IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v28y2017i3p514-530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evading the Boomerang Effect: Using the Grant-Back Clause to Further Generative Appropriability from Technology Licensing Deals

Author

Listed:
  • Keld Laursen

    (DRUID, Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics, Copenhagen Business School, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark; and Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway)

  • Solon Moreira

    (Entrepreneurship Department, IESE Business School, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Toke Reichstein

    (Department of Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen Business School, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Maria Isabella Leone

    (Department of Business and Management, LUISS Guido Carli University, 00197 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Technology licensing agreements potentially can create future appropriability problems. Drawing on the appropriability literature, we argue that the inclusion of a grant-back clause in technology licensing agreements is an attempt to balance the gains from and protection of the focal firms’ technologies. We hypothesize that the closer the licensed technology is to the licensor’s core patented technologies, the more likely the licensing agreement will include a grant-back clause, while the closer the licensed technology is to the licensee’s core patent portfolio, the less likely the agreement will include a grant-back clause. We hypothesize also that technological uncertainty is a positive moderator in the decision to include a grant-back clause, if the licensed technology is close to either the licensee’s or the licensor’s core technologies. We employ a hierarchical nested decision model to test the hypotheses on a sample of 397 licensed technologies. This method allows us to model the choice to include a grant-back clause as nested in the decision about which technologies to license out. We find broad support for our theoretical arguments.

Suggested Citation

  • Keld Laursen & Solon Moreira & Toke Reichstein & Maria Isabella Leone, 2017. "Evading the Boomerang Effect: Using the Grant-Back Clause to Further Generative Appropriability from Technology Licensing Deals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 514-530, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:28:y:2017:i:3:p:514-530
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1130
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2017.1130?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malhotra, Deepak & Lumineau, Fabrice, 2011. "Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: the effects of contract structure," MPRA Paper 38358, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Louis Mulotte, 2014. "Do Experience Effects Vary Across Governance Modes? Evidence from New Product Introduction in the Global Aircraft Industry, 1948–2000," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 757-775, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    5. 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..
    6. Marco Ceccagnoli, 2009. "Appropriability, preemption, and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 81-98, January.
    7. Marco Ceccagnoli & Matthew J. Higgins & Vincenzo Palermo, 2014. "Behind the Scenes: Sources of Complementarity in R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 125-148, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    10. Jay Pil Choi, 2002. "A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The "Boomerang" Effect and Grant-Back Clauses," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 203-229, August.
    11. Melissa A. Schilling & H. Kevin Steensma, 2002. "Disentangling the Theories of Firm Boundaries: A Path Model and Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 387-401, August.
    12. Philippe Aghion & Jean Tirole, 1994. "The Management of Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 1185-1209.
    13. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    14. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Corey C. Phelps & Hongyan Yang & Kevin Steensma, 2010. "Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms," Post-Print hal-00528393, HAL.
    16. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
    17. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Tufool Alnuaimi & Gerard George, 2016. "Appropriability and the retrieval of knowledge after spillovers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1263-1279, July.
    19. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 822-841, August.
    20. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Maria Isabella Leone & Toke Reichstein, 2012. "Licensing‐in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant‐back clause and technological unfamiliarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 965-985, August.
    24. Kewei Hou & David T. Robinson, 2006. "Industry Concentration and Average Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1927-1956, August.
    25. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    26. van Dijk, Theon, 2000. "Licence contracts, future exchange clauses, and technological competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1431-1448, August.
    27. Melissa A. Schilling, 2009. "Understanding the alliance data," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 233-260, March.
    28. Oxley, Joanne E, 1997. "Appropriability Hazards and Governance in Strategic Alliances: A Transaction Cost Approach," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 387-409, October.
    29. Ashish Arora, 1995. "Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights And The Market For Know-How," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 41-60.
    30. Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), 2011. "The Economic Valuation of Patents," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13561.
    31. 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.
    32. Constance E. Helfat, 1994. "Evolutionary Trajectories in Petroleum Firm R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(12), pages 1720-1747, December.
    33. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    34. Ajay Agrawal & Iain Cockburn & Laurina Zhang, 2015. "Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 976-986, July.
    35. Steven Drucker & Manju Puri, 2005. "On the Benefits of Concurrent Lending and Underwriting," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(6), pages 2763-2799, December.
    36. Kyle J. Mayer & Nicholas S. Argyres, 2004. "Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 394-410, August.
    37. Bharat N. Anand & Tarun Khanna, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    38. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    39. Anand, Bharat N & Khanna, Tarun, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    40. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
    41. Keld Laursen & Maria Isabella Leone & Salvatore Torrisi, 2010. "Technological exploration through licensing: new insights from the licensee's point of view," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 871-897, June.
    42. Marco Ceccagnoli & Stuart J.H. Graham & Matthew J. Higgins & Jeongsik Lee, 2010. "Productivity and the role of complementary assets in firms' demand for technology innovations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 839-869, June.
    43. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    44. Pierpaolo Parrotta & Dario Pozzoli, 2012. "The effect of learning by hiring on productivity," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 167-185, March.
    45. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    46. Atul Nerkar, 2003. "Old Is Gold? The Value of Temporal Exploration in the Creation of New Knowledge," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(2), pages 211-229, February.
    47. Jaeyong Song & Paul Almeida & Geraldine Wu, 2003. "Learning--by--Hiring: When Is Mobility More Likely to Facilitate Interfirm Knowledge Transfer?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 351-365, April.
    48. Daniel Johnson, 2002. ""Learning-by-Licensing": R&D and Technology Licensing in Brazilian Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 163-177.
    49. Joanne E. Oxley & Rachelle C. Sampson, 2004. "The scope and governance of international R&D alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 723-749, August.
    50. Michael D. Ryall & Rachelle C. Sampson, 2009. "Formal Contracts in the Presence of Relational Enforcement Mechanisms: Evidence from Technology Development Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 906-925, June.
    51. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1982. "The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 114-132, March.
    52. Valérie Duplat & Fabrice Lumineau, 2016. "Third Parties and Contract Design: The Case of Contracts for Technology Transfer," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 424-444, September.
    53. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 205-220, February.
    54. John Cantwell & Felicia Fai, 1999. "Firms as the source of innovation and growth: the evolution of technological competence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 331-366.
    55. Nicholas S. Argyres & Janet Bercovitz & Kyle J. Mayer, 2007. "Complementarity and Evolution of Contractual Provisions: An Empirical Study of IT Services Contracts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 3-19, February.
    56. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    57. Caves, Richard E & Crookell, Harold & Killing, J Peter, 1983. "The Imperfect Market for Technology Licenses," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 45(3), pages 249-267, August.
    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. Ener, Hakan, 2022. "How does CEO technical expertise influence licensing-out at technology ventures?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Duplat, Valérie & Coeurderoy, Régis & Hagedoorn, John, 2018. "Contractual governance and the choice of dispute-resolution mechanisms: Evidence on technology licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1096-1110.
    3. 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).
    4. Klueter, Thomas & Monteiro, L. Felipe & Dunlap, Denise R., 2017. "Standard vs. partnership-embedded licensing: Attention and the relationship between licensing and product innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1629-1643.
    5. Solon Moreira & Thomas Maximilian Klueter & Stefano Tasselli, 2020. "Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1012-1036, July.
    6. Kelchtermans, Stijn & Leten, Bart & Rabijns, Maarten & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2022. "Do licensors learn from out-licensing? Empirical evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. 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).
    8. Chen, Xu & Wang, Xiaojun & Jing, Haojie, 2023. "Technology licensing strategies for three cost-differential manufacturers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 622-635.
    9. Addis Gedefaw Birhanu & Alfonso Gambardella, 2023. "To commercialize inside or outside of the firm : Behavioral considerations in patent exploitation by family firms," Post-Print hal-04343877, HAL.
    10. Meschnig, Annika & Dubiel, Anna, 2023. "From formation to performance outcomes: A review and agenda for licensing research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Cappelli, Riccardo & Corsino, Marco & Laursen, Keld & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2023. "Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    12. Shen, Huijun & Coreynen, Wim & Huang, Can, 2022. "Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    13. Moreira, Solon & Klueter, Thomas Maximilian & Asija, Aman, 2023. "Market for technology 2.0? Reassessing the role of complementary assets on licensing decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).

