Determinants of patent value: Insights from a simulation analysis

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-19

  Ernst, Holger ^a   Legler, Sebastian ^a   Lichtenthaler, Ulrich ^a  

^a WHU OTTO BEISHEIM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Intellectual property; Patent value; Technology valuation

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS; MONTE CARLO METHODS;

CHEMICAL FIRMS; DEVELOPMENT COSTS; PATENT PROTECTION; PATENT VALUE; REAL OPTIONS APPROACH; SIMULATION ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY VALUATION; THEORETICAL MODELING;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PROJECT ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY; VALUATION;

EID: 71849090321     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.009     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. Azzone G., and Manzini R. Quick and dirty technology assessment: the case of an Italian Research Centre. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (2008) 1324-1338
2. Park G., and Park Y. On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (2006) 793-812
3. Bessen J. The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 37 (2008) 932-945
4. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes - validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Res. Policy 33 (2004) 939-957
5. Malanowski N., and Zweck A. Bridging the gap between foresight and market research: integrating methods to assess the economic potential of nanotechnology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (2007) 1805-1822
6. Reitzig M. What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry. Res. Policy 32 (2003) 13-26
7. Griliches Z. Market value, R&D, and patents. Econ. Lett. 7 (1981) 183-187
8. Hall B.H., and Ziedonis R.H. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND J. Econ. 32 (2001) 101-128
9. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND J. Econ. 25 (1994) 319-333
10. Ernst H. Industrial research as a source of important patents. Res. Policy 27 (1998) 1-15
11. Gallini N.T. Patent policy and costly imitation. RAND J. Econ. 23 (1992) 52-63
12. Gilbert R., and Shapiro C. Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND J. Econ. 21 (1990) 106-113
13. Klemperer P. How broad should the scope of patent protection be?. RAND J. Econ. 21 (1990) 113-130
14. Green J.R., and Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND J. Econ. 26 (1995) 20-33
15. Sapsalis E., and van Pottelsberghe dela Potterie B. The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Econ. Innov. New technol. 16 (2007) 139-157
16. Schankerman M., and Pakes A. Estimates and the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. The Econ. J. 96 (1986) 1052-1076
17. Tong X., and Frame J.D. Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Res. Policy 23 (1992) 133-141
18. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., and Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 32 (2003) 1343-1363
19. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econ. 21 (1990) 172-187
20. Scherer F.M. Firm size, market structure, opportunity and the output of patented inventions. Am. Econ. Rev. 55 (1965) 1097-1125
21. Ernst H. Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Res. Policy 30 (2001) 143-157
22. Cockburn I., and Griliches Z. Industry effects and appropriability measures in the stock market's valuation of R&D and patents. AEA Papers and Proceedings 78 (1988) 419-423
23. Mansfield E., Schwartz M., and Wagner S. Imitation cost and patents: an empirical study. The Econ. J. 91 (1981) 907-918
24. Rivette K.G., and Kline D. Rembrandts in the Attic: unlocking the hidden value of patents (2000), Harvard Business School Press, Boston
25. Lev B. Sharpening the intangibles edge. Harvard Bus. Rev. 82 (2004) 109-116
26. Carte N. The maximum achievable profit method of patent valuation. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2 (2005) 135-151
27. Gans J.S., Hsu D.H., and Stern S. The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: evidence from patent grant delays. Manag. Sci. 54 (2008) 982-997
28. Amram M. The challenge of valuing patents and early-stage technologies. J. Appl. Corp. Finance 17 (2005) 68-81
29. Schwartz E.S. Patents and R&D as real options. Econ. Notes 33 (2004) 23-54
30. Wu M.-C., and Yen S.H. Pricing real growth options when the underlying assets have jump diffusion processes: the case of R&D investments. R&D Management 37 (2007) 269-276
31. Smith J., and Nau R. Valuing risky projects: option pricing theory and decision analysis. Manag. Sci. 41 (1995) 795-816
32. Huchzermeier A., and Loch C. Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Manag. Sci. 47 (2001) 85-91
33. Davis J.P., Eisenhardt K.M., and Bingham C.B. Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (2007) 480-499
34. Schneider M., Tejeda M., Dondi G., Herzog F., Keel S., and Geering H. Making real options work for practitioners: a generic model for valuing R&D projects. R&D Management 38 (2008) 85-106
35. Marco A.C. The option value of patent litigation: theory and evidence. Rev. Financ. Econ. 14 (2005) 323-351
36. Hall B.H., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econ. 36 (2005) 16-38
