IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v137y2024ics0166497224001512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Navigating protection mechanisms and innovation models: A literature-based configurational framework of intellectual property strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Ayerbe, Cécile
  • Boulos, Caroline
  • Castellaneta, Francesco

Abstract

This study constructs a configurational framework to examine the complex relationships of factors influencing firms' mechanisms in intellectual property (IP) protection within the dichotomy of open and closed innovation models. Our methodology synthesizes an extensive literature review to identify and explicate four configurations of intellectual property and innovation strategies: open/formal, open/informal, closed/formal, and closed/informal. These configurations reflect the multifaceted decision-making firms face in aligning their innovation models with suitable IP mechanisms. By integrating factors such as industry sector, innovation nature, market dynamics, and legal context, we offer a comprehensive framework that captures the strategic considerations of intellectual property management, highlighting the importance of various factors in shaping firms' protection and innovation decisions. Our findings propose a nuanced understanding of IP strategy selection, setting the stage for future empirical investigations to test and refine this framework across diverse industries and markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayerbe, Cécile & Boulos, Caroline & Castellaneta, Francesco, 2024. "Navigating protection mechanisms and innovation models: A literature-based configurational framework of intellectual property strategies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:137:y:2024:i:c:s0166497224001512
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497224001512
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103101?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. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver & Francisca Sempere-Ripoll & Carles Boronat-Moll, 2014. "Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: a misleading debate?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 873-886, December.
    2. Professor Bronwyn Hall, 2013. "The importance (or not) of patents to UK firms," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 410, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    3. I. P. L. Png, 2017. "Secrecy and Patents: Theory and Evidence from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 176-193, September.
    4. J. Nils Foege & Erk P. Piening & Torsten-Oliver Salge, 2017. "Don’T Get Caught On The Wrong Foot: A Resource-Based Perspective On Imitation Threats In Innovation Partnerships," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-42, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Grimaldi, Michele & Greco, Marco & Cricelli, Livio, 2021. "A framework of intellectual property protection strategies and open innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 156-164.
    7. Dirk Crass & Francisco Garcia Valero & Francesco Pitton & Christian Rammer, 2019. "Protecting Innovation Through Patents and Trade Secrets: Evidence for Firms with a Single Innovation," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 117-156, January.
    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. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 1999. "Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 63-80, January.
    10. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    11. Katrin Hussinger, 2006. "Is Silence Golden? Patents Versus Secrecy At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(8), pages 735-752.
    12. Baughn, C. Christopher & Denekamp, Johannes G. & Stevens, John H. & Osborn, Richard N., 1997. "Protecting intellectual capital in international alliances," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 103-117, July.
    13. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, June.
    14. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Olander, Heidi & Blomqvist, Kirsimarja & Panfilii, Victoria, 2012. "Orchestrating R&D networks: Absorptive capacity, network stability, and innovation appropriability," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 552-563.
    15. Sari Pekkala Kerr & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Global Collaborative Patents," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 235-272, July.
    16. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1987. "R&D Rivalry with Licensing or Imitation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 402-420, June.
    17. Minyuan Zhao, 2006. "Conducting R& D in Countries with Weak Intellectual Property Rights Protection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(8), pages 1185-1199, August.
    18. Johanna Gast & Katherine Gundolf & Rainer Harms & Elvin Matos Collado, 2019. "Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?," Post-Print hal-02943192, HAL.
    19. Bahemia, Hanna & Sillince, John & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2018. "The timing of openness in a radical innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2066-2076.
    20. Xiaoyang Zhao, 2019. "Patenting Or Secret? The Interaction Between Leading Firms And Following Firms Based On Evolutionary Game Theory And Multi-Agent Simulation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-22, October.
    21. Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
    22. Zobel, Ann-Kristin & Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John, 2017. "Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-54.
    23. 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.
    24. Prashant Kale & Harbir Singh & Howard Perlmutter, 2000. "Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 217-237, March.
    25. Fábio Gama, 2019. "Managing collaborative ideation: the role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 97-118, March.
    26. Bronwyn H. Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2013. "The importance (or not) of patents to UK firms," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 603-629, July.
    27. Bj–rn Johnson & Edward Lorenz & Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2002. "Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(2), pages 245-262.
    28. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    29. Petro Poutanen & Wael Soliman & Pirjo Ståhle, 2016. "The complexity of innovation: an assessment and review of the complexity perspective," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 189-213, May.
