IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2019-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Seip
  • Carolina Castaldi
  • Meindert Flikkema
  • Ard-Pieter de Man

Abstract

Current debates on the social returns of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) systems deal with the presumed negative effects of two practices: IPR bundling and the strong concentration of IPRs in certain firms and industries. These debates are hampered by the lack of empirical evidence on IPR application practices. This study presents unique and comprehensive data about firm-level IPR application practices in the Netherlands. We develop a taxonomy based on the firm-level variety and intensity of IPR applications. We identify five archetypes of IPR applicants: patent rookies, trademark rookies, IPR strategists, IPR specialists and IPR generalists. Our findings show that a few large firms in high-tech industries combine high IPR application variety and high IPR application intensity. However, high variety is also associated with low intensity and low variety with high intensity. For a large majority of the firms, IPR application is equivalent to single trademark application or the ad hoc application of another IPR. We discuss the implications of our findings for current IPR debates and for further research

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2019/03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2019-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Watson, Donald Stevenson & Holman, Mary A, 1970. "The Concentration of Patent Ownership in Corporations," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 112-117, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Gątkowski, Mateusz & Dietl, Marek & Skrok, Lukasz & Whalen, Ryan & Rockett, Katharine, 2018. "Patent Thickets Identification," Economics Discussion Papers 22928, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    4. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2012. "Trade Marks and Performance in Services and Manufacturing Firms: Evidence of Schumpeterian Competition through Innovation," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 45(1), pages 50-76, February.
    5. Peneder, Michael, 2010. "Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 323-334, April.
    6. Georg Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner & Dietmar Harhoff, 2013. "Incidence and Growth of Patent Thickets: The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Complexity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 521-563, September.
    7. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5000 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Fulvio Castellacci, 2009. "The interactions between national systems and sectoral patterns of innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 321-347, June.
    10. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    11. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    12. Grid Thoma & Salvatore Torrisi & Alfonso Gambardella & Dominique Guellec & Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff, 2010. "Harmonizing and Combining Large Datasets - An Application to Firm-Level Patent and Accounting Data," NBER Working Papers 15851, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kristof Van Criekingen, 2018. "New evidence on determinants of IP litigation: A market-based approach," Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven 621964, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven.
    14. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:49-50:p:12 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Lars Alkaersig & Karin Beukel & Toke Reichstein, 2015. "Intellectual Property Rights Management," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-46953-3.
    16. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Mendonca, Sandro & Pereira, Tiago Santos & Godinho, Manuel Mira, 2004. "Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1385-1404, November.
    18. Leiponen, Aija & Drejer, Ina, 2007. "What exactly are technological regimes?: Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1221-1238, October.
    19. Castaldi, Carolina, 2018. "To trademark or not to trademark: The case of the creative and cultural industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 606-616.
    20. Gallié, Emilie-Pauline & Legros, Diégo, 2012. "French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 780-794.
    21. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    22. Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    23. 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.
    24. Sandner, Philipp G. & Block, Joern, 2011. "The market value of R&D, patents, and trademarks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 969-985, September.
    25. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    26. Iraj Daizadeh, 2009. "An intellectual property-based corporate strategy: An R&D spend, patent, trademark, media communication, and market price innovation agenda," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 731-746, September.
    27. Desyllas, Panos & Sako, Mari, 2013. "Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 101-116.
    28. Petr Hanel, 2008. "The Use Of Intellectual Property Rights And Innovation By Manufacturing Firms In Canada," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 285-309.
    29. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    30. Georg Licht & Konrad Zoz, 1998. "Patents and R&D, An Econometric Investigation Using Applications for German, European and US Patents by German Companies," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 329-360.
    31. 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.
    32. André Spithoven & Wim Vanhaverbeke & Nadine Roijakkers, 2013. "Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 537-562, October.
    33. Christian Helmers & Mark RogersPhilipp Schautschick, 2011. "Intellectual Property at the Firm-Level in the UK: The Oxford Firm-Level Intellectual Property Database," Economics Series Working Papers 546, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    34. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Firm Size and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 44-55, March.
    35. Leiponen, Aija & Byma, Justin, 2009. "If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1478-1488, November.
    36. Filitz, Rainer & Henkel, Joachim & Tether, Bruce S., 2015. "Protecting aesthetic innovations? An exploration of the use of registered community designs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1192-1206.
    37. Greenhalgh, Christine & Rogers, Mark, 2006. "The value of innovation: The interaction of competition, R&D and IP," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 562-580, May.
    38. Emin M. Dinlersoz & Nathan Goldschlag & Amanda Myers & Nikolas Zolas, 2018. "An Anatomy of US Firms Seeking Trademark Registration," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 183-228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the duration of membership in the World Trade Organization on Trademark Applications," EconStor Preprints 253266, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Carolina Castaldi, 2021. "Sustainable innovation and intellectual property rights: friends, foes or perfect strangers?," LEM Papers Series 2021/11, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Flikkema, Meindert & Castaldi, Carolina & de Man, Ard-Pieter & Seip, Marcel, 2019. "Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1340-1353.
    4. Li Zhang & Xiaoguang Shan, 2023. "The use of intellectual property right bundles and firm performance in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.

    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. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    2. Marco Grazzi & Chiara Piccardo & Cecilia Vergari, 2020. "Concordance and complementarity in IP instruments," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 756-788, August.
    3. Bernadette Power & Gavin C Reid, 2021. "The Impact of Intellectual Property Types on the Performance of Business Start-ups in the USA," Working Papers wp523, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    4. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    5. Block, Jörn H. & Fisch, Christian O. & Hahn, Alexander & Sandner, Philipp G., 2015. "Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1915-1930.
    6. Bernadette Power & Gavin C. Reid, 2023. "Lifting the hood of supply and demand for trademarks of start‐ups: Partial observability estimates," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 311-321, January.
    7. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    9. Carolina Castaldi, 2021. "Sustainable innovation and intellectual property rights: friends, foes or perfect strangers?," LEM Papers Series 2021/11, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    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. Nasirov, Shukhrat, 2020. "Trademark value indicators: Evidence from the trademark protection lifecycle in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    12. Carolina Castaldi & Sandro Mendonca, 2021. "Regions and trademarks. Research opportunities and policy insights from leveraging trademarks in regional innovation studies," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2138, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2021.
    13. Sara Amoroso & Albert N. Link, 2021. "Intellectual property protection mechanisms and the characteristics of founding teams," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7329-7350, September.
    14. Flikkema, Meindert & Castaldi, Carolina & de Man, Ard-Pieter & Seip, Marcel, 2019. "Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1340-1353.
    15. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    16. 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).
    17. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    18. Chen, Min-Nan & Wu, Chia-Hung, 2020. "Complementary-in use appropriability in innovative service firms: An empirical study in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. M. Grazzi & C. Piccardo & C. Vergari, 2019. "Concordance and complementarity in Intellectual Property instruments," Working Papers wp1127, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    20. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the duration of membership in the World Trade Organization on Trademark Applications," EconStor Preprints 253266, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intellectual property rights; taxonomy; policy;
    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:ssa:lemwps:2019/03. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/labssit.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.