37. Choi C., Kim S., and Park Y. A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: the case of information and communication technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (2007) 1296-1314
38. Martin D., and Drews D.C. Intellectual property valuation techniques. Licens. J. (2006) 15-21
39. Sherry E.F., and Teece D.J. Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Res. Policy 33 (2004) 179-191
40. Arora A., Fosfuri A., and Gambardella A. Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge
41. Grünfeld L.A. Meet me halfway but don't rush: absorptive capacity and strategic R&D investment revisited. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 21 (2003) 1091-1109
42. D'Aveni R. Hypercompetition: managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering (1994), Free Press, New York
43. Wu M.-C., and Tseng C.-Y. Valuation of patent - a real options perspective. Appl. Econ. Lett. 13 (2006) 313-318
44. Wörner S.D., and Grupp H. The derivation of R&D return indicators within a real options framework. R&D Management 33 (2003) 313-325
45. Jerak A., and Wagner S. Modeling probabilities of patent oppositions in a Bayesian semiparametric regression framework. Empir. Econ. 31 (2006) 513-533
46. Mihm J., Loch C., and Huchzermeier A. Problem-solving oscillations in complex engineering projects. Manag. Sci. 49 (2003) 733-750
47. Dixit A., and Pindyck R.S. Investment under uncertainty (1993), Princeton University Press, Princeton
48. Bloom N., and Van Reenen J. Patents, real options and firm performance. The Econ. J. 112 (2002) C97-C116
49. Adner R., and Levinthal D.A. What is not a real option: identifying boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29 (2004) 74-85
50. Chan T., Nickerson J.A., and Owan H. Strategic management of R&D pipelines with cospecialized investments and technology markets. Manag. Sci. 53 (2007) 667-682
51. Pakes A. Patents as options: some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks. Econometrica 54 (1986) 755-784
52. Schwartz E.S., and Zozaya-Gorostiza C. Investment under uncertainty in information technology: acquisition and development projects. Manag. Sci. 49 (2000) 57-70
53. Kogut B., and Kulatilaka N. Real options pricing and organizations: the contingent risks of extended theoretical domains. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29 (2004) 102-110
54. Majd S., and Pindyck R.S. Time to build, option value, and investment decisions. J. Financ. Econ. 18 (1987) 7-27
55. Longstaff F., and Schwartz E.S. Valuing American options by simulation: a simple least-squares approach. The Rev. Financ. Stud. 14 (2001) 113-147
56. Brockhoff K. Problems of evaluating R&D projects as real options. In: Frenkel M., Hommel U., and Rudolf M. (Eds). Risk management - challenge and opportunity, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York (2000) 203-212
57. Pindyck R.S. Investments of uncertain cost. J. Financ. Econ. 34 (1993) 53-76
58. Schwartz E.S., and Moon M. Evaluating research and development investments. In: Brennan M.J., and Trigeorgis L. (Eds). Project flexibility, agency, and competition (2000), Oxford University Press, New York 85-106
59. Kulatilaka N., and Marcus A.J. Project valuation under uncertainty: when does DCF fail?. J. Appl. Corp. Finance 5 (1992) 92-100
60. Oriani R., and Sobrero M. Uncertainty and the market valuation of R&D within a real options logic. Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (2008) 343-361
61. Hausman J., and Leonard G.K. Real options and patent damages: the legal treatment of non-infringing alternatives, and incentives to innovate. J. Econ. Surv. 20 (2006) 493-512
62. Lanjouw J.O. Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: simulation estimations of patent value. Rev. Econ. Stud. 65 (1998) 671-710
63. Vassolo R.S., Anand J., and Folta T.B. Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real options-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strateg. Manage. J. 25 (2004) 1045-1061
64. Machado M.P. A consistent estimator for the binomial distribution in the presence of 'incidental parameters': an application to patent data. J. Econom. 119 (2004) 73-98
65. Trigeorgis L. Real options: managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation (1996), MIT Press, Cambridge
66. Haneda S., and Odagiri H. Appropriation of returns from technological assets and the values of patents and R&D in Japanese high-tech firms. Econ. Innov. New technol. 7 (1998) 303-321
67. Sullivan R.J. Estimates of the value of patent rights in Great Britain and Ireland, 1851-1876. Economica 61 (1994) 37-58
68. N. Aoki, Gillette creates a little buzz with its new razor, The Boston Globe January 16th (2004) 6.
69. Girotra K., Terwiesch C., and Ulrich K.T. Valuing R&D projects in a portfolio: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Manag. Sci. 53 (2007) 1452-1466
70. DiMasi J., Hansen R., and Lasagna L. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Health Econ. 10 (1991) 107-142
71. Rothaermel F.T., and Deeds D.L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg. Manage. J. 25 (2004) 201-221
