IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01481889.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should we manage the process of inventing? Designing for patentability

Author

Listed:
  • Olga Kokshagina

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Pascal Le Masson

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Benoit Weil

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The IP design is often neglected by the management literature, whereas the issue of the strategic IP management begins with IP creation. This paper intends to deal with IP as an asset to be designed and focuses on IP design by ensuring novelty and inventive step of the inventions and not their quantity. By building on the most recent design theories like Conceot Knowledge design theory, this research introduces a general framework of patent design that allows controlling for " patentability " criteria, describe a patent in a unique way using actions, effects and associated knowledge and consider reasoning of person skilled in the art. Using the introduced model, the existing patent design methods are compared and their performance characterized using an introduced patent design model. The results show that patent proposal quality depends on the capacity to extend the existing knowledge combinations; to overcome the initial design reasoning of person skilled in the art and ensure sufficient inventive step and novelty. Finally, the patent design model actually demonstrates that there is an unexplored property of design theories-non-substitution-showing that the order in design is irreversible and influences the quality of results.

Suggested Citation

  • Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2017. "Should we manage the process of inventing? Designing for patentability," Post-Print hal-01481889, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01481889
    DOI: 10.1007/s00163-016-0245-0
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01481889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01481889/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00163-016-0245-0?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. 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.
    2. Annabelle Gawer, 2009. "Platform Dynamics and Strategies: From Products to Services," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Gaetano Cascini & Davide Russo, 2007. "Computer-aided analysis of patents and search for TRIZ contradictions," International Journal of Product Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(1/2), pages 52-67.
    4. von Graevenitz, Georg & Wagner, Stefan & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2011. "How to measure patent thickets--A novel approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 6-9, April.
    5. Gollin,Michael A., 2008. "Driving Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521701693.
    6. Ruihong Zhang & Yanhong Liang, 2007. "A conceptual design model using Axiomatic Design and TRIZ," International Journal of Product Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(1/2), pages 68-79.
    7. Gollin,Michael A., 2008. "Driving Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521877800.
    8. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    9. Ernst, Holger, 2003. "Patent information for strategic technology management," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 233-242, September.
    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. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2019. "The 'Distinctive Capacity': Managing the invention process by managing the prior art," Post-Print hal-02095821, HAL.
    2. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Comment l'analyse des modèles de l'invention dans le droit de la propriété intellectuelle permet de caractériser des régimes de conception et des stratégies d'organisation des connaissances," Post-Print hal-01904734, HAL.

    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. Mikko Hänninen & Anssi Smedlund, 2021. "Same Old Song with a Different Melody: The Paradox of Market Reach and Financial Performance on Digital Platforms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1832-1868, November.
    2. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Jason Li-Ying & Yuandi Wang & Lutao Ning, 2016. "How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources? – A mediation model," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1009-1036, December.
    4. Luigi Aldieri, 2013. "Knowledge technological proximity: evidence from US and European patents," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(8), pages 807-819, November.
    5. Cécile Ayerbe & Nathalie Lazaric & Michel Callois & Liliana Mitkova, 2014. "The new challenges of organizing intellectual property in complex industries," Post-Print halshs-00974973, HAL.
    6. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2019. "The 'Distinctive Capacity': Managing the invention process by managing the prior art," Post-Print hal-02095821, HAL.
    7. Li, Shuying & Zhang, Xian & Xu, Haiyun & Fang, Shu & Garces, Edwin & Daim, Tugrul, 2020. "Measuring strategic technological strength :Patent Portfolio Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Nils Omland, 2011. "Valuing Patents through Indicators," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Swen Nadkarni & Reinhard Prügl, 2021. "Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 233-341, April.
    10. Kibaek Lee & Jaeheung Yoo & Munkee Choi & Hangjung Zo & Andrew P Ciganek, 2016. "Does External Knowledge Sourcing Enhance Market Performance? Evidence from the Korean Manufacturing Industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Panagiotis Trivellas & Georgios Malindretos & Panagiotis Reklitis, 2020. "Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-29, December.
    12. Jiatong Yu & Jiajue Wang & Taesoo Moon, 2022. "Influence of Digital Transformation Capability on Operational Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Chinho Lin & Ming-Lung Hsu & David C. Yen & Ping-Jung Hsieh & Hua-Ling Tsai & Tsung-Hsien Kuo, 2013. "Prototype system for pursuing firm’s core capability," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 497-509, July.
    14. Chin‐jung Luan & Chengli Tien & Pei‐hua Wu, 2013. "Strategizing Environmental Policy and Compliance for Firm Economic Sustainability: Evidence from Taiwanese Electronics Firms," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(8), pages 517-546, December.
    15. Adrian Gourlay & Jonathan Seaton, 2004. "The determinants of firm diversification in UK quoted companies," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(18), pages 2059-2071.
    16. John A. Parnell, 2017. "Cronyism from the Perspective of the Firm: A Cross-National Assessment of Nonmarket Strategy," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 32(Fall 2017), pages 47-74.
    17. Abiodun Tope Samson, 2015. "The Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Reconfiguring Capability and Moderation of Environmental Turbulence on Export Performance of SMEs in Nigeria," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 7(3), pages 76-87.
    18. Jeong, Yujin & Park, Inchae & Yoon, Byungun, 2019. "Identifying emerging Research and Business Development (R&BD) areas based on topic modeling and visualization with intellectual property right data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 655-672.
    19. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    20. Tobias Knabke & Sebastian Olbrich, 2018. "Building novel capabilities to enable business intelligence agility: results from a quantitative study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 493-546, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intellectual property; innovation; patent design; C-K Theory; patentability;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-01481889. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.