IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pab/wpbsad/10.01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How does knowledge matter patenting inventions?

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Pérez-Luño

    (Department of Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Ramón Valle-Cabrera

    (Department of Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

Abstract

While there is robust empirical evidence that firm patenting is positively associated with various measures of overall performance and competitiveness, less is known about what determines the patenting choice. For this reason, this paper examines whether R&D expenditure and the type of knowledge used in the invention determine the decision to patent. With this aim, we use a sample of firms and the European Patent Office to analyse how the combination of R&D expenditure and knowledge codifiability, observability and simplicity influences the patent decision. Our results contribute to the literature and assist R&D managers by showing that both R&D and codified knowledge have a positive impact on the number of inventions patented by a firm, while observable knowledge has a negative impact on patents. Furthermore, we find that the effect of R&D expenditure on the propensity to patent inventions is negatively moderated by knowledge observability and simplicity.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Pérez-Luño & Ramón Valle-Cabrera, 2010. "How does knowledge matter patenting inventions?," Working Papers 10.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:pab:wpbsad:10.01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wpbsad/bsad1001.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    4. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    5. Mohan Subramaniam & N. Venkatraman, 2001. "Determinants of transnational new product development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 359-378, April.
    6. David G. Hoopes & Tammy L. Madsen & Gordon Walker, 2003. "Guest editors' introduction to the special issue: why is there a resource‐based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 889-902, October.
    7. Atul Nerkar & Scott Shane, 2007. "Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination of academically sourced inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(11), pages 1155-1166, November.
    8. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    9. S. Fukuda-Parr, 2003. "Editor's Introduction," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 323-324.
    10. Udo Zander & Bruce Kogut, 1995. "Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 76-92, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    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. Jorge Luis Juliao Rossi & Fernando Barrios Aguirre & Jana Schmutzler & Iván Darío Sánchez Manchola, 2013. "Relación entre la estrategia de innovación de la firma y su decisión de patentar: evidencia de empresas pertenecientes al sector manufacturero colombiano," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, September.

    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. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    3. Scaringella, Laurent & Burtschell, François, 2017. "The challenges of radical innovation in Iran: Knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity highlights — Evidence from a joint venture in the construction sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 151-169.
    4. Olena Ivus & Walter G Park & Kamal Saggi, 2023. "Patent protection and the composition of multinational activity: Evidence from US multinational firms," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 14, pages 317-345, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Marcus M. Keupp & Angela Beckenbauer & Oliver Gassmann, 2010. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Weak Appropriability Regimes," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 109-130, February.
    7. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Do Patents Matter for Commercialization?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 431-453.
    8. Sheng, Margaret L. & Hartmann, Nathaniel N., 2019. "Impact of subsidiaries' cross-border knowledge tacitness shared and social capital on MNCs' explorative and exploitative innovation capability," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(4).
    9. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. Pérez-Luño, Ana & Wiklund, Johan & Cabrera, Ramón Valle, 2011. "The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation generation and adoption," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 555-571, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Anna Potekhina & Knut Blind, 2020. "What motivates the engineers to patent? A study at the Chinese R&D laboratories of a European MNC," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 461-480, April.
    14. Norio Sawabe & Susumu Egashira, 2007. "The knowledge management strategy and the formation of innovative networks in emerging industries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 277-298, June.
    15. Insu Cho & Heejun Park & Joseph Kim, 2012. "The moderating effect of innovation protection mechanisms on the competitiveness of service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(3), pages 369-386, September.
    16. Burmeister, Anne & Lazarova, Mila B. & Deller, Jürgen, 2018. "Repatriate knowledge transfer: Antecedents and boundary conditions of a dyadic process," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 806-816.
    17. Vesna Vlaisavljevic & Carmen Cabello Medina & Ana Pérez-Luño, 2014. "Does The Diversity Of Partners In Alliances Guarantees Innovation Performance? The Influence Of Social Capital And Knowledge Codifiability On Such Relationship," Working Papers 14.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Organization and Marketing (former Department of Business Administration).
    18. Woojin Yoon & Suyeon Kwon, 2023. "The Impact of Technological and Non-technological Innovative Activities on Technological Competitiveness," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, March.
    19. TINA M. Jose Vega & Dennis M. López, 2012. "Evaluating The Effect Of Industry Specialist Duration On Audit Quality And Audit Fees," Working Papers 0023, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    20. Adenfelt, Maria & Lagerström, Katarina, 2006. "Knowledge development and sharing in multinational corporations: The case of a centre of excellence and a transnational team," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 381-400, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    : R&D; patents; knowledge; invent;
    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:pab:wpbsad:10.01. 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: Publicación Digital - UPO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dbupoes.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.