72. Harhoff D., and Reitzig M. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants - the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 22 (2004) 443-480
73. Harabi N. Appropriability of technical innovations: an empirical analysis. Res. Policy 24 (1995) 981-992
74. Lin B.-W., Chen C.-J., and Wu H.-L. Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and firm value. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 53 (2006) 17-26
75. Berk J., Green R., and Naik V. Valuation and return dynamics of new ventures. The Rev. Financ. Stud. 17 (2003) 37-49
76. Gil N. On the value of project safeguards: embedding real options in complex products and systems. Res. Policy 36 (2007) 980-999
77. Santiago L., and Bifano T. Management of R&D projects under uncertainty: a multidimensional approach to managerial flexibility. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 52 (2005) 269-280
78. Lint O., and Pennings E. An option approach to the new product development process: a case study at Philips electronics. R&D Management 31 (2001) 163-172
79. Ziedonis A.A. Real options in technology licensing. Manag. Sci. 53 (2007) 1618-1633
80. Taber C.S., and Timpone R.J. Computational modeling (1996), Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks
81. Harrison J.R., Lin Z., Carroll G.R., and Carley K.M. Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (2007) 1229-1245
82. Carley K.M. Computational organizational science and organizational engineering. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 10 (2003) 253-269
83. Law A.M., and Kelton D.W. Simulation modeling and analysis (1991), McGraw-Hill, New York
84. Levinthal D.A. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manag. Sci. 43 (1997) 934-950
85. March J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2 (1991) 71-87
86. Siggelkow N., and Rivkin J.W. When exploration backfires: unintended consequences of multilevel organizational search. Acad. Manage. J. 49 (2006) 779-796
87. Rudolph J., and Repenning N. Disaster dynamics: understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 (2002) 237-275
88. Sanders N.R., and Manrodt K.B. Forecasting software in practice: use, satisfaction, and performance. Interfaces 33 (2003) 90-93
89. Tegarden L.F., Hatfield D.E., and Echols A.E. Doomed from the start: what is the value of selecting a future dominant design?. Strateg. Manage. J. 20 (1999) 495-518
90. Mills R.W., Weinstein B., and Favato G. Using scenario thinking to make real options relevant to managers: a case illustration. J. Gen. Manage 31 (2006) 49-74
91. Ferreira N., Kar J., and Trigeorgis L. Option games. Harvard Bus. Rev. 87 (2009) 101-107
92. Boulding W., Morgan R., and Staelin R. Pulling the plug to stop the new product drain. J. Mark. Res 34 (1997) 164-176
93. Biyalogorsky E., Boulding W., and Staelin R. Stuck in the past: why managers persist with new product failure. J. Mark. 70 (2006) 108-121
94. Tran T.A., and Daim T.U. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (2008) 1406-1415
95. Teece D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 28 (2007) 1319-1350
96. Ribeiro R., and Collins H. The bread-making machine: tacit knowledge and two types of action. Organ. Stud. 28 (2007) 1417-1433
97. von Krogh G., Ichijo K., and Nonaka I. Enabling knowledge creation: how to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation (2000), Oxford University Press, New York
98. Sapsalis E., Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B., and Navon R. Academic versus industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Res. Policy (2006)
99. Yoon B., and Park Y. A systematic approach for identifying technology opportunities: keyword-based morphology analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72 (2005) 145-160
100. Grupp H., and Mogee M.E. Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?. Res. Policy 33 (2004) 1373-1384
101. Pisano G., and Teece D.J. How to capture value from innovation: shaping intellectual property and industry structure. Calif. Manage. Rev. 50 (2007) 278-296
102. Ziedonis R.H. Don 't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Manag. Sci. 50 (2004) 804-820
103. Pitkethly R.H. Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Res. Policy 30 (2001) 425-442
104. Lichtenthaler U., and Ernst H. Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Res. Policy 36 (2007) 37-55
105. Lichtenthaler U. Externally commercializing technology assets: an examination of different process stages. J. Bus. Venturing 23 (2008) 445-464
106. Granstrand O. Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Res. Policy 27 (1998) 465-489
107. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15 (1986) 285-305
108. Gambardella A., Giuri P., and Luzzi A. The market for patents in Europe. Res. Policy 36 (2007) 1163-1183
109. Lee C.-Y., Lee J.-D., and Kim Y. Demand forecasting for new technology with a short history in a competitive environment: the case of the home networking market in South Korea. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (2008) 91-106
110. De Reyck B., Degraeve Z., and Vandenborre R. Project options valuation with net present value and decision tree analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184 (2008) 341-355