IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v92y2015icp84-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A taxonomy of patent strategies in Taiwan's small and medium innovative enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Hsueh, Chao-Chih
  • Chen, Dar-Zen

Abstract

An empirical taxonomy of patent strategies for SMEs is proposed in this paper based on a study of 238 innovative SMEs in Taiwan. The taxonomy identifies five categories of patent strategy — comprehensive, exploitative, defensive, reactive, and marginal — by using cluster analysis. This study demonstrates effective use of taxonomies to map the differences in patent strategies among SMEs by industry, firm size, R&D expenditure, and firm innovation. The results show that the larger the SMEs that developed radical innovations were, and the more they spent on R&D, the more likely they were to adopt comprehensive patent strategies. The R&D expenditure of most of the reactive and marginal strategy adopters is lower than that of adopters of the other three strategies. Among SMEs, firms' patent strategies are also correlated with firm size and R&D expenditure, which supports the findings of the existing literature. The taxonomy adds considerable value to our existing knowledge of management patents in SMEs by making our descriptions of patent strategic groups more clear and concise.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:92:y:2015:i:c:p:84-98
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162514003618
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.009?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. Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2008. "Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1548-1555, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Jun, Seung-Pyo & Seo, Ju Hwan & Son, Jong-Ku, 2013. "A study of the SME Technology Roadmapping Program to strengthen the R&D planning capability of Korean SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(5), pages 1002-1014.
    5. Macdonald, Stuart, 2004. "When means become ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, March.
    6. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Firm Size and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 44-55, March.
    7. Himmelberg, Charles P & Petersen, Bruce C, 1994. "R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(1), pages 38-51, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Ove Granstrand, 1999. "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1651.
    10. 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.
    11. Cohen, Wesley M. & Goto, Akira & Nagata, Akiya & Nelson, Richard R. & Walsh, John P., 2002. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1349-1367, December.
    12. Lockett, Andy & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1043-1057, September.
    13. Hsieh, Chih-Hung, 2013. "Patent value assessment and commercialization strategy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 307-319.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Pitkethly, Robert H., 2001. "Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 425-442, March.
    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. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    2. Zhang, Guiyang & Tang, Chaoying, 2017. "How could firm's internal R&D collaboration bring more innovation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 299-308.
    3. Zon-Yau Lee & Mei-Tai Chu & Yu-Ting Wang & Kuan-Ju Chen, 2020. "Industry Performance Appraisal Using Improved MCDM for Next Generation of Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Guiyang Zhang & Chaoying Tang & Yong Qi, 2020. "Alliance Network Diversity and Innovation Ambidexterity: The Differential Roles of Industrial Diversity, Geographical Diversity, and Functional Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_105, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    4. Jürgen Mihm & Fabian J. Sting & Tan Wang, 2015. "On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation Races," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2662-2684, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Anna Rita Bennato & Stephen Davies & Franco Mariuzzo & Peter Ormosi, 2019. "Mergers and Innovation: Evidence from the Hard Disk Drive Market," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2018-04v3, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    8. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    9. Torrisi, Salvatore & Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Mariani, Myriam, 2016. "Used, blocking and sleeping patents: Empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1374-1385.
    10. Chigu Kim & Chul Lee & Jina Kang, 2018. "Determinants Of Firm’S Innovation-Related External Knowledge Search Strategy: The Role Of Potential Absorptive Capacity And Appropriability Regime," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-33, August.
    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. 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.
    13. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    14. LOPES BENTO Cindy & HOTTENROTT Hanna, 2012. "Quantity or Quality? Collaboration Strategies in Research and Development and Incentives to Patent," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-29, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    15. Hussingera, Katrin & Issahd, Wunnam, 2022. "Trade secret protection and R&D investment of family firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-039, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Katrin Hussinger & Wunnam Basit Issah, 2022. "Trade Secret Protection and R&D Investment of Family Firms," DEM Discussion Paper Series 22-11, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    17. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    18. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    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. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.

    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:92:y:2015:i:c:p:84-98. 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.