IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v38y2009i3p559-569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of corporate technology strategy and patent portfolios in low-, medium- and high-technology firms

Author

Listed:
  • Lichtenthaler, Ulrich

Abstract

Previous research into technology strategies and patent portfolios has focused on high-technology firms, whereas low- and medium-technology companies have been relatively neglected. Therefore, we analyze how corporate technology strategy and the size and composition of patent portfolios affect the performance of low-, medium- and high-technology firms. Data from 136 European companies are used to examine four hypotheses relating financial performance to technological diversification, technological aggressiveness, patent portfolio size, and patent portfolio quality. The cross-industry sample allows analyzing the different consequences of these strategic parameters in low-, medium- and high-technology firms by considering technological intensity as a moderator. Our first finding is that the positive impact of technological aggressiveness is limited in low- and medium-technology companies. Secondly, technological diversification has a positive effect in high-technology firms and a negative effect in low-technology firms. Thirdly, patent portfolio size has a positive effect only in high-technology firms. Finally, patent portfolio quality has an equally positive influence on all firms' performance. In part, these results conflict with the findings of previous research into high-technology companies, and they call for rethinking the role of technology strategies and intellectual property portfolios in firms across industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2009. "The role of corporate technology strategy and patent portfolios in low-, medium- and high-technology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 559-569, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:3:p:559-569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00228-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mc Namara, Peter & Baden-Fuller, Charles, 2007. "Shareholder returns and the exploration-exploitation dilemma: R&D announcements by biotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 548-565, May.
    2. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    5. Ernst, Holger, 2001. "Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 143-157, January.
    6. Gooroochurn, Nishaal & Hanley, Aoife, 2007. "A tale of two literatures: Transaction costs and property rights in innovation outsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1483-1495, December.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    8. Cesaroni, Fabrizio, 2004. "Technological outsourcing and product diversification: do markets for technology affect firms' strategies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1547-1564, December.
    9. William D. Nordhaus, 2002. "Productivity Growth and the New Economy," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 33(2), pages 211-265.
    10. Schmoch, Ulrich, 2007. "Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1000-1015, September.
    11. Nagaoka, Sadao & Kwon, Hyeog Ug, 2006. "The incidence of cross-licensing: A theory and new evidence on the firm and contract level determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1347-1361, November.
    12. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich & Ernst, Holger, 2007. "Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 37-55, February.
    13. Kuhlmann, Stefan, 2001. "Future governance of innovation policy in Europe -- three scenarios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 953-976, June.
    14. Jing Zhang & Charles Baden-Fuller & Vincent Mangematin, 2007. "Technological Knowledge Base, R&D Organization Structure and Alliance Formation: Evidence from the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Post-Print hal-00424512, HAL.
    15. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    16. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    17. Andersen, Birgitte & Konzelmann, Sue, 2008. "In search of a useful theory of the productive potential of intellectual property rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 12-28, February.
    18. Athreye, Suma & Cantwell, John, 2007. "Creating competition?: Globalisation and the emergence of new technology producers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 209-226, March.
    19. Reitzig, Markus & Henkel, Joachim & Heath, Christopher, 2007. "On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey--Unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of "being infringed"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 134-154, February.
    20. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1173-1190, September.
    21. Alfonso Gambardella & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Proprietary versus Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Linda Argote & Bill McEvily & Ray Reagans, 2003. "Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 571-582, April.
    23. Asheim, Bjorn T. & Coenen, Lars, 2005. "Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1173-1190, October.
    24. James Foreman-Peck & Gerry Makepeace & Brian Morgan, 2006. "Growth and profitability of small and medium-sized enterprises: Some Welsh evidence," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 307-319.
    25. Suzuki, Jun & Kodama, Fumio, 2004. "Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: Two case studies of large Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 531-549, April.
    26. Michael E. Porter, 2000. "Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 14(1), pages 15-34, February.
    27. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Eckhard Lichtenthaler, 2009. "A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1315-1338, December.
    28. Bharat N. Anand & Tarun Khanna, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    29. Arora, Ashish, 1997. "Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 391-403, December.
    30. Anand, Bharat N & Khanna, Tarun, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    31. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    32. Jeffrey T. Macher, 2006. "Technological Development and the Boundaries of the Firm: A Knowledge-Based Examination in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 826-843, June.
