IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v84y2010i1d10.1007_s11192-009-0096-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of M&As on company innovation: evidence from the US medical device industry

Author

Listed:
  • Chih-Hao Lin

    (National Taiwan University
    National Taiwan University)

  • Show-Ling Jang

    (National Taiwan University)

Abstract

The acquisition of new technologies represents a vitally important and fundamental goal of many corporate managers, particularly those within the medical device industry. We collect data on ten medical device companies as our sample in this study, covering the period from 1990 to 2006; this sample is drawn from the top 20 companies in the US, on the basis of international sales performance. We also collect details on all of the acquisitions undertaken by these companies, along with their patenting performance. The empirical results of this study suggest that technological acquisitions are only likely to be of help to the acquiring firms, in terms of improving their innovative performance, if they set out to acquire those companies that are in similar proximity, in terms of their technological field. There is also a clear need for such acquiring firms to ensure their continuing commitment to internal R&D investment in order to maintain their own versatility.

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-Hao Lin & Show-Ling Jang, 2010. "The impact of M&As on company innovation: evidence from the US medical device industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 119-131, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0096-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0096-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0096-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-009-0096-9?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. Lerner, Josh & Merges, Robert P, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    2. Josh Lerner & Robert P. Merges, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    3. Show‐Ling Jang & Guo‐Gang Huang, 2005. "Public R&D And Industrial Innovations At The Project Levels: An Exploration Of Taiwan'S Public Research Projects," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(4), pages 636-646, October.
    4. Cloodt, Myriam & Hagedoorn, John & Van Kranenburg, Hans, 2006. "Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 642-654, June.
    5. Roijakkers, Nadine & Hagedoorn, John, 2006. "Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 431-446, April.
    6. Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi & Hausman, Jerry A, 1986. "Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(2), pages 265-283, June.
    7. Cassiman, Bruno & Colombo, Massimo G. & Garrone, Paola & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-220, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    10. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1990. "Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 361-379, June.
    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. Dong Geun Choi & Heesang Lee & Tae-kyung Sung, 2011. "Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 259-278, July.
    2. Yagi, Michiyuki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Shadow price of patent stock as knowledge stock: Time and country heterogeneity," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 43-61.

    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. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Marcela Miozzo & Lori DiVito & Panos Desyllas, 2011. "Cross-border acquisitions of science-based firms: Their effect on innovation in the acquired firm and the local science," DRUID Working Papers 11-17, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. Reuer, Jeffrey & Devarakonda, S.V., 2015. "Mechanisms of hybrid governance : Administrative committees in non-equity alliances," Other publications TiSEM 063d9ccc-59c8-4e76-a77d-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," 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 641-678, Elsevier.
    5. 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.
    6. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    7. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    8. Devarakonda, Ramakrishna & Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Tadikonda, Harsha, 2022. "Founder social capital and value appropriation in R&D alliance agreements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    9. Fabio Sorrentino & Francesco Garraffo, 2012. "Explaining performing R&D through alliances: Implications for the business model of Italian dedicated biotech firms," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(3), pages 449-475, August.
    10. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708, December.
    11. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Patrick Llerena & Muge Ozman, 2013. "Networks, irreversibility and knowledge creation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 431-453, April.
    13. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2013. "The more you spend, the more you get? The effects of R&D and capital expenditures on the patenting activities of biotechnology firms," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 497-521, February.
    14. Katila, Riitta & Mang, Paul Y., 2003. "Exploiting technological opportunities: the timing of collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 317-332, February.
    15. John Hagedoorn & Boris Lokshin & Stéphane Malo, 2018. "Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 763-781, April.
    16. Srikanth Paruchuri, 2010. "Intraorganizational Networks, Interorganizational Networks, and the Impact of Central Inventors: A Longitudinal Study of Pharmaceutical Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 63-80, February.
    17. H. Kevin Steensma & Mukund Chari & Ralph Heidl, 2016. "A Comparative Analysis of Patent Assertion Entities in Markets for Intellectual Property Rights," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 2-17, February.
    18. Neus Palomeras & David Wehrheim, 2021. "The strategic allocation of inventors to R&D collaborations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 144-169, January.
    19. Roijakkers, Nadine & Hagedoorn, John & van Kranenburg, Hans, 2005. "Dual market structures and the likelihood of repeated ties - evidence from pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 235-245, March.
    20. Oh, Yoojin & Yoo, Nina, 2022. "Effective cooperation modes based on cultural and market similarities in interfirm relationships," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1).

    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:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0096-9. 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.