IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt93s769k8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Complementarities and spill-overs in mergers: an empirical investigation using patent data

Author

Listed:
  • Marco, Alan C.
  • Rausser, Gordon C.

Abstract

Many recent empirical studies have examined the effect of the patent system on R&D, innovation and patenting behavior. However, few micro-level empirical papers have addressed the impact of the patent system on industry structure. In this paper we build on our previous work to investigate merger activity of firms in light of their patent holdings. We use agricultural biotechnology as an example. Three innovations are introduced: firm-level patent data is investigated as a predictor of merger activity; second, we develop a measure of patent enforceability based on patent litigation data; third, we combine both duration models and logic models in order to investigate both the timing of mergers and the matching of merger partners. The empirical results demonstrate that patent statistics are a useful predictor of merger activity; mergers in agricultural biotechnology appear to be partially motivated by difficulties in enforcing patent rights when firms have overlapping technologies; and some of the merger activity may be explained by attempts to reduce spillovers.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco, Alan C. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2002. "Complementarities and spill-overs in mergers: an empirical investigation using patent data," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt93s769k8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt93s769k8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/93s769k8.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    2. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-423, May.
    3. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    4. Jean Olson Lanjouw, 1994. "Economic Consequences of a Changing Litigation Environment: The Case of Patents," NBER Working Papers 4835, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jaggia, Sanjiv & Thosar, Satish, 1995. "Contested Tender Offers: An Estimate of the Hazard Function," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 113-119, January.
    6. Dickerson, Andrew P & Gibson, Heather D & Tsakalotos, Euclid, 1998. "Takeover Risk and Dividend Strategy: A Study of UK Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 281-300, September.
    7. Tremblay, Victor J & Tremblay, Carol Horton, 1988. "The Determinants of Horizontal Acquisitions: Evidence from the U.S. Brewing Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 21-45, September.
    8. Gregory Werden & Luke Froeb & Timothy Tardiff, 1996. "The Use of the Logit Model in Applied Industrial Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 83-105.
    9. Waldfogel, Joel, 1995. "The Selection Hypothesis and the Relationship between Trial and Plaintiff Victory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 229-260, April.
    10. Ugur Tony Sinay, 1998. "Pre- and Post-Merger Investigation of Hospital Mergers," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 83-97, Winter.
    11. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    12. Theodore Eisenberg & Henry S. Farber, 1996. "The Litigious Plaintiff Hypothesis: Case Selection and Resolution," Working Papers 743, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    13. Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    15. Francesca Cornelli & Mark Schankerman, 1999. "Patent Renewals and R&D Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 197-213, Summer.
    16. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    17. Paul Geroski & Steve Machin & John Van Reenen, 1993. "The Profitability of Innovating Firms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 198-211, Summer.
    18. Michael J. Meurer, 1989. "The Settlement of Patent Litigation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 77-91, Spring.
    19. Bacon, Frank W. & Shin, Tai S. & Murphy, Neil B., 1994. "Factors motivating mergers: The case of rural electric cooperatives," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 129-134, May.
    20. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    21. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization,in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908 Elsevier.
    22. Pakes, Ariel, 1985. "On Patents, R&D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 390-409, April.
    23. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    24. Mark Schankerman, 1998. "How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 77-107, Spring.
    25. Urs Schweizer, 1989. "Litigation and Settlement under Two-Sided Incomplete Information," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 163-177.
    26. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    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. Ornaghi, Carmine, 2009. "Mergers and innovation in big pharma," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 70-79, January.
    2. Emmanuel Duguet & Megan MacGarvie, 2005. "How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 375-393.
    3. Ornaghi, Carmine, 2006. "Mergers and innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 605, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.

    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:cdl:agrebk:qt93s769k8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.