Determinants of patent citations in biotechnology: An analysis of patent influence across the industrial and organizational boundaries

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 91, Issue , 2015, Pages 208-221

  Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio ^a   Rotolo, Daniele ^b   Albino, Vito ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI BARI   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Determinants Industrial boundary; Organizational boundary; Patent influence

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY FIRMS; BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY; DETERMINANTS INDUSTRIAL BOUNDARY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES; PATENT INFLUENCE; SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; KNOWLEDGE; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84920178226     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.018     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Archibugi D., Michie J. The globalisation of technology: a new taxonomy. Camb. J. Econ. 1995, 19(1):121-140.
2. Birkinshaw J.M., Hamel G., Mol M.J. Management innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33(4):825-845.
3. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econ. 1990, 21(1):172-187.
4. Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Trajtenberg, Patents, Citations & Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy 2002, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
5. Ratanawaraha A., Polenske K.R. Measuring the geography of innovation: a literature review. The Economic Geography of Innovation 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. K.P. Polenske (Ed.).
6. Reitzig M., Puranam P. Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 30(7):765-789.
7. Bessen J. The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 2008, 37(5):932-945.
8. Chang S.-B. Using patent analysis to establish technological position: two different strategic approaches. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79(1):3-15.
9. Goldenberg D.H., Linton J.D. The patent paradox - new insights through decision support using compound options. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79(1):180-185.
10. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 2003, 32(8):1343.
11. Hall B.H., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econ. 2005, 36(1):16-38.
12. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Res. Policy 2004, 33(6-7):939-957.
13. Phene A., Fladmoe-Lindquist K., Marsh L. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27(4):369-388.
14. Rothaermel F.T., Boeker W. Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29:47-77.
15. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 1990, 28(4):1661-1707.
16. Daim T.U., Rueda G., Martin H., Gerdsri P. Forecasting emerging technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73(8):981-1012.
17. Schankerman M., Pakes A. Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. Econ. J. 1986, 96(384):1052-1076.
18. Lanjouw J.O., Pakes A., Putnam J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: the uses of patent renewal and application data. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, 46(4):405-432.
19. Gambardella A.A.G., Harhoff D.D.H., Verspagen B.B.V. The value of European patents. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2008, 5(2):69-84.
20. Arora A., Ceccagnoli M., Cohen W.M. R&D and the patent premium. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2008, 26(5):1153-1179.
21. Cattani G. Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and technological performance: a study on the evolution of fiber optics, 1970-1995. Organ. Sci. 2005, 16(6):563-580.
22. Lee C., Cho Y., Seol H., Park Y. A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79(1):16-29.
23. Rosenkopf L., Nerkar A. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22(4):287-306.
24. Albert M.B., Avery D., Narin F., McAllister P. Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Res. Policy 1991, 20(3):251-259.
25. Shane I. Patents citations as an indicator of the value of intangible assets in the semiconductor industry 1993, The Warthon School, Philadelphia, PA.
26. Giummo J. Should all patentable inventions receive equal protection? Identifying the sources of heterogeneity in patent value. Discussion Paper 2003, University of California, Berkeley.
27. Lanjouw J.O., Schankerman M. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND J. Econ. 2001, 32(1):129-151.
28. Alcacer J., Gittelman M., Sampat B. Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: an overview and analysis. Res. Policy 2009, 38(2):415-427.
29. Lampe R. Strategic citation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2012, 94(1):320-333.
30. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 1986, 15(6):285-305.
31. Griliches Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J. Econ. 1979, 10(1):92-116.
32. Freeman C., Soete L. The Economics of Industrial Innovation 1997, Pinter, London.
33. Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Res. Policy 1991, 20(1):1-12.
34. Fleming L., Sorenson O. Science as a map in technological search. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25(8-9):909-928.
35. Sapsalis E., Van Pottelsberghe B.D.L.P. The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2007, 16(2):139-157.
36. Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80(1):119-127.
37. Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., Ziedonis A.A. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Res. Policy 2001, 30(1):99-119.
38. Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F.M., Vopel K. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1999, 81(3):511-515.
39. Cassiman B., Veugelers R., Zuniga P. In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2008, 17(4):611-646.
40. Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47(1):117-132.
41. Nelson R., Winter S. Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change 1982, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
42. Stuart T.E., Podolny J.M. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17:21-38.
43. Singh J. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Res. Policy 2008, 37(1):77-96.
44. Capaldo A., Messeni Petruzzelli A. In search of alliance-level relational capabilities. Balancing innovation value creation and appropriability in R&D alliances. Scand. J. Manag. 2011, 27(3):273-286.
45. Argyres N.S., Silverman B.S. R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25(8-9):929-958.
