IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v197y2023ics0040162523005383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The changing work of IPR attorneys: 30 years of institutional transitions

Author

Listed:
  • Heikkilä, Jussi T.S.
  • Peltoniemi, Mirva

Abstract

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are at the core of innovation studies. Patent attorneys and other IPR experts play an important role in drafting and filing processes yet we know little of their work. We conduct an exploratory case study to shed light on how IPR attorneys adapt to changes in institutions and competitive environment that overturn the fundamentals of their business. We focus on the sector's evolution in Finland from 1990 to 2020, and analyse the impacts of globalization, European integration, and digitalization. EPC, EUTM, RCD and the London Agreement are identified as significant changes for the industry. IPR register data and expert interviews show that the business has shifted from serving foreign clients filing in Finland to serving Finnish clients filing internationally, increasing the knowledge requirements of local experts. The filing volume has increased due to globalization while billing per filing has decreased. This has triggered the development of consulting services relating to technology strategy. We contribute by analysing the sector's evolution in a small open economy where start-ups typically aim at the global market from the start. Our study also highlights the need to integrate IPR attorneys into the literatures on appropriability and propensity to file.

Suggested Citation

  • Heikkilä, Jussi T.S. & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2023. "The changing work of IPR attorneys: 30 years of institutional transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:197:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005383
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523005383
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122853?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. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    2. 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..
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2019. "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    4. Markus Reitzig & Stefan Wagner, 2010. "The hidden costs of outsourcing: evidence from patent data," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(11), pages 1183-1201, November.
    5. Kim, Jeeeun & Lee, Sungjoo, 2015. "Patent databases for innovation studies: A comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 332-345.
    6. Herz, Benedikt & Mejer, Malwina, 2019. "Effects of the European Union trademark: Lessons for the harmonization of intellectual property systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1841-1854.
    7. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Helmers, Christian, 2019. "The impact of international patent systems: Evidence from accession to the European Patent Convention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    8. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    9. Wagner, Stefan, 2006. "Make-or-Buy Decisions in Patent Related Services," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 1264, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    10. Schettino, Francesco & Sterlacchini, Alessandro, 2009. "Determinants of patent withdrawals: Evidence from a sample of Italian applications with the EPO," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 308-314, December.
    11. Tim Reiffenstein, 2009. "Specialization, Centralization, and the Distribution of Patent Intermediaries in the USA and Japan," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 571-588.
    12. Cai, Helen (Huifen) & Sarpong, David & Tang, Xiaoyun & Zhao, Guiqin, 2020. "Foreign patents surge and technology spillovers in China (1985–2009): Evidence from the patent and trade markets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    14. Castaldi, Carolina, 2018. "To trademark or not to trademark: The case of the creative and cultural industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 606-616.
    15. Choi, Seokkyu & Lee, Hyeonju & Park, Eunjeong & Choi, Sungchul, 2022. "Deep learning for patent landscaping using transformer and graph embedding," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya, 2014. "Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(2), pages 449-469, June.
    17. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
    18. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    19. Fagerberg, Jan & Srholec, Martin, 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1417-1435, October.
    20. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Patent validation at the country level--The role of fees and translation costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1423-1437, November.
    21. Carsten Fink & Mosahid Khan & Hao Zhou, 2016. "Exploring the worldwide patent surge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 114-142, March.
    22. David E. Andersson & Matti La Mela, 2020. "Nordic networks: patent agents and the business of technology intermediation in Sweden and Finland, 1860–1910," Scandinavian Economic History Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 68(1), pages 45-65, January.
    23. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    24. Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Improving patent valuations for management purposes--validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 939-957, September.
    25. Filitz, Rainer & Henkel, Joachim & Tether, Bruce S., 2015. "Protecting aesthetic innovations? An exploration of the use of registered community designs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1192-1206.
    26. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    27. Michael Gibbert & Winfried Ruigrok & Barbara Wicki, 2008. "What passes as a rigorous case study?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1465-1474, December.
    28. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    29. Baruffaldi, Stefano H. & Simeth, Markus, 2020. "Patents and knowledge diffusion: The effect of early disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    30. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
    31. Andrade, Eron Passos & Pereira, Jadiel dos Santos & Rocha, Angela Machado & Nascimento, Marcio Luis Ferreira, 2022. "An exploratory analysis of Brazilian universities in the technological innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    2. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    3. Herz, Benedikt & Mejer, Malwina, 2019. "Effects of the European Union trademark: Lessons for the harmonization of intellectual property systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1841-1854.
    4. Papazoglou, Michalis E. & Spanos, Yiannis E., 2021. "“Influential knowledge and financial performance: The role of time and rivals’ absorptive capacity”," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    7. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    8. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    9. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    10. Bronwyn H. Hall & Vania Sena, 2017. "Appropriability mechanisms, innovation, and productivity: evidence from the UK," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 42-62, February.
    11. Ronald B. Davies & Dieter Franz Kogler & Ryan M. Hynes, 2020. "Patent Boxes and the Success Rate of Applications," Working Papers 202018, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    12. Jérôme Danguy & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2014. "On the origins of the worldwide surge in patenting: an industry perspective on the R&D–patent relationship," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(2), pages 535-572.
    13. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    14. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    15. Delphine GALLAUD & Maximilien NAYARADOU, 2012. "Vers une ouverture des stratégies de protection de l’innovation ?," Working Papers 28, Réseau de Recherche sur l’Innovation. / Research Network on Innovation.
    16. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    17. Li Yao & He Ni, 2023. "Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 4933-4969, September.
    18. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Do Patents Matter for Commercialization?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 431-453.
    19. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    20. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.

    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:197:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005383. 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.