    30. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    31. Miric, Milan & Boudreau, Kevin J. & Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2019. "Protecting their digital assets: The use of formal & informal appropriability strategies by App developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    32. Diana Heger & Alexandra K. Zaby, 2013. "The heterogeneous costs of disclosure and the propensity to patent," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 630-652, July.
    33. Oxley, Joanne E., 1999. "Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: the impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 283-309, March.
    34. Castellaneta, Francesco & Conti, Raffaele & Veloso, Francisco M. & Kemeny, Carlos A., 2016. "The effect of trade secret legal protection on venture capital investments: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 524-541.
    35. Christensen, Jens Froslev & Olesen, Michael Holm & Kjaer, Jonas Sorth, 2005. "The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation--Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1533-1549, December.
    36. Joanne E. Oxley & Rachelle C. Sampson, 2004. "The scope and governance of international R&D alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 723-749, August.
    37. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    38. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    39. 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.
    40. Bruce A. Heiman & Jack A. Nickerson, 2004. "Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6-7), pages 401-420.
    41. Kelvin W. Willoughby, 2013. "Intellectual Property Management And Technological Entrepreneurship," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(06), pages 1-42.
    42. 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.
    43. Alberto Di Minin & Chiara Eleonora De Marco & Cristina Marullo & Andrea Piccaluga & Elena Casprini & Maral Mahdad & Andrea Paraboschi, 2016. "Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT," JRC Research Reports JRC100823, Joint Research Centre.
    44. 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.
    45. Park, Walter G., 2008. "International patent protection: 1960-2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 761-766, May.
    46. Juan Alcácer & Wilbur Chung, 2007. "Location Strategies and Knowledge Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 760-776, May.
    47. Graciela Corral de Zubielqui & Janice Jones & David Audretsch, 2019. "The influence of trust and collaboration with external partners on appropriability in open service firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 540-558, April.
    48. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    49. 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.
    50. Lorenzo Boscherini & Davide Chiaroni & Vittorio Chiesa & Federico Frattini, 2012. "How to integrate open and closed innovation," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(3/4), pages 226-244.
    51. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    52. Mark Freel & Richard Harrison, 2006. "Innovation and cooperation in the small firm sector: Evidence from 'Northern Britain'," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 289-305.
    53. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    54. Kafouros, Mario & Wang, Chengqi & Mavroudi, Eva & Hong, Junjie & Katsikeas, Constantine S., 2018. "Geographic dispersion and co-location in global R&D portfolios: Consequences for firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1243-1255.
    55. Drechsler, Wenzel & Natter, Martin, 2012. "Understanding a firm's openness decisions in innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 438-445.
    56. Christoph Alsleben, 2005. "The Downside of Knowledge Spillovers: An Explanation for the Dispersion of High-tech Industries," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 217-248, May.
    57. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    58. Oxley, Joanne E, 1997. "Appropriability Hazards and Governance in Strategic Alliances: A Transaction Cost Approach," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 387-409, October.
    59. Ponta, Linda & Puliga, Gloria & Lazzarotti, Valentina & Manzini, Raffaella & Cincotti, Silvano, 2023. "To copatent or not to copatent: An agent-based model for firms facing this dilemma," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1349-1363.
    60. 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.
    61. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
    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. 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).
    2. Crass, Dirk & Valero, Francisco Garcia & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2019. "Protecting Innovation Through Patents and Trade Secrets: Evidence for Firms with a Single Innovation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 117-156.
    3. Telg, Nina & Lokshin, Boris & Letterie, Wilko, 2023. "How formal and informal intellectual property protection matters for firms' decision to engage in coopetition: The role of environmental dynamism and competition intensity," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. Martine Gadille & Juan Ramón Gallego-Bono, 2021. "Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-35, October.
    5. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    6. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    7. Jussi Heikkilä & Annika Lorenz, 2018. "Need for speed? Exploring the relative importance of patents and utility models among German firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 80-105, January.
    8. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Matthieu Mandard, 2013. "Profiting from collaborative innovation: R&D alliances and technological assets protection mechanisms [Profiter de l'innovation collaborative : alliances de R&D et mécanismes de protection des acti," Post-Print halshs-00846071, HAL.
    12. 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.
    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. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Fedorenko, Ivan & Berthon, Pierre & Edelman, Linda, 2023. "Top secret: Integrating 20 years of research on secrecy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    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. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    19. 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.
    20. Sofka, Wolfgang & Shehu, Edlira & de Faria, Pedro, 2014. "Multinational subsidiary knowledge protection—Do mandates and clusters matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1320-1333.

    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:eee:techno:v:137:y:2024:i:c:s0166497224001512. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.