IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v120y2017icp24-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavior of inter-enterprises patent portfolio for different market structure

Author

Listed:
  • Yue, Xian-Ping

Abstract

With the in-depth shift from an industry-based society to a knowledge-based one, innovative companies use their own patents to create and exploit new opportunities. In recent years, leading innovative companies have attempted to establish an inter-enterprises patent portfolio alliance (such as patent pool and so on) and create leveraging opportunities through patent portfolio behavior. In this paper, we consider the question of how many firms and when can implement its patent portfolio behavior for different market structures with homogeneous patential products. Based on the classical Cournot model, we propose an economic game mode and analyze the above question. We find that the profits of the firms that have established a patent portfolio alliance is increasing but also the profits change of the firms that have not established the same patent portfolio alliance is uncertain when compare with the situation with both non-establishing the same patent portfolio alliance and Cournot competition. We also find that there is a minimum moderate number scale of the firms that have established an inter-enterprise patent portfolio alliance within the industries whose enterprises numbers are different. These conclusions not only explain patent portfolio behavior of some innovative firms such as those in the DVD industry11For more details on the patent portfolio behavior of enterprises in DVD industry, see Section “6.2. A real case”. but also have its potential generalization to some innovative companies and considering how it can be used to indicate profits drivers for inter-enterprises patent portfolio behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue, Xian-Ping, 2017. "Behavior of inter-enterprises patent portfolio for different market structure," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 24-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:120:y:2017:i:c:p:24-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517304572
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst, Holger & Omland, Nils, 2011. "The Patent Asset Index - A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 34-41, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1173-1190, September.
    4. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    5. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2004. "Efficient Patent Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 691-711, June.
    6. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    7. Nielsen, Poul-Erik, 2004. "Evaluating patent portfolios--a Danish initiative," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 143-148, June.
    8. Bar, Talia & Leiponen, Aija, 2012. "A measure of technological distance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 457-459.
    9. 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.
    10. Henry Delcamp, 2015. "Are patent pools a way to help patent owners enforce their rights," Post-Print hal-01522963, HAL.
    11. Schneider, Cédric, 2008. "Fences and competition in patent races," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1348-1364, November.
    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. Gupta, Nitish & Park, Hyunkyu & Phaal, Rob, 2022. "The portfolio planning, implementing, and governing process: An inductive approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Yue Dai & Nan Li & Rongrong Gu & Xiaodong Zhu, 2018. "Can China’s Carbon Emissions Trading Rights Mechanism Transform its Manufacturing Industry? Based on the Perspective of Enterprise Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Huang, Kenneth Guang-Lih & Huang, Can & Shen, Huijun & Mao, Hao, 2021. "Assessing the value of China's patented inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    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. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    2. Grimaldi, Michele & Cricelli, Livio & Di Giovanni, Martina & Rogo, Francesco, 2015. "The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 286-302.
    3. Eun Jin Han & So Young Sohn, 2017. "Firms’ Negative Perceptions on Patents, Technology Management Strategies, and Subsequent Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2022. "Australian innovation: Patent database construction and first evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    5. Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz & J. Alberto Aragon-Correa & Andrew G. Earle, 2022. "Innovating for Good in Opportunistic Contexts: The Case for Firms’ Environmental Divergence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 705-721, April.
    6. Xiaodong Yuan & Weiling Song, 2022. "Evaluating technology innovation capabilities of companies based on entropy- TOPSIS: the case of solar cell companies," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 65-76, June.
    7. Langinier, Corinne, 2006. "Pool of Basic Patents and Follow-Up Innovations," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12647, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Ardito, Lorenzo & D'Adda, Diego & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2018. "Mapping innovation dynamics in the Internet of Things domain: Evidence from patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 317-330.
    9. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2021. "Identification of “Valuable” Technologies via Patent Statistics in India: An Analysis Based on Renewal Information," BASE University Working Papers 13/2021, BASE University, Bengaluru, India.
    10. Song, Kisik & Kim, Kyuwoong & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "Identifying promising technologies using patents: A retrospective feature analysis and a prospective needs analysis on outlier patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 118-132.
    11. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    12. Juan Alberto Aragon‐Correa & Dante I. Leyva‐de la Hiz, 2016. "The Influence of Technology Differences on Corporate Environmental Patents: A Resource‐Based Versus an Institutional View of Green Innovations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(6), pages 421-434, September.
    13. Paul Belleflamme & Paul Bloch, 2013. "Dynamic Protection of Innovations through Patents and Trade Secrets," CESifo Working Paper Series 4486, CESifo.
    14. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2018. "Do patents of academic funded researchers enjoy a longer life? A study of patent renewal decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2021. "Future profitability and stock returns of innovative firms in Australia," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Justus Baron & Henry Delcamp, 2015. "The strategies of patent introduction into patent pools," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 776-800, November.
    17. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    18. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2014. "Running ahead in the nanotechnology gold rush. Strategic patenting in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 194-207.
    19. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2020. "Does geographic distance to partners affect firm R&D spending? The moderating roles of individuals, firms, and countries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 12-23.
    20. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intellectual property management; Patent portfolio; Scale strategy; Cournot model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tefoso:v:120:y:2017:i:c:p:24-31. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.