IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v26y2017i5p418-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The benefits of the reciprocal grantback clause in patent licensing

Author

Listed:
  • Dusanee Kesavayuth

Abstract

This paper shows that a reciprocal grantback clause could potentially be a better licensing provision than a one-way type. There are two benefits associated with the use of a reciprocal grantback clause. First, it improves efficiency by reducing the (minimum) contract compatible royalty rate to zero. As a result, the production becomes efficient because both the licensor and the licensee produce at the same marginal cost. Second, a reciprocal grantback clause is a more effective provision than a one-way grantback clause to guarantee the transfer of superior technology, hence it promotes better technology diffusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Dusanee Kesavayuth, 2017. "The benefits of the reciprocal grantback clause in patent licensing," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(5), pages 418-428, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:26:y:2017:i:5:p:418-428
    DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2016.1210295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10438599.2016.1210295
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10438599.2016.1210295?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. Jay Pil Choi, 2002. "A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The "Boomerang" Effect and Grant-Back Clauses," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 203-229, August.
    2. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1996. "Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 322-331, Summer.
    3. Maria Isabella Leone & Toke Reichstein, 2012. "Licensing‐in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant‐back clause and technological unfamiliarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 965-985, August.
    4. Davies, Howard, 1977. "Technology Transfer through Commercial Transactions," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 161-175, December.
    5. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Contracting for tacit knowledge: the provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 233-256, August.
    6. Philippe Aghion & Jean Tirole, 1994. "The Management of Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1185-1209.
    7. Rockett, Katharine, 1990. "The quality of licensed technology," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 559-574, December.
    8. Richard Dutu & Benoit Julien, 2009. "Technology Licensing and Grantbacks under Hidden Information," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 165(4), pages 561-578, December.
    9. van Dijk, Theon, 2000. "Licence contracts, future exchange clauses, and technological competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1431-1448, August.
    10. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2006. "Patents and R&D with imitation and licensing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 196-201, November.
    11. Katharine E. Rockett, 1990. "Choosing the Competition and Patent Licensing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 161-171, Spring.
    12. 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. Ambashi, Masahito & Régibeau, Pierre & Rockett, Katharine E., 2019. "Grantbacks, territorial restraints, and innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(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. Ambashi, Masahito & Régibeau, Pierre & Rockett, Katharine E., 2019. "Grantbacks, territorial restraints, and innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," 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 315-380, Elsevier.
    3. Jay Pil Choi, 2002. "A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The "Boomerang" Effect and Grant-Back Clauses," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 203-229, August.
    4. Keld Laursen & Solon Moreira & Toke Reichstein & Maria Isabella Leone, 2017. "Evading the Boomerang Effect: Using the Grant-Back Clause to Further Generative Appropriability from Technology Licensing Deals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 514-530, June.
    5. Ambashi, M & Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2016. "Grantbacks, Territorial Restraints and the Type of Follow-On Innovation: The "But for..." Defence," Economics Discussion Papers 17805, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    6. Lee, Jong-Seon & Park, Ji-Hoon & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2017. "The effects of licensing-in on innovative performance in different technological regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 485-496.
    7. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," 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 641-678, Elsevier.
    8. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    9. Zoltán J. Ács & Mark Sanders, 2015. "Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 11, pages 195-212, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Cristiano Antonelli, 2004. "The Governance of Localized Technological Knowledge and the Evolution of Intellectual Property Rights," Chapters, in: Enrico Colombatto (ed.), The Elgar Companion to the Economics of Property Rights, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2008. "Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization," Economics Working Papers 1254, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2014.
    12. Mendi, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, José J., 2020. "Cooperation for innovation and technology licensing: Empirical evidence from Spain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    13. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2003. "The Governance of Technological Knowledge: Strategies, Processes and Public Policies," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200306, University of Turin.
    14. Gordanier, John & Miao, Chun-Hui, 2011. "On the duration of technology licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 755-765.
    15. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    16. Che, XiaoGang & Yang, Yibai, 2012. "Patent protection with a cooperative R&D option," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 469-471.
    17. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/3jesolrqda8pl9qj4osla4hevt is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Roland Kirstein & Birgit Will, 2006. "Efficient compensation for employees' inventions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 129-148, April.
    19. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041, July.
    20. repec:wip:wpaper:3 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    22. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Ham Ziedonis, Rosemarie, 1999. "Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1rg1088v, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.

    More about this item

    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:taf:ecinnt:v:26:y:2017:i:5:p:418-428. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GEIN20 .

    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.