What patents are used as collateral?-An empirical analysis of patent reassignment data

Journal of Business Venturing

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 633-650

  Fischer, Timo ^a   Ringler, Philipp ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Market for technologies; Non practicing entities; Patent monetization; Patents as collateral

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903456947     PISSN: 08839026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Alanis E., Chava S. Shareholder bargaining power and debt overhang. Working Paper 2012, Georgia Institute of Technology.
2. Amable B., Chatelain J.B., Ralf K. Patents as collateral. J. Econ. Dyn. Control. 2010, 34(6):1092-1104.
3. Arora A., Ceccagnoli M. Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms' incentives for technology licensing. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52(2):293-308.
4. Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Bannock G. The Economics and Management of Small Business: An International Perspective 2005, Routledge, London.
6. Bates Financing small business creation: the case of Chinese and Korean immigrant entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur. 1997, 12(2):109-124.
7. Berger A.N., Udell G.F. Relationship lending and lines of credit in small firm finance. J. Bus. 1995, 68(3):351-381.
8. Berger A.N., Udell G.F. The economics of small business finance: the roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. J. Bank. Financ. 1998, 22(6-8):613-673.
9. Besanko D., Thakor A.V. Collateral and rationing: sorting equilibria in monopolistic and competitive credit markets. Int. Econ. Rev. 1987, 28(3):671-689.
10. Bessen J. The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 2008, 37(5):932-945.
11. Bessen J., Meurer M.J. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk 2008, Princeton University Press, Princeton, PA.
12. Bester H. Screening vs. rationing in credit markets with imperfect information. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75(4):850-855.
13. Bezant M. The use of intellectual property as security for debt finance. J. Knowl. Manag. 1997, 1(3):237-263.
14. Blind K., Edler J., Frietsch R., Schmoch U. Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany. Res. Policy 2006, 35(5):655-672.
15. Bosse D.A. Bundling governance mechanisms to efficiently organize small firm loans. J. Bus. Ventur. 2009, 24:183-195.
16. Burke P.F., Reitzig M. Measuring patent assessment quality-analyzing the degree and kind of (in) consistency in patent offices' decision making. Res. Policy 2007, 36(9):1404-1430.
17. Cassar G. The financing of business start-ups. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19:261-283.
18. Chava S., Jarrow R.A. Bankruptcy prediction with industry effects. Rev. Finance 2004, 8(4):537-569.
19. Chava S., Stefanescu C., Turnbull S. Modeling the loss distribution. Manag. Sci. 2011, 57(7):1267-1287.
20. Cockburn I.M., MacGarvie M., Müller E. Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance. Ind. Corp. Change 2010, 19(3):899-925.
21. Crawford D. Smartcard Systems, Inc. Darden Case UVA-F-1405 2003, Darden Business Publishing, Charlottesville, VA.
22. De Bettignies J., Brander J.A. Financing entrepreneurship: bank finance versus venture capital. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22(6):808-832.
23. Denis D.J. Entrepreneurial finance: an overview of the issues and evidence. J. Corp. Finance 2004, 10(2):301-326.
24. EPO - European Patent Office, 2011a. Data INPADOC legal status service, . Last accessed May 2, 2011. http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/raw-data/test/product-14-11.html.
25. EPO - European Patent Office, 2011c. Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT), . Last accessed May 2, 2011. http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/raw-data/test/product-14-24.html.
26. EPO - European Patent Office. 2011b. Data INPADOC legal status service, . Last accessed May 2, 2011. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/rawdata.nsf/0/DA78AF8CEB8B4406C125787E00415687/$File/PRS_1117.xls.
27. Fischer T., Henkel J. Patent trolls on markets for technology - an empirical analysis of NPEs' patent acquisitions. Res. Policy 2012, 41(9):1519-1533.
28. Fischer T., Leidinger J. Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value-an empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Res. Policy 2014, 43(3):519-529.
29. Fischer T., Ringler P. The coincidence of patent thickets - a comparative analysis. Working Paper 2010.
30. Galasso A., Schankerman M.A. Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND J. Econ. 2010, 41(3):472-503.
31. Gambardella A., Harhoff D., Verspagen B. The value of European patents. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2008, 5:69-84.
32. Gans J.S., Hsu D.H., Stern S. The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: evidence from patent grant delays. Manag. Sci. 2008, 54(5):982-997.
33. Golden J.M. "Patent trolls" and patent remedies. Texas Law Rev. 2007, 85:2111-2161.
34. Graham S.J.H., Mowery D.C. Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. In Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy 2003, 219-258. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. W.M. Cohen, S.A. Merrill (Eds.).
35. Green J.R., Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND J. Econ. 1995, 26:20-33.
36. Grindley P.C., Teece D.J. Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif. Manage. Rev. 1997, 29:8-41.
37. Hall B.H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper No. w8498 2001, National Bureau of Economics Research, Cambridge, MA.
38. Hardymon F., Lerner J., Leamon A. Gold Hill Venture Lending. HBS Case 9-804-083 2005, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
39. Harhoff D., Reitzig M. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2004, 22(4):443-480.
40. Harhoff D., Wagner S. The duration of patent examination at the European Patent Office. Manag. Sci. 2009, 55(12):1969-1984.
41. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 2003, 32(8):1343-1363.
42. Henkel J., Reitzig M. Patent sharks and the sustainability of value destruction strategies. Working Paper 2010, (http://ssrn.com/abstract=985602. Last accessed May 2, 2011).
43. Hosie S. Patent trolls and the new tort reform: a practitioner's perspective. J. Law Policy Inf. Soc. 2008, 75:78-86.
44. Hustedde R.J., Pulver G.C. Factors affecting equity capital acquisition: the demand side. J. Bus. Ventur. 1992, 7:363-374.
