IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02095821.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The 'Distinctive Capacity': Managing the invention process by managing the prior art

Author

Listed:
  • Chipten Valibhay

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Pascal Le Masson

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Benoit Weil

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

While patents are recognized as a key resource to sustain innovation activities, patenting activities are mainly conceptualized as protective means quite unrelated to innovation issues. By conducting an exploratory case study of French IP advisor, this paper identifies four unusual patent practices oriented towards a strategic management of the inventive capacity of a firm. These practices offer the opportunity to introduce a new capability of a firm, the 'distinctive capacity', which describes the ability of a firm to manage and organize the relationship between its inventions and the prior art articulated and structured based on strategical considerations (competitive environment, legal risks, technological choices). Building upon 'dynamic capabilities', we claim that the 'distinctive capacity' of a firm allows to better characterize the features of a specific knowledge management adapted to increasing a firm's inventive capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2019. "The 'Distinctive Capacity': Managing the invention process by managing the prior art," Post-Print hal-02095821, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02095821
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-02095821v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-02095821v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe & Josh Lerner, 2006. "Innovation and its Discontents," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 27-66, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    3. 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..
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall and Marie Ham., 1999. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," Economics Working Papers E99-268, University of California at Berkeley.
    5. 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.
    6. Cécile Ayerbe & Nathalie Lazaric & Michel Callois & Liliana Mitkova, 2014. "The new challenges of organizing intellectual property in complex industries: a discussion based on the case of Thales," Post-Print hal-01133958, HAL.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1.
    8. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Comment l'analyse des modèles de l'invention dans le droit de la propriété intellectuelle permet de caractériser des régimes de conception et des stratégies d'organisation des connaissances," Post-Print hal-01904734, HAL.
    11. Cécile Ayerbe & Nathalie Lazaric & Michel Callois & Liliana Mitkova, 2014. "The new challenges of organizing intellectual property in complex industries: A discussion based on the case of Thales," Post-Print halshs-01061538, HAL.
    12. Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Improving patent valuations for management purposes--validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 939-957, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Prashant Kale & Harbir Singh, 2007. "Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm‐level alliance success," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(10), pages 981-1000, October.
    15. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    16. Cécile Ayerbe, 2016. "Rôle du brevet et articulation des connaissances : une analyse par la chaine de valeur," Post-Print hal-01220237, HAL.
    17. Basberg, Bjorn L., 1987. "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 131-141, August.
    18. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    19. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    20. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    21. Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2017. "Should we manage the process of inventing? Designing for patentability," Post-Print hal-01481889, HAL.
    22. Cécile Ayerbe & Nathalie Lazaric & Michel Callois & Liliana Mitkova, 2014. "The new challenges of organizing intellectual property in complex industries," Post-Print halshs-00974973, HAL.
    23. Cécile Ayerbe, 2016. "Rôles du brevet et articulation des connaissances : une analyse par la chaîne de valeur," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 79-102.
    24. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869.
    25. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    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. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Comment l'analyse des modèles de l'invention dans le droit de la propriété intellectuelle permet de caractériser des régimes de conception et des stratégies d'organisation des connaissances," Post-Print hal-01904734, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. Wang, Heli & Chen, Wei-Ru, 2010. "Is firm-specific innovation associated with greater value appropriation? The roles of environmental dynamism and technological diversity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 141-154, February.
    4. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    5. 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.
    6. Zhang, JingJing & Yan, Yan & Guan, JianCheng, 2019. "Recombinant distance, network governance and recombinant innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 260-272.
    7. Sweet, Cassandra Mehlig & Eterovic Maggio, Dalibor Sacha, 2015. "Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase Innovation?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 665-677.
    8. Wesley M. Cohen & You-Na Lee & John P. Walsh, 2019. "How Innovative Are Innovations? A Multidimensional, Survey-Based Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 139-182, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Hana Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2018. "How an Open Innovation Strategy for Commercialization Affects the Firm Performance of Korean Healthcare IT SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    15. Iris Claus & Les Oxley & Peilei Fan, 2014. "Innovation In China," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 725-745, September.
    16. Stephan, Annegret & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Bening, Catharina R. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2017. "The sectoral configuration of technological innovation systems: Patterns of knowledge development and diffusion in the lithium-ion battery technology in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 709-723.
    17. Bertoni, Fabio & Tykvová, Tereza, 2012. "Which form of venture capital is most supportive of innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-018, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Haschka, Rouven E. & Herwartz, Helmut, 2020. "Innovation efficiency in European high-tech industries: Evidence from a Bayesian stochastic frontier approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    19. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    20. Dennys Eduardo Rossetto & Roberto Carlos Bernardes & Felipe Mendes Borini & Cristiane Chaves Gattaz, 2018. "Structure and evolution of innovation research in the last 60 years: review and future trends in the field of business through the citations and co-citations analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1329-1363, June.

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-02095821. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.