IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v83y2014icp194-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Running ahead in the nanotechnology gold rush. Strategic patenting in emerging technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Munari, Federico
  • Toschi, Laura

Abstract

This paper provides theoretical and empirical contributions on how patent scope varies over time and by type of applicants in the initial phases of an emerging technology. We refer to the literature on technology life-cycles and on appropriability regimes in order to study the evolution of patent scope – as measured by the number of claims – in the specific case of nanotechnology. Our regression analyses, based on a sample of 58,244 nanotech US patents, show that – once time, sector and firm effects are controlled for – patent scope decreases over the subsequent phases of the technology life-cycle. Moreover, we find that university nanotech patents tend to be characterized by a broader scope than other patents. We conclude by discussing the managerial and policy implications of our empirical results.

Suggested Citation

  • Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2014. "Running ahead in the nanotechnology gold rush. Strategic patenting in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 194-207.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:83:y:2014:i:c:p:194-207
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513001546
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.002?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. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    2. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    3. van Zeebroeck, Nicolas & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Guellec, Dominique, 2009. "Claiming more: the Increased Voluminosity of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1006-1020, July.
    4. Scheu, M. & Veefkind, V. & Verbandt, Y. & Galan, E. Molina & Absalom, R. & Förster, W., 2006. "Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 204-211, September.
    5. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    6. 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..
    7. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie & Elisabeth Müller, 2010. "Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 899-925, June.
    8. Petra Moser & Tom Nicholas, 2004. "Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology? Evidence from Historical Patent Citations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 388-394, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    11. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    12. Helpman, Elhanan & Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1994. "A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technologies," CEPR Discussion Papers 1080, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    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. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    15. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eleftherios Sapsalis & Ran Navon, 2006. "Academic vs. industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Working Papers CEB 05-008.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Federico Munari & Maurizio Sobrero, 2011. "Economic and Management Perspectives on the Value of Patents," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Taylor, Margaret & Taylor, Andrew, 2012. "The technology life cycle: Conceptualization and managerial implications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 541-553.
    18. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Dirk Libaers & Diana Hicks & Alan L. Porter, 2016. "A taxonomy of small firm technology commercialization," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(3), pages 371-405.
    21. Fattori, Michele & Pedrazzi, Giorgio & Turra, Roberta, 2003. "Text mining applied to patent mapping: a practical business case," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 335-342, December.
    22. Laura I. Schultz & Frederick L. Joutz, 2010. "Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 155-170, October.
    23. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1173-1190, September.
    24. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2009. "Patents, Thickets and the Financing of Early‐Stage Firms: Evidence from the Software Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 729-773, September.
    25. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    26. Federico Munari & Laura Toschi, 2011. "Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(2), pages 397-432, April.
    27. Yiannaka, Amalia & Fulton, Murray, 2006. "Strategic patent breadth and entry deterrence with drastic product innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 177-202, January.
    28. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    29. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    30. Joshua M. Pearce, 2012. "Make nanotechnology research open-source," Nature, Nature, vol. 491(7425), pages 519-521, November.
    31. Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), 2011. "The Economic Valuation of Patents," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13561.
    32. 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.
    33. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00658034, HAL.
    34. Blind, Knut & Cremers, Katrin & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 428-436, March.
    35. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    36. Sakakibara, Mariko & Branstetter, Lee, 2001. "Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 77-100, Spring.
    37. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Jason Fong, 2014. "Communitywide Database Designs for Tracking Innovation Impact: Comets, Stars and Nanobank," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 115-116, pages 277-311.
    38. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    39. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
    40. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    41. Tong, Xuesong & Frame, J. Davidson, 1994. "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 133-141, March.
    42. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    43. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Post-Print hal-00658034, HAL.
    44. Achilladelis, Basil, 1993. "The dynamics of technological innovation: The sector of antibacterial medicines," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 279-308, August.
    45. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    46. 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.
    47. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    48. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    49. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    50. 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. Pronker, Esther & Weenen, Tamar & Commandeur, Harry & Claassen, E. & Osterhaus, A.D.M.E., 2015. "Scratching the surface: Exploratory analysis of key opinion leaders on rate limiting factors in novel adjuvanted-vaccine development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 420-432.
    2. Enrico Forti & Serena Morricone & Federico Munari, 2021. "Litigation risks and firms innovation dynamics after the IPO," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 48(2), pages 291-313, June.
    3. Gómez, Jaime & Salazar, Idana & Vargas, Pilar, 2020. "The Role Of Extramural R&D And Scientific Knowledge In Creating High Novelty Innovations: An Examination Of Manufacturing And Service Firms In Spain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    4. Shamir, Noam & Zvilichovsky, David, 2022. "Dynamic reputation, project selection and market efficiency: The importance of small projects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    5. Ruslan Galiakhmetov & Paola Giuri & Federico Munari, 2018. "How To Enhance Patent Commercialisation? An Analysis Of Patent Aggregators In Europe," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(04), pages 1-30, May.
    6. Krzysztof Klincewicz, 2016. "The emergent dynamics of a technological research topic: the case of graphene," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 319-345, January.
    7. Yoruk, Esin & Radosevic, Slavo & Fischer, Bruno, 2023. "Technological profiles, upgrading and the dynamics of growth: Country-level patterns and trajectories across distinct stages of development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    8. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Diffusion of science-based inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 66-77.
    9. Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini & Laura Toschi, 2015. "From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 948-975, December.
    10. Tiago Botelho & Richard Harrison & Colin Mason, 2021. "Business angel exits: a theory of planned behaviour perspective," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 583-602, June.
    11. Ribeiro, Barbara & Shapira, Philip, 2020. "Private and public values of innovation: A patent analysis of synthetic biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    12. Jiri Schwarz & Martin Stepanek, 2016. "Patents: A Means to Innovation or Strategic Ends?," Working Papers IES 2016/08, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2016.
    13. Zhu, Lin & Cunningham, Scott W., 2022. "Unveiling the knowledge structure of technological forecasting and social change (1969–2020) through an NMF-based hierarchical topic model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    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. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    2. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    3. Federico Munari & Maurizio Sobrero, 2011. "Economic and Management Perspectives on the Value of Patents," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    6. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    7. 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.
    8. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    9. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    10. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Daniele Rotolo & Vito Albino, 2014. "Determinants of Patent Citations in Biotechnology: An Analysis of Patent Influence Across the Industrial and Organizational Boundaries," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-05, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Yann Ménière & Myra Mohnen, 2017. "International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 793-828, May.
    13. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    14. Grimaldi, Michele & Cricelli, Livio & Di Giovanni, Martina & Rogo, Francesco, 2015. "The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 286-302.
    15. Prithwiraj Choudhury & Martine R. Haas, 2018. "Scope versus speed: Team diversity, leader experience, and patenting outcomes for firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 977-1002, April.
    16. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    17. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    18. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    20. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.

    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:tefoso:v:83:y:2014:i:c:p:194-207. 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/00401625 .

    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.