    33. Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo & Matt, Mireille, 2006. "Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 309-323, March.
    34. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & F. M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1999. "Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 511-515, August.
    35. O'Shea, Rory P. & Allen, Thomas J. & Chevalier, Arnaud & Roche, Frank, 2005. "Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    36. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    37. Casper, Steven, 2007. "How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable?: Social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 438-455, May.
    38. Shane, Scott & Somaya, Deepak, 2007. "The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 739-755, August.
    39. Scott Shane & Deepak Somaya, 2007. "The Effects of Patent Litigation on University Licensing Efforts," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    40. Neus Palomeras, 2007. "An Analysis of Pure‐Revenue Technology Licensing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 971-994, December.
    41. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    42. Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 2005. "Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 695-711, May.
    43. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
    44. Zhang, Jing & Baden-Fuller, Charles & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Technological knowledge base, R&D organization structure and alliance formation: Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 515-528, May.
    45. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    46. Bill McEvily & Alfred Marcus, 2005. "Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(11), pages 1033-1055, November.
    47. Granstrand, Ove, 1998. "Towards a theory of the technology-based firm1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 465-489, September.
    48. Pitkethly, Robert H., 2001. "Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 425-442, March.
    49. Gautam Ray & Jay B. Barney & Waleed A. Muhanna, 2004. "Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 23-37, January.
    50. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    51. Gambardella, Alfonso & Torrisi, Salvatore, 1998. "Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 445-463, September.
    52. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    53. Paul Robertson & Eduardo Pol & Peter Carroll, 2003. "Receptive Capacity of Established Industries as a Limiting Factor in the Economy's Rate of Innovation¹," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 457-474.
    54. Garcia-Vega, Maria, 2006. "Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 230-246, March.
    55. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 101-122, April.
    56. Thornhill, Stewart, 2006. "Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 687-703, September.
    57. YoungJun Kim & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2006. "Determinants of technology licensing: the case of licensors," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 235-249.
    58. Rinaldo Evangelista & Tore Sandven & Giorgio Sirilli & Keith Smith, 1998. "Measuring Innovation in European Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 311-333.
    59. Molas-Gallart, Jordi & Tang, Puay, 2006. "Ownership matters: Intellectual Property, privatization and innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 200-212, March.
    60. Mytelka, Lynn K. & Smith, Keith, 2002. "Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1467-1479, December.
    61. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    62. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    63. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    64. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    65. Pisano, Gary, 2006. "Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1122-1130, October.
    66. Robertson, Paul L. & Patel, Parimal R., 2007. "New wine in old bottles: Technological diffusion in developed economies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 708-721, June.
    67. Nicholas S. Argyres & Brian S. Silverman, 2004. "R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 929-958, August.
    68. Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
    69. Jo-Hui Chen & Martin Williams, 1999. "The determinants of business failures in the US low-technology and high-technology industries," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(12), pages 1551-1563.
    70. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    71. Henry Mintzberg, 1980. "Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 322-341, March.
    72. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    73. Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring.
    74. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
    75. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    76. Granstrand, Ove & Sjolander, Soren, 1990. "Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-60, February.
    77. Jan W. Rivkin, 2000. "Imitation of Complex Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(6), pages 824-844, June.
    78. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    79. No authors listed, 2001. "New Economy," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 27(1), pages 1-1.
    80. Jean Olson Lanjouw, 1998. "Patent Protection in the Shadow of Infringement: Simulation Estimations of Patent Value," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(4), pages 671-710.
    81. Hashai, Niron & Almor, Tamar, 2008. "R&D intensity, value appropriation and integration patterns within organizational boundaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1022-1034, July.
    82. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    83. Jerry Hausman & Gregory K. Leonard, 2006. "Real Options And Patent Damages: The Legal Treatment Of Non‐Infringing Alternatives, And Incentives To Innovate," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 493-512, September.
    84. McGahan, Anita M. & Silverman, Brian S., 2006. "Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1222-1242, October.
    85. Albert Link & John Scott, 2002. "Explaining Observed Licensing Agreements: Toward a Broader Understanding of Technology Flows," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 211-231.
    86. Robert M. Grant, 2003. "Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 491-517, June.
    87. Brian S. Silverman, 1999. "Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1109-1124, August.
    88. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kani, Masayo & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2012. "Understanding the technology market for patents: New insights from a licensing survey of Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 226-235.
