity of fairness principles, how they appear in IP negotiation experiments with 105 participants, and what outcomes they generate compared to competitive behavior. The paper especially highlights how investments and the structure of innovation actors, artifacts (such as patents), and activities impact fairness

IP strategies and policies for and against evergreening

Evergreening is the strategic extension of the duration of a temporary monopolistic or market dominant position by means of IP strategies, and in practice patent strategies particularly. This paper explores the evergreening phenomenon. After an introductory description of evergreening and its associated innovation and IP policy issues, the paper provides a literature review. We further present one case of the pharmaceutical blockbuster drug Losec (Omeprazol) that became the world’s best selling drug from 1996 to 2000. The case is accompanied by short evergreeing examples based on other IPRs such as trade marks. A theoretical part discusses different types of evergreening approaches along with simple models. The paper ends with a discussion of implications for managerial counterstrategies and innovation and IP policies

Innovation and venture capital exit performance

Venture capital is a potent source of R&D financing which contributes significantly to technological innovation output in the form of patented inventions. Scholars have argued that tighter protection of intellectual property rights reduces expropriation risks and encourages venture capitalists to invest in technology firms. Prior studies have showed that early stage technology investors give much weight to investment selection criteria related to innovation e.g. protection of intellectual property, platform and uniqueness. However, VC investors generally receive little on their investments until a liquidation event occurs – IPO and M&A (trade sale) exits define venture capital performance. A review of the literature indicates that few empirical studies have examined the influence of patented innovation on the exit performance of VC-backed technology firms. This paper seeks to address this specific knowledge gap in venture capital research and practice. It builds on resource-based view (RBV) theory which argues that technological innovation is an important strategic resource of the entrepreneurial firm that can attract VC investment, provide competitive advantage and produce superior performance. This study is based on matched data compiled from VentureXpertTM, DelphionTM and NBER/USPTO databases. The resulting unique and proprietary dataset consists of 1504 U.S. VC-backed exits across 7 technology sectors in the 20 years from 1980-2000, 961 IPOs and 543 M&As. The influence of technological innovation on the exit performance of VC-backed technology firms is examined. As predicted by RBV theory, technology firms engaged in patenting activity were found more likely to be associated with the more profitable IPO exit route, higher VC investment and exit value

The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes

In this article, we attempt to extend and nuance the debate on intellectual property (IP) strategy, appropriation, and open innovation in dynamic and systemic innovation contexts. We present the case of four generations of mobile telecommunications systems (covering the period 1980-2015), and describe and analyze the co-evolution of strategic IP management and innovation ecosystems. Throughout this development, technologies and technological relationships were governed with different and shifting degrees of formality. Simultaneously, firms differentiated technology accessibility across actors and technologies to benefit from openness and appropriation of innovation. Our analysis shows that the discussion of competitiveness and appropriability needs to be expanded from the focal appropriability regime and complementary assets to the larger context of the innovation ecosystem and its cooperative and competitive actor relations, with dispersed complementary and substitute assets and technologies. Consequently, the shaping of complementary and substitute appropriability regimes is central when strategizing in dynamic and systemic innovation contexts. This holds important implications for the management of open innovation, innovation ecosystems, platforms, and coopetition