45. Ibrahim D.M. Debt as venture capital. University of Illinois Law Review 2010 2010, 4:1169-1210.
46. Inderst R., Mueller H.M. A lender-based theory of collateral. J. Financ. Econ. 2007, 84(3):826-859.
47. Jaffe A.B., Lerner J. Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What To Do About It 2004, Princeton University Press, Princeton, PA.
48. King G., Zeng L. Logistic regression in rare events data. Polit. Anal. 2001, 9:137-163.
49. Lamoreaux N.R., Sokoloff K.L. Inventive activity and the market for technology in the United States, 1840-1920. NBER Working Paper No. w7107 1999, National Bureau of Economics Research, Cambridge, MA.
50. Lanjouw J., Schankerman M. Stylized facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership. NBER Working Paper No. 6297 1997, National Bureau of Economics Research, Cambridge, MA.
51. Lanjouw J.O., Pakes A., Putnam J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: uses of patent renewal and applications data. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, 46:405-432.
52. Lemley M.A., Shapiro C. Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Rev. 2007, 85:1991-2048.
53. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND J. Econ. 1994, 25(2):319-333.
54. Lipson J.C. Financing information technologies: fairness and function. Univ. Wis. Law Rev. 2001, 1067:1104-1122.
55. Magliocca G. Blackberries and barnyards: patent trolls and the perils of innovation. Notre Dame Law Rev. 2007, 82(5):1809-1838.
56. Mann R.J. Explaining the pattern of secured debt. Harv. Law Rev. 1997, 110(3):625-683.
57. Mann R.J. Secured credit and software financing. Cornell Law Rev. 1999, 85(1):134-188.
58. Mann R.J., Sager T.W. Patents, venture capital, and software start-ups. Res. Policy 2007, 36(2):193-208.
59. Martinez C. Insights into different types of patent families. OECD STI Working Paper 2010/2 2010.
60. McDonough J.F. The myth of the patent troll: an alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy. Emory Law J. 2006, 56:189-190.
61. Merges R.P., Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. C. Law Rev. 1990, 90:839-916.
62. Meyer M. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res. Policy 2000, 29(3):409-434.
63. Morgan M. Stop looking under the bridge for imaginary creatures: a comment examining who really deserves the title patent troll. Fed. Circ. Bar J. 2008, 17:165.
64. Munari F., Odasso M.C., Toschi L. Patent-backed finance. The Economic Valuation of Patents: Methods and Applications 2011, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK. F. Munari, R. Oriani (Eds.).
65. Narin F., Noma E. Is technology becoming science?. Scientometrics 1985, 7(3-6):369-381.
66. Narin F., Noma E., Perry R. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Res. Policy 1987, 16(2-4):143-155.
67. Narin F., Kimberly H.S., Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res. Policy 1997, 26(3):317-330.
68. Nordhaus W.D. The Optimal Life of a Patent 1967, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University, New Haven, CT.
69. OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities Using Patent Data as Science and Technology Indicators: Patent Manual 1994 1994, Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris.
70. Petersen M.A., Rajan R.G. The benefits of lending relationships: evidence from small business data. J. Financ. 1994, 49:3-37.
71. Prentice R.L., Pyke R. Logistic disease incident models and case-control studies. Biometrica 1979, 66:403-411.
72. Putnam J. The Value of International Patent Rights 1996, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
73. Reitzig M. What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry. Res. Policy 2003, 32(1):13-26.
74. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes - validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Res. Policy 2004, 33:939-957.
75. Reitzig M., Henkel J., Heath C.H. On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey - unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of 'being infringed'. Res. Policy 2007, 36(1):134-154.
76. Reitzig M., Henkel J., Schneider F. Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Ind. Corp. Change 2010, 19(3):947-967.
77. Scott A.J., Wild C.J. Fitting logistic models under case-control or choice-based sampling. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1997, 48(2):170-182.
78. Serrano C.J. The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents. RAND J. Econ. 2010, 41(4):686-708.
79. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, S. Stern (Eds.).
80. Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Liquidation values and debt capacity: a market equilibrium approach. J. Financ. 1992, 47(2):1343-1366.
81. Shresta S.K. Trolls or market-makers? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities. C. Law Rev. 2010, 110:114-160.
82. Smith C., Warner J.B. On financial contracting: an analysis of bond covenants. J. Financ. Econ. 1979, 7:117-161.
83. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 1986, 15(6):285-304.
84. Tomz M. Relogit (Stata file) (Last accessed May 2, 2011). http://www.stanford.edu/~tomz/software/software.shtml.
85. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econ. 1990, 21(1):172-187.
86. U.S.Federal Trade Commission To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy 2003, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
87. Ueda M. Banks versus venture capital: project evaluation, screening, and expropriation. J. Financ. 2004, 59(2):601-622.
88. Ughetto E. The financing of innovative activities by banking institutions: policy issues and regulatory options. Powerful Finance and Innovation Trends in a High-Risk Economy 2008, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, U.K. B. Laperche, D. Uzunidis (Eds.).
89. Van Zeebroeck N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B., Guellec D. Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Res. Policy 2009, 38(6):1006-1020.
90. Von Graevenitz G., Wagner S., Harhoff D. How to measure patent thickets - a novel approach. Econ. Lett. 2011, 111(1):6-9.
91. Von Graevenitz G., Wagner S., Harhoff D. Incidence and growth of patent thickets - the impact of technological opportunities and complexity. J. Ind. Econ. 2013, 61(3):521-563.
92. Ziedonis R. Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Manag. Sci. 2004, 50(6):804-820.
93. Zimmerer T.W., Sarborough N.M. Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management 2007, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 5th ed.