    2. Chen, Chung-Jen & Lin, Bou-Wen & Lin, Ya-Hui & Hsiao, Yung-Chang, 2016. "Ownership structure, independent board members and innovation performance: A contingency perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3371-3379.
    3. Chia Sun, 2014. "A conceptual framework for R&D strategic alliance assessment for Taiwan’s biotechnology industry," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 259-279, January.
    4. Rammer, Christian & Köhler, Christian & Murmann, Martin & Pesau, Agnes & Schwiebacher, Franz & Kinkel, Steffen & Kirner, Eva & Schubert, Torben & Som, Oliver, 2010. "Innovationen ohne Forschung und Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung zu Unternehmen, die ohne eigene FuE-Tätigkeit neue Produkte und Prozesse einführen," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 15-2011, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    5. Ming Tian & Teng Wang & Xiaotong Li, 2021. "Dual function of corporate social responsibility on R&D strategy: Moderating effect of board interlock," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(6), pages 1492-1508, September.
    6. Cruz-Cázares, Claudio & Bayona-Sáez, Cristina & García-Marco, Teresa, 2013. "You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1239-1250.
    7. Chang, Shann-Bin, 2012. "Using patent analysis to establish technological position: Two different strategic approaches," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 3-15.
    8. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giarratana, Marco S., 2013. "General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 315-325.
    9. Seppälä, Timo & Kenney, Martin, 2012. "Competitive Dynamics, IP Litigation and Acquisitions - The Struggle for Positional Advantage in the Emerging Mobile Internet," Discussion Papers 1288, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. Gary A. Hoover & Christian Hopp, 2017. "What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct," CESifo Working Paper Series 6611, CESifo.
    11. Jenny-Paola Lis-Gutiérrez, 2013. "Gestión de la Propiedad Intelectual en las organizaciones. Una revisión de la literatura reciente," Estudios Económicos SIC 10904, Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio.
    12. Yuanyuan Dong & Zepeng Wei & Tiansen Liu & Xinpeng Xing, 2020. "The Impact of R&D Intensity on the Innovation Performance of Artificial Intelligence Enterprises-Based on the Moderating Effect of Patent Portfolio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Kyläheiko, Kalevi & Jantunen, Ari & Puumalainen, Kaisu & Luukka, Pasi, 2011. "Value of knowledge--Technology strategies in different knowledge regimes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 273-287, May.
    14. Gian Luca Casali & Roxanne Zolin & Sukanlaya Sawang, 2016. "Do Smes Cluster Around Innovation Activities? Discovering Active, Incremental And Opportunistic Innovators," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Hung, Shiu-Wan & Wang, An-Pang, 2012. "Entrepreneurs with glamour? DEA performance characterization of high-tech and older-established industries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 1146-1153.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Chiara Di Guardo & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Elona Marku, 2019. "M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 669-692, September.
    2. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Holger Ernst & Martin Hoegl, 2010. "Not-Sold-Here: How Attitudes Influence External Knowledge Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1054-1071, October.
    3. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Nicole Ziegler & Frauke Ruether & Martin Bader & Oliver Gassmann, 2013. "Creating value through external intellectual property commercialization: a desorptive capacity view," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 930-949, December.
    5. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2016. "The role of diversification profiles and dyadic characteristics in the formation of technological alliances: Differences between exploitation and exploration in a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 517-532.
    6. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    7. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    9. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich & Ernst, Holger, 2007. "Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 37-55, February.
    10. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    11. Lee, Honggi, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of patent scope on licensing propensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    12. René Belderbos & Leo Sleuwaegen & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2010. "Market Integration and Technological Leadership in Europe," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 403, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    13. Hoskins, Jake D. & Carson, Stephen J., 2022. "Industry conditions, market share, and the firm’s ability to derive business-line profitability from diverse technological portfolios," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 178-192.
    14. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    15. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & David L. Rigby, 2015. "The geography and evolution of complex knowledge," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1502, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2015.
    17. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2009. "Product business, foreign direct investment, and licensing: Examining their relationships in international technology exploitation," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 407-420, October.
    18. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    19. Lin, Chinho & Chang, Chia-Chi, 2015. "The effect of technological diversification on organizational performance: An empirical study of S&P 500 manufacturing firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 575-586.
    20. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:3:p:559-569. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.