IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2020_002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Small firms and patenting revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Athreye, Suma

    (Essex Business School)

  • Fassio, Claudio

    (CIRCLE, Lund University)

  • Roper, Stephen

    (Warwick Business School)

Abstract

In order to observe a patent application at the firm level two conditions need to be met: new products need to be of patentable quality, which depends both on the degree of novelty of innovations and on the total number (portfolio) of innovations; and the benefits of patents need to be higher than the costs of owning them. Analyzing the patent propensity of small and large UK firms using a novel innovation-level survey (the SIPU survey) linked to Community Innovation Survey data we find that when we consider the whole innovation portfolio smaller firms do patent less than larger firms. However, using data on individual innovations, we find that smaller firms are no less likely to patent any specific innovation than larger firms. We argue that size differences in the probability to patent relate primarily to the ‘portfolio effect’, i.e. larger firms generate more innovations than smaller firms and therefore are more likely to create one or more which are patentable. As for the decision to patent a patentable innovation, we find that cost barriers, more than issues of innovation quality or enforceability, deter small firms from patenting specific innovations. Measures to address the costs of patenting for smaller firms – perhaps by considering patents as eligible costs for R&D tax credits – and/or subsidizing SMEs’ participation in IP litigation schemes may both encourage patent use by smaller firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Athreye, Suma & Fassio, Claudio & Roper, Stephen, 2020. "Small firms and patenting revisited," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2020_002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/202002_athreye.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Fernández‐Ribas, 2010. "International Patent Strategies of Small and Large Firms: An Empirical Study of Nanotechnology," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 457-473, July.
    2. Michael Kopel & Clemens Löffler, 2008. "Commitment, first-mover-, and second-mover advantage," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 143-166, July.
    3. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    4. Priit Vahter & James H. Love & Stephen Roper, 2014. "Openness and Innovation Performance: Are Small Firms Different?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(7-8), pages 553-573, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Giacomo Marzi & Marina Dabić & Tugrul Daim & Edwin Garces, 2017. "Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 673-704, November.
    7. Bourke, Jane & Roper, Stephen, 2017. "Innovation, quality management and learning: Short-term and longer-term effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1505-1518.
    8. Thomas Astebro & John L. Michela, 2005. "Predictors of the Survival of Innovations," Post-Print hal-00476886, HAL.
    9. Serge Pajak, 2016. "Do innovative firms rely on big secrets? An analysis of IP protection strategies with the CIS 4 survey," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 516-532, July.
    10. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    11. Rachel Griffith & Stephen Redding & John Van Reenen, 2003. "R&D and Absorptive Capacity: Theory and Empirical Evidence," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 105(1), pages 99-118, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Venohr, Bernd & Meyer, Klaus E., 2007. "The German miracle keeps running: How Germany's hidden champions stay ahead in the global economy," Working Papers 30, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute of Management Berlin (IMB).
    14. 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.
    15. Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
    16. Bourke, Jane & Roper, Stephen, 2016. "AMT adoption and innovation: An investigation of dynamic and complementary effects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 55, pages 42-55.
    17. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    18. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    19. Horstmann, Ignatius & MacDonald, Glenn M & Slivinski, Alan, 1985. "Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 837-858, October.
    20. Hughes, A. & Mina, A., 2010. "The Impact of the Patent System on SMEs," Working Papers wp411, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    21. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    22. Talke, Katrin & Salomo, Sören & Rost, Katja, 2010. "How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 907-918, September.
    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. 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.
    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, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 117-156.
    3. 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.
    4. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    5. Tomasz Kijek, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights And Appropriability Of Innovation Capital: Evidence From Polish Manufacturing Firms," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(2), pages 387-399, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Klein, Michael A, 2021. "The reward and contract theories of patents in a model of endogenous growth," MPRA Paper 107481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Roper, Stephen & Love, James H. & Bonner, Karen, 2017. "Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 43-56.
    9. Delphine GALLAUD & Maximilien NAYARADOU, 2012. "Vers une ouverture des stratégies de protection de l’innovation ?," Working Papers 28, Réseau de Recherche sur l’Innovation. / Research Network on Innovation.
    10. Jos Jansen, 2011. "On Competition and the Strategic Management of Intellectual Property in Oligopoly," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1043-1072, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Malte Mosel, 2012. "The role of patents and secrecy for intellectual property protection: theory and evidence," Working Papers 117, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    13. Klein, Michael A., 2020. "Secrecy, the patent puzzle and endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    14. Malte Mosel, 2011. "Big patents, small secrets: how firms protect inventions when R&D outcome is heterogeneous," Working Papers 105, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    15. Koh, Ping-Sheng & Reeb, David M., 2015. "Missing R&D," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 73-94.
    16. Sara Amoroso & Albert N. Link, 2019. "Intellectual Property Protection Mechanisms and the Characteristics of Founding Teams," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2019-01, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    17. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Sweet, Cassandra & Eterovic, Dalibor, 2019. "Do patent rights matter? 40 years of innovation, complexity and productivity," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 78-93.
    20. Heger, Diana & Zaby, Alexandra K., 2013. "A look at both sides of the coin: Investigating the protective and the disclosure effect of patenting," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-048, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patenting; SME; small firms; UK;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:hhs:lucirc:2020_002. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/circlse.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 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: Torben Schubert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/circlse.html .

    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.