Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms
This paper investigates whether firms' innovation strategies affect their patenting behavior, as measured by both the probability of having a patent portfolio and the number of active patents held. Three main dimensions of an innovation strategy are taken into account: the relative importance of basic research, applied research and development work in total R&D activities, the product or process orientation of innovation efforts, and the extent to which firms enter into collaborative R&D with other institutions. The major findings can be summarized as follows: (1) taking into account the various dimensions of an innovation strategy turns out to approximate the patenting behavior of firms better than the traditional Schumpeterian hypotheses related to firm size and market power; (2) there is a positive relationship between the patent portfolio of firms and an outward-oriented innovation strategy characterized by R&D partnerships with external organizations - scientific institutions and competitors in particular; (3) process-oriented innovators patent less than product-oriented innovators; (4) a stronger focus on basic and applied research is associated with a more active patenting behavior; (5) firms that perceive high barriers to innovation (internal, risk-related or external barriers) have smaller patent portfolios; (6) the perceived limitations of the patent system do not significantly influence the patenting behavior, suggesting that firms patent for other strategic reasons than merely protecting innovation rents.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in: Journal of evolutionary economics (2006) v.16 n° 1-2,p.109-135|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://difusion.ulb.ac.be
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bruno Cassiman & David Pérez Castrillo & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2000.
"Endogeneizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments,"
Economics Working Papers
512, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Mar 2001.
- Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
- Cassiman, Bruno & Pérez-Castrillo, J David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2000. "Endogenizing Know-How Flows Through the Nature of R&D Investments," CEPR Discussion Papers 2622, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- David Pérez-Castrillo & Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2000. "Endogeneizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 464.00, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Cassiman, Bruno & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2000. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," IESE Research Papers D/428, IESE Business School.
- Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi & Hausman, Jerry A, 1986. "Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(2), pages 265-83, June.
- Carine Peeters & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2003.
"Organizational competencies and innovation performances: the case of large firms in Belgium,"
Working Papers CEB
04-006.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Peeters, Carine & Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno van, 2003. "Organizational Competencies and Innovation Performances: The Case of Large Firms in Belgium," IIR Working Paper 03-19, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107 Elsevier.
- Loof, Hans & Heshmati, Almas, 2002.
"Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: : A firm-level innovation study,"
International Journal of Production Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-85, March.
- Lööf, Hans & Heshmati, Almas, 2000. "Knowledge Capital and Performance Heterogeneity: A Firm Level Innovation Study," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 387, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 14 Aug 2000.
- Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
- Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-18, December.
- Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-26, June.
- Peeters, Carine & Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno van, 2003.
"Measuring Innovation Competencies and Performances: A Survey of Large Firms in Belgium,"
IIR Working Paper
03-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
- Carine Peeters & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2003. "Measuring innovation competencies and performances: a survey of large firms in Belgium," Working Papers CEB 04-005.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- 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.
- Wesley M Cohen & Richard R Nelson & John P Walsh, 2003. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not)," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000624, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- Jerry A. Hausman & Bronwyn H. Hall & Zvi Griliches, 1984.
"Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship,"
NBER Technical Working Papers
0017, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-38, July.
- 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), pages 783-832.
- Sabourin, David & Baldwin, John R. & Hanel, Peter, 2000. "Determinants of Innovative Activity in Canadian Manufacturing Firms: The Role of Intellectual Property Rights," Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series 2000122e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/167553. 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: (Benoit Pauwels)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.