IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v85y2014icp17-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Signs of things to come? What patent submissions by small and medium-sized enterprises say about corporate strategies in emerging technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Kay, Luciano
  • Youtie, Jan
  • Shapira, Philip

Abstract

The management of intellectual property (IP) – particularly in the form of patents – has become of increasing importance to technology-oriented small and mid-sized businesses. Such companies adopt diverse strategies to develop and exploit knowledge as they move along innovation pathways from research and development (R&D) to technology commercialization. This investigation examines IP submissions through recent patents in the field of nanotechnology to better understand those strategies and focuses on how indicators of R&D activity, collaborations, funding and firm characteristics can be used to garner strategic and competitive intelligence about the orientations and IP strategies of technology-based firms. Our analysis of data from the Georgia Tech's Global Nanotechnology Database and other sources and illustrative case studies of U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises in nanotechnology shows that there are at least two different strategic approaches to enter this field and distinctive roles along the innovation pathway. A longer-term strategy is associated with nanotechnology research and discovery and possibly use of nanotechnologies to enhance properties of products. Another strategy is associated with a newer generation of firms with a strong focus on novel nanotechnology product development and commercialization and more intensive patenting activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Kay, Luciano & Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip, 2014. "Signs of things to come? What patent submissions by small and medium-sized enterprises say about corporate strategies in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 17-25.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:85:y:2014:i:c:p:17-25
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513002357
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.006?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. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Andrew Toole & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2007. "Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurship through the SBIR Program," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Schmoch, Ulrich, 2007. "Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1000-1015, September.
    4. Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
    5. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Jeongsik Lee, 2008. "Firm age and innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(5), pages 1019-1047, October.
    6. Erkko Autio, 1997. "New Technology-Based Firms in Innovation Networks," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Dylan Jones-Evans & Magnus Klofsten (ed.), Technology, Innovation and Enterprise, chapter 7, pages 209-235, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Lerner, Josh, 1999. "The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(3), pages 285-318, July.
    8. Autio, E., 1997. "New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 263-281, October.
    9. Annalee Saxenian, 2002. "Transnational Communities and the Evolution of Global Production Networks: The Cases of Taiwan, China and India," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 183-202.
    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. Yuan Zhou & Xin Li & Rasmus Lema & Frauke Urban, 2016. "Comparing the knowledge bases of wind turbine firms in Asia and Europe: Patent trajectories, networks, and globalisation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 476-491.
    2. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    3. Hsueh, Chao-Chih & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "A taxonomy of patent strategies in Taiwan's small and medium innovative enterprises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 84-98.

    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. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    2. Mahamadou Biga-Diambeidou & Maria Giuseppina Bruna & Rey Dang & L’Hocine Houanti, 2021. "Does gender diversity among new venture team matter for R&D intensity in technology-based new ventures? Evidence from a field experiment," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1205-1220, February.
    3. Alberto Onetti & Antonella Zucchella & Marian Jones & Patricia McDougall-Covin, 2012. "Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: business models for new technology-based firms," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(3), pages 337-368, August.
    4. Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo & Fernanda Ricotta, 2014. "Assessing The Impact Of University Technology Transfer On Firms’ Innovation," Working Papers 201403, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    5. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    6. David B. Audretsch & Taylor Aldridge & Alexander Oettl, 2006. "The Knowledge Filter and Economic Growth: The Role of Scientist Entrepreneurship," Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2006-11, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group.
    7. Laamanen, Tomi, 2005. "Dependency, resource depth, and supplier performance during industry downturn," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 125-140, March.
    8. Christina Öberg, 2019. "The Role Of Innovation Metrics In Innovation Systems," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(03), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Elisa Salvador, 2011. "How effective are research spin-off firms in Italy?," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 99-122.
    10. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    11. Audretsch, David & Colombelli, Alessandra & Grilli, Luca & Minola, Tommaso & Rasmussen, Einar, 2020. "Innovative start-ups and policy initiatives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    12. Christos Kolympiris & Sebastian Hoenen & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Geographic distance between venture capitalists and target firms and the value of quality signals," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 189-220.
    13. Caloghirou, Yannis & Giotopoulos, Ioannis & Kontolaimou, Alexandra & Korra, Efthymia & Tsakanikas, Aggelos, 2021. "Industry-university knowledge flows and product innovation: How do knowledge stocks and crisis matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    14. Makra, Zsolt, 2009. "A technológiai vállalkozások létrejötte, növekedése és gazdasági szerepe a szakirodalom tükrében [The establishment, growth and economic role of technology firms in the light of the specialist lite," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 176-186.
    15. Kiman Kim & Sang Ok Choi & Sooyeon Lee, 2021. "The Effect of a Financial Support on Firm Innovation Collaboration and Output: Does Policy Work on the Diverse Nature of Firm Innovation?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 645-675, June.
    16. Wagner, Marcus, 2011. "To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1217-1225.
    17. Mark Lorenzen & Ram Mudambi & Andreas Schotter, 0. "International connectedness and local disconnectedness: MNE strategy, city-regions and disruption," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    18. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    19. Tina C. Ambos & Julian Birkinshaw, 2010. "How Do New Ventures Evolve? An Inductive Study of Archetype Changes in Science-Based Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1125-1140, December.
    20. Franco Malerba & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 503-522, February.

    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:85:y:2014:i:c:p:17-25. 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.