IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v45y2020i6d10.1007_s10961-019-09763-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new approach for detecting open innovation in patents: the designation of inventor

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Comai

    (International University of Japan)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to understand to what extent open innovation (OI) is utilized in R&D departments by using patents as a main source. The paper adopts the “designation of the inventor” as a new method for detecting open or closed innovation, a method which examines the type of relationship that exists between the inventor(s) and the patent applicant(s). Since the openness or closedness of an invention is mainly measured by analyzing a firm’s co-applicants, the patent’s designation of the inventor indicates whether or not inventors are employees of the applicant. The paper offers new empirical evidence about whether a patent is open or not without surveying inventors and it complements previous studies that failed to describe whether a patent is based on open or closed innovation. After studying a collection of 231 patents in the wind energy sector obtained from the European Patent database, descriptive statistics show that OI Patents (OIPs) where the inventor is under agreement represent approximately 90% of the total number of OIPs, which in turn account for more than 23% of the total number of closed and open types of patent. Additionally, the designation of inventor method is also able to identify closed innovation-based patents. The results also show that a minority of companies utilize a hybrid type of OI, in which the inventors are composed of a mix of external individuals and employees. The results suggest that the method proposed yields a better understanding of how OI as well as other innovation strategies are utilized by firms in a particular industry or technological field.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Comai, 2020. "A new approach for detecting open innovation in patents: the designation of inventor," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1797-1822, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10961-019-09763-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-019-09763-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-019-09763-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-019-09763-8?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. Massimo G. Colombo & Keld Laursen & Mats Magnusson & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2011. "Organizing Inter- and Intra-Firm Networks: What is the Impact on Innovation Performance?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 531-538, August.
    2. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ann-Kristin Zobel & Benjamin Balsmeier & Henry Chesbrough, 2016. "Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(2), pages 307-331.
    4. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    5. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    6. Fabienne Picard, 2012. "Open innovation and joint patent applications: the case of greenhouse gas capture and storage technologies," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 107-122.
    7. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    8. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    9. Fabrizio, Kira R., 2009. "Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 255-267, March.
    10. Elias G. Carayannis & Dirk Meissner, 2017. "Glocal targeted open innovation: challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 236-252, April.
    11. Stephen J. Carson & Anoop Madhok & Rohit Varman & George John, 2003. "Information Processing Moderators of the Effectiveness of Trust-Based Governance in Interfirm R&D Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 45-56, February.
    12. Alessandra Scandura, 2019. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1029-1069, August.
    13. Suh, Yongyoon & Jeon, Jeonghwan, 2019. "Monitoring patterns of open innovation using the patent-based brokerage analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 595-605.
    14. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    15. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.
    16. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1105-1106, October.
    17. Noailly, Joëlle & Ryfisch, David, 2015. "Multinational firms and the internationalization of green R&D: A review of the evidence and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 218-228.
    18. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    19. Bergek, Anna & Bruzelius, Maria, 2010. "Are patents with multiple inventors from different countries a good indicator of international R&D collaboration? The case of ABB," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1321-1334, December.
    20. Du, Jingshu & Leten, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2014. "Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 828-840.
    21. Linus Dahlander & Siobhan O'Mahony & David M. Gann, 2016. "One foot in, one foot out: how does individuals' external search breadth affect innovation outcomes?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 280-302, February.
    22. 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.
    23. Fabrizio, Kira R. & Di Minin, Alberto, 2008. "Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 914-931, June.
    24. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    25. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2016. "Openness and innovation in the US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1660-1671.
    26. Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Wagner, 2009. "The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1969-1984, December.
    27. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    28. R. Sandra Schillo & Jeffrey S. Kinder, 2017. "Delivering on societal impacts through open innovation: a framework for government laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 977-996, August.
    29. Weck, Mona & Blomqvist, Kirsimarja, 2008. "The role of inter-organizational relationships in the development of patents: A knowledge-based approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1329-1336, September.
    30. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    31. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Deepak Hegde, 2014. "An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1744-1763, 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. Dall-Orsoletta, Alaize & Romero, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula, 2022. "Open and collaborative innovation for the energy transition: An exploratory study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(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. Hannigan, Timothy R. & Seidel, Victor P. & Yakis-Douglas, Basak, 2018. "Product innovation rumors as forms of open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 953-964.
    2. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    3. van Criekingen, Kristof & Freel, Mark & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2021. "Open innovation deficiency: Evidence on project abandonment and delay," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-006, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    5. Lu, Qinli & Chesbrough, Henry, 2022. "Measuring open innovation practices through topic modelling: Revisiting their impact on firm financial performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Bogers, Marcel & Foss, Nicolai J. & Lyngsie, Jacob, 2018. "The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 218-231.
    7. Ferraris, Alberto & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Bresciani, Stefano, 2020. "Subsidiary innovation performance: Balancing external knowledge sources and internal embeddedness," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(4).
    8. Schäper, Thomas & Jung, Christopher & Foege, Johann Nils & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Nüesch, Stephan, 2023. "The S-shaped relationship between open innovation and financial performance: A longitudinal perspective using a novel text-based measure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    10. Alessandra Scandura, 2019. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1029-1069, August.
    11. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    13. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    14. Tindara Abbate & Fabrizio Cesaroni & Angelo Presenza, 2021. "Knowledge transfer from universities to low- and medium-technology industries: evidence from Italian winemakers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 989-1016, August.
    15. Belén Payán-Sánchez & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Diego Vazquez-Brust & Natalia Yakovleva & Miguel Pérez-Valls, 2021. "Open Innovation for Sustainability or Not: Literature Reviews of Global Research Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, January.
    16. Thuy Seran & Sea Matilda Bez, 2019. "Managing Open-Innovation between Competitors: A Project-Level Approach," Post-Print hal-02427680, HAL.
    17. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Brockman, Paul & Khurana, Inder K. & Zhong, Rong (Irene), 2018. "Societal trust and open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2048-2065.
    19. Simeth, Markus & Mohammadi, Ali, 2022. "Losing talent by partnering up? The impact of R&D collaboration on employee mobility," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    20. Gómez, Jaime & Salazar, Idana & Vargas, Pilar, 2020. "The Role Of Extramural R&D And Scientific Knowledge In Creating High Novelty Innovations: An Examination Of Manufacturing And Service Firms In Spain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open innovation; Closed innovation; Patent; Designation of inventor;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    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:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10961-019-09763-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.