IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04343877.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To commercialize inside or outside of the firm : Behavioral considerations in patent exploitation by family firms

Author

Listed:
  • Addis Gedefaw Birhanu

    (EM - EMLyon Business School)

  • Alfonso Gambardella

    (Bocconi University [Milan, Italy])

Abstract

Research Summary This article examines the relationship between family ownership and patent use strategy using primary data from a patent survey, as well as patent and firm-level data from secondary sources. The findings reveal that family firms are less likely than non-family firms to license their patents and more likely to internally commercialize them. We show that the decision of family firms to license less does not depend on lower patent quality or inefficient patent use. Instead, it arises from their preference for patent uses that allow them to exert greater control over the value they can derive from their innovations. We also show that family firms commercialize more patents because they leverage their managerial discretion to explore and seize emerging internal patent commercialization opportunities. Managerial Summary Whether the desire of families in family firms to maintain control over the company and strategic resources negatively impacts their economic performance has important governance implications. Within the context of patent commercialization, in line with this desire for control, our study highlights the preference of family firms to prioritize internal commercialization over licensing. To offset their underlicensing tendency, family firms internally commercialize more patents by being nimble to identify and capitalize on emerging commercialization opportunities. This enables them to align their control ambitions with patent commercialization efficiency, akin to nonfamily firms.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04343877
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.3570
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04343877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04343877/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.3570?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. Caprio, Lorenzo & Croci, Ettore & Del Giudice, Alfonso, 2011. "Ownership structure, family control, and acquisition decisions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 1636-1657.
    2. Emilie R. Feldman & Raphael Amit & Belén Villalonga, 2019. "Family firms and the stock market performance of acquisitions and divestitures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(5), pages 757-780, May.
    3. Anderson, Ronald C. & Duru, Augustine & Reeb, David M., 2009. "Founders, heirs, and corporate opacity in the United States," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 205-222, May.
    4. Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy & Liang, Wen-Jung & Chou, Pin-Shu, 2013. "Patent licensing under cost asymmetry among firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 297-307.
    5. Marco, Alan C. & Sarnoff, Joshua D. & deGrazia, Charles A.W., 2019. "Patent claims and patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. 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.
    7. Danny Miller & Isabelle Le Breton-Miller, 2021. "Family Firms: A Breed of Extremes?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(4), pages 663-681, July.
    8. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin, 2007. "Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity--Patent value and the German Employees' Inventions Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1143-1162, October.
    9. Christoph Grimpe & Katrin Hussinger, 2014. "Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: The role of intellectual property rights," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1762-1780, December.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    12. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 1999. "Corporate Ownership Around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 471-517, April.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira R. Fabrizio, 2016. "Does the market for ideas influence the rate and direction of innovative activity? Evidence from the medical device industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 447-465, March.
    16. Francesco Chirico & Giuseppe Criaco & Massimo Baù & Lucia Naldi & Luis R. Gomez-Mejia & Josip Kotlar, 2020. "To patent or not to patent: That is the question. Intellectual property protection in family firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(2), pages 339-367, March.
    17. Harhoff, Dietmar & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "The Value of European Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 6848, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. M. Keith Chen, 2013. "The Effect of Language on Economic Behavior: Evidence from Savings Rates, Health Behaviors, and Retirement Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 690-731, April.
    19. Luis R. Gomez‐Mejia & Marianna Makri & Martin Larraza Kintana, 2010. "Diversification Decisions in Family‐Controlled Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 223-252, March.
    20. Torrisi, Salvatore & Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Mariani, Myriam, 2016. "Used, blocking and sleeping patents: Empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1374-1385.
    21. Pitkethly, Robert H., 2001. "Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 425-442, March.
    22. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    23. Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2008. "Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1548-1555, October.
    24. Minyuan Zhao, 2006. "Conducting R& D in Countries with Weak Intellectual Property Rights Protection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(8), pages 1185-1199, August.
    25. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    26. 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.
    27. Addis Gedefaw Birhanu & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2022. "The competitive advantage of affiliation with business groups in the political environment: Evidence from the Arab Spring," Post-Print hal-04041937, HAL.
    28. Jennifer Nevins & William Bearden & Bruce Money, 2007. "Ethical Values and Long-term Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 261-274, March.
    29. 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.
    30. Solon Moreira & Thomas Maximilian Klueter & Stefano Tasselli, 2020. "Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1012-1036, July.
    31. Deepak Hegde & Hong Luo, 2018. "Patent Publication and the Market for Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 652-672, February.
    32. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na & Jung, Taehyun, 2016. "Win, lose or draw? The fate of patented inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1362-1373.
    33. 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.
    34. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    35. Addis Gedefaw Birhanu & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2022. "The competitive advantage of affiliation with business groups in the political environment: Evidence from the Arab Spring," Post-Print hal-04041949, HAL.
    36. Alexander Guzmán & Belén Villalonga & María-Andrea Trujillo & Raphael Amit, 2015. "Governance of Family Firms," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 635-654, December.
    37. Liang, Hao & Marquis, C. & Renneboog, Luc & Li Sun, Sunny, 2018. "Future-time framing : The effect of language on corporate future orientation," Other publications TiSEM 1c1a2d0f-4720-46b9-829b-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    38. 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.
    39. Hao Liang & Christopher Marquis & Luc Renneboog & Sunny Li Sun, 2018. "Future-Time Framing: The Effect of Language on Corporate Future Orientation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1093-1111, December.
    40. Pepper, Alexander & Gore, Julie, 2015. "Behavioral agency theory: new foundations for theorizing about executive compensation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47569, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    41. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    42. Murayama, Kota & Nirei, Makoto & Shimizu, Hiroshi, 2015. "Management of science, serendipity, and research performance: Evidence from a survey of scientists in Japan and the U.S," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 862-873.
    43. Teece, David J., 2006. "Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1131-1146, October.
    44. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2012. "Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    45. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, June.
    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. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1855, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. 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).
    3. Gambardella, Alfonso, 2023. "Private and social functions of patents: Innovation, markets, and new firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    4. O'Connell, Vincent & Lee, Jong-Ho & O'Sullivan, Don, 2018. "The influence of CEO equity incentives on licensing," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 266-277.
    5. Righi, Cesare & Cannito, Davide & Vladasel, Theodor, 2023. "Continuing patent applications at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    6. Cesare Righi & Davide Cannito & Theodor Vladasel, 2023. "Continuing Patent Applications at the USPTO," Working Papers 1382, Barcelona School of Economics.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    10. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    11. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. Bei, Xiaoshu, 2019. "Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    16. Villalonga, Belén, 2019. "Demsetz and Villalonga (2001) on ownership structure and corporate performance: Looking back and looking forward," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 64-67.
    17. Torrisi, Salvatore & Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Mariani, Myriam, 2016. "Used, blocking and sleeping patents: Empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1374-1385.
    18. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    19. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Holger Ernst & Martin Hoegl, 2010. "Not-Sold-Here: How Attitudes Influence External Knowledge Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1054-1071, October.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    family firms; family ownership; innovation; patent commercialization; patent licensing;
    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-04343877. 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.