IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bon/boncrc/crctr224_2025_656.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Looking for Innovation Beyond the Patent System: Evidence from Research Disclosures

Author

Listed:
  • Bernhard Ganglmair
  • Alexander Kann

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernhard Ganglmair & Alexander Kann, 2025. "Looking for Innovation Beyond the Patent System: Evidence from Research Disclosures," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_656, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2025_656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.crctr224.de/research/discussion-papers/archive/dp656
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    2. Schrader, Stephan, 1991. "Informal technology transfer between firms: Cooperation through information trading," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 153-170, April.
    3. Gächter, Simon & von Krogh, Georg & Haefliger, Stefan, 2010. "Initiating private-collective innovation: The fragility of knowledge sharing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 893-906, September.
    4. Arts, Sam & Hou, Jianan & Gomez, Juan Carlos, 2021. "Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: Code, data, and new measures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    5. Hamid Bekamiri & Daniel S. Hain & Roman Jurowetzki, 2021. "PatentSBERTa: A Deep NLP based Hybrid Model for Patent Distance and Classification using Augmented SBERT," Papers 2103.11933, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    6. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Enrico Pennings, 2014. "Defensive Disclosure of Patentable Inventions under Antitrust Enforcement," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(7-8), pages 533-552, November.
    7. Baker, Scott & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2005. "Disclosure as a Strategy in the Patent Race," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 173-194, April.
    8. Shaobo Li & Jie Hu & Yuxin Cui & Jianjun Hu, 2018. "DeepPatent: patent classification with convolutional neural networks and word embedding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 721-744, November.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Yiting Deng & Yongdong Liu, 2024. "Open disclosure using invention pledges: a case study of IBM," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1532-1566, August.
    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. Joachim Henkel & Stefanie Pangerl, 2008. "Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study," DRUID Working Papers 08-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    4. 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.
    5. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    6. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    7. Yoon, Naeun & Sohn, So Young, 2024. "Assessment framework for automotive suppliers' technological adaptability in the electric vehicle era," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Pilar Beneito & Mari´a E. Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2017. "The determinants of international patenting decisions of Spanish firms," Working Papers 1708, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    9. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    10. Useche, Diego, 2014. "Are patents signals for the IPO market? An EU–US comparison for the software industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1299-1311.
    11. Masatoshi Kato & Koichiro Onishi & Yuji Honjo, 2022. "Does patenting always help new firm survival? Understanding heterogeneity among exit routes," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 449-475, August.
    12. Zhai, Zhe & Ghosal, Vivek, 2022. "Internationalization of innovation and firm performance in the pharmaceutical industry," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 882-905.
    13. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    14. Huang, Can & Jacob, Jojo, 2014. "Determinants of quadic patenting: Market access, imitative threat, competition and strength of intellectual property rights," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 4-16.
    15. Pilar Beneito & María Engracia Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2018. "International patenting decisions: empirical evidence with Spanish firms," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(2), pages 579-599, August.
    16. Ganglmair, Bernhard & Holcomb, Alex & Myung, Noah, 2020. "Expectations of reciprocity when competitors share information: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 244-267.
    17. Jeon, Eunji & Yoon, Naeun & Sohn, So Young, 2023. "Exploring new digital therapeutics technologies for psychiatric disorders using BERTopic and PatentSBERTa," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PA).
    18. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Gątkowski, Mateusz & Dietl, Marek & Skrok, Łukasz & Whalen, Ryan & Rockett, Katharine, 2020. "Semantically-based patent thicket identification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    defensive publications; disclosure; open innovation; patents; R&D; text-asdata We study the content; novelty; and value of defensive publications relative to patents. We use a large language model (LLM) to apply the cooperative patent classification (CPC) system to a set of defensive publications (from 1962 to 2022) from the journal Research Disclosure; thus mapping such research disclosures and patents into a common space and allowing for a direct evaluation of textual similarities between these two types of R&D outputs. We find that while in some technologies; patents and research disclosures follow similar aggregate trends; some exhibit diverging developments over time. We also document shifts in the position of research disclosures in the patenting space that are indicative of changes in the technological landscape not captured in patents. We further show that substantial numbers of research disclosures are published before their closest patents are filed; and many contain terminology before it is first used in patents. Last; we find that in several technology areas; research disclosures have evolved from being an outlet for niche results to a vehicle to publicize technological developments of high practical relevance and value. Our results imply that when we draw conclusions about the nature of technological progress or the direction of innovation based solely on patent data; we obtain an incomplete picture.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O36 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Open Innovation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2025_656. 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: CRC Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.crctr224.de .

    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.