46. O'Donoghue T., Scotchmer S., Thisse J.F. Patent breadth, patent life and the pace of technological progress. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 1998, 7(1):1-32.
47. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35(1):128-152.
48. Katz D., Kahn R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations 1996, Wiley.
49. Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
50. Becker W., Dietz J.r. R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms-evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Res. Policy 2004, 33(2):209-223.
51. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41(1):116-145.
52. Lavie D., Rosenkopf L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49(4):797-818.
53. Gomes-Casseres B., Hagedoorn J., Jaffe A.B. Do alliances promote knowledge flows?. J. Financ. Econ. 2006, 80(1):5-33.
54. Lavie D. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28(12):1187-1212.
55. Hagedoorn J. Sharing intellectual property rights: an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2003, 12(5):1035-1050.
56. Messeni Petruzzelli A. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: a joint-patent analysis. Technovation 2011, 31(7):309-319.
57. Hagedoorn J., Kranenburg H.v., Osborn R.N. Joint patenting amongst companies: exploring the effects of inter-firm R&D partnering and experience. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2003, 24(2-3):71-84.
58. Lanjouw J.O., Schankerman M. Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econ. J. 2004, 114(495):441-465.
59. Tong X., Frame J.D. Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Res. Policy 1994, 23(2):133-141.
60. Bonaccorsi A., Thoma G. Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Res. Policy 2007, 36(6):813-831.
61. Scotchmer S. Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991, 5(1):29-41.
62. Merges R.P., Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Rev. 1990, 90(4):839-916.
63. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND J. Econ. 1994, 25(2):319-333.
64. Shane S. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47(2):205.
65. Reinganum J.F. Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. Am. Econ. Rev. 1993, 73(4):741-748.
66. Abernathy W.J., Utterback J.M. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol. Rev. 1978, 80:97-107.
67. Barney J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17(1):99-121.
68. Lilien G.L., Yoon E. The timing of competitive market entry: an exploratory study of new industrial products. Manag. Sci. 1990, 36(5):568-585.
69. Reed R., Defillippi R.J. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1990, 15(1):88-102.
70. Schmalensee R. Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. Am. Econ. Rev. 1982, 72(3):349-365.
71. Carpenter G.S., Nakamoto K. Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. J. Mark. Res. 1989, 26(3):285-298.
72. Dewar R.D., Dutton J.E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32(11):1422-1433.
73. Suarez F., Lanzolla G. The role of environmental dynamics in building a theory of first-mover advantages. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32(2):377.
74. Messeni Petruzzelli A., Dangelico R.M., Rotolo D., Albino V. Organizational factors and technological features in the development of green innovations: evidence from patent analysis. Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 2011, 13(3):291-310.
75. Kalish S., Lilien G.L. A market entry timing model for new technologies. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32(2):194-205.
76. Agarwal R., Bayus B.L. The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48(8):1024-1041.
77. Pisano G.P. The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35(1):153-176.
78. Hopkins M.M., Martin P.A., Nightingale P., Kraft A., Mahdi S. The myth of the biotech revolution: an assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change. Res. Policy 2007, 36(4):566-589.
79. Sorensen J.B., Stuart T.E. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 2000, 45(1):81-112.
80. Young E. Global Biotechnology Report 2012 2012, Technology Group, San Francisco, CA.
81. Thumm N. Europe's construction of a patent system for biotechnological inventions: an assessment of industry views. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2002, 69(9):917-928.
82. Madeira L.S., Borschiver S., Pereira N. On the assignment of biopharmaceutical patents. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80(5):932-943.
83. Rothaermel F.T., Deeds D.L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25(3):201-221.
84. Beuzekom B.v., Arundel A. OECD Biotechnology Statistics 2009 2009, OECD, Paris.
85. Gittelman M. A note on the value of patents as indicators of innovation: implications for management research. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2008, 22(3):21-27.
86. Rothaermel F.T., Thursby M. The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Res. Policy 2007, 36(6):832-849.
87. Trajtenberg M. Economic Analysis of Product Innovation 1990, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
88. Messeni Petruzzelli A., Rotolo D., Albino V. The impact of old technologies on innovation: the case of the US biotechnology industry. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2012, 24(5):453-466.
89. Hall B.H., Thoma G., Torrisi S. The market value of patents and R&D: evidence from European firms. NBER Working Paper No. 13426 2007.
90. Narin F., Hamilton K.S., Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res. Policy 1997, 26(3):317-330.
91. Benner M., Waldfogel J. Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity. Res. Policy 2008, 37(9):1556-1567.
92. Park G., Park Y. On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73(7):793-812.
93. Hausman J.A., Hall B.H., Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 1984, 52(4):902-938.
94. Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
95. Gittelman M. Does geography matter for science-based firms? Epistemic communities and the geography of research and patenting in biotechnology. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18(4):724-741.
96. Koput K.W. A chaotic model of innovative search: some answers, many questions. Organ. Sci. 1997, 8(5):528-542.
97. Rothaermel F.T., Alexandre M.T. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20(4):759-780.
98. Zidorn W., Wagner M. The effect of alliances on innovation patterns: an analysis of the biotechnology industry. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2012, 22(6):1497-1524.
99. Tushman M.L., Rosenkopf L. Organizational determinants of technological change: towards a sociology of technological evolution. Res. Organ. Behav. 1992, 14:311-347.