    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. Kelchtermans, Stijn & Leten, Bart & Rabijns, Maarten & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2022. "Do licensors learn from out-licensing? Empirical evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    3. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Solon Moreira & Thomas Maximilian Klueter & Stefano Tasselli, 2020. "Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1012-1036, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Cheng, Lei & Sun, Zhen, 2021. "The white elephant in IP management market frictions, market connections and escalation of commitment," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    7. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    8. Dibiaggio, Ludovic & Nasiriyar, Maryam & Nesta, Lionel, 2014. "Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1582-1593.
    9. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    10. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    11. Lee, Jong-Seon & Park, Ji-Hoon & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2017. "The effects of licensing-in on innovative performance in different technological regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 485-496.
    12. Dushnitsky, Gary & Klueter, Thomas, 2017. "Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 651-666.
    13. Wang, Yuandi & Ning, Lutao & Chen, Jin, 2014. "Product diversification through licensing: Empirical evidence from Chinese firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 577-586.
    14. Catalina Martinez & Pluvia Zuniga, 2017. "Contracting for technology transfer: patent licensing and know-how in Brazil," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 659-689, August.
    15. Cappelli, Riccardo & Corsino, Marco & Laursen, Keld & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2023. "Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/43aq8ffdqb82sbffkv69bt1eaa is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Maria Isabella Leone & Keld Laursen, 2011. "Patent Exploitation Strategies and Value Creation," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.
    19. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    20. Yuandi Wang & Xiongfeng Pan & Yantai Chen & Xin Gu, 2013. "Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 731-752, May.
    21. Jean-François Sattin, 2016. "Exploring the survival of patent licensing: some evidence from French foreign agreements," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 610-630, June.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:28:y:2017:i:3:p:514-530. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.