The impact of partners’ technological diversification in joint patenting: A study on firm-PRO collaborations

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand if and how the technological diversifications of collaborating firms and public research organisations (PROs) affect the technological impact of the resulting joint-patented innovations. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct an analysis on a database of 590 dyadic joint patents, assigned to both firms and PROs, registered from 1976 to 2010 to the US Patent and Trademark Office and belonging to green technological classes, as defined by the International Patent Classification green inventory. Findings The study reveals that the assignees’ technological diversification has a significant influence on the impact of the patents jointly developed. Indeed, the results show that the most impactful joint patents result from collaborations involving technologically diversified firms. Research limitations/implications This research sheds further light on the establishment of R&D collaborations between firms and PROs to jointly innovate. Specifically, it provides a novel perspective to investigate the impact of joint patents, by focussing on the assignees’ technological profile. Practical implications The present work suggests that firms characterised by a higher degree of technological diversification are more likely to co-develop patent of higher technological impact, as resulting from collaboration with PROs. Originality/value This study investigates the factors affecting the impact of joint patents resulting from collaborations between firms and PROs. In particular, the present research focusses on the effect of a relevant characteristic of the partners, such as their technological diversification.

[1]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  Investigating the determinants of patent acquisition in biotechnology: an empirical analysis , 2015, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[2]  Keyvan Vakili,et al.  The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation , 2013 .

[3]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[4]  V. Albino,et al.  Search and Recombination Process to Innovate: A Review of the Empirical Evidence and a Research Agenda , 2017 .

[5]  Pier Paolo Saviotti,et al.  Coherence of the Knowledge Base and the Firm's Innovative Performance: Evidence from the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry , 2005 .

[6]  Chinho Lin,et al.  The effect of technological diversification on organizational performance: An empirical study of S&P 500 manufacturing firms , 2015 .

[7]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 2004 .

[8]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[9]  D. Gann,et al.  How open is innovation , 2010 .

[10]  Laura B. Cardinal,et al.  The Use of Knowledge for Technological Innovation Within Diversified Firms , 2007 .

[11]  Kimberly S. Hamilton,et al.  The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science , 1997 .

[12]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis , 2011 .

[13]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  Industry–academia collaboration in fuel cells: a perspective from paper and patent analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[14]  R. Filippini,et al.  Does patenting influence SME sales performance? A quantity and quality analysis of patents in Northern Italy , 2015 .

[15]  Christopher Williams,et al.  R&D Subsidiary Isolation in Knowledge-Intensive Industries: Evidence from Austria , 2009 .

[16]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[17]  J. Cantwell,et al.  Accumulating technological competence: its changing impact on corporate diversification and internationalization , 2000 .

[18]  O. W. Maietta,et al.  Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry , 2015 .

[19]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  Investigating the antecedents of general purpose technologies , 2016 .

[20]  Einar Rasmussen,et al.  How firms collaborate with public research organizations : The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects , 2016 .

[21]  Rachelle C. Sampson.  R&D Alliances and Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation , 2007 .

[22]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology , 2007 .

[23]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach , 1999 .

[24]  F. Kodama,et al.  Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: Two case studies of large Japanese firms , 2004 .

[25]  Chinho Lin,et al.  The alliance innovation performance of R&D alliances—the absorptive capacity perspective , 2012 .

[26]  Jeong-Dong Lee,et al.  An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST , 2007, Scientometrics.

[27]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[28]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Conveying Quality and Value in Emerging Industries: Star Scientists and the Role of Learning in Biotechnology , 2008 .

[30]  B. Looy,et al.  Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property: Exploring the Value-Appropriation and Value-Creation Implications of Co-Patenting with Different Partners , 2013 .

[31]  M. Trajtenberg.  A Penny for Your Quotes : Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations , 1990 .

[32]  R. Katila,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION , 2002 .

[33]  R. Veugelers,et al.  R&D Cooperation between Firms and Universities: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing , 2003 .

[34]  Daniele Rotolo,et al.  Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations , 2015 .

[35]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  Traces of Prior Art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents , 2006, Scientometrics.

[36]  Niels Noorderhaven,et al.  External Technology Sourcing Through Alliances or Acquisitions: An Analysis of the Application-Specific Integrated Circuits Industry , 2002 .

[37]  Manuel Acosta,et al.  Does technological diversification spur university patenting? , 2018 .

[38]  Marko Kohtamäki,et al.  Joint Learning in Innovative R&D Collaboration , 2016 .

[39]  Sarah Kaplan,et al.  The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation: The Double-Edged Sword of Recombination , 2015 .

[40]  Ove Granstrand,et al.  Towards a theory of the technology-based firm 1 Paper originally presented at the workshop on `Techn , 1998 .

[41]  C. A. Benavides-Velasco,et al.  Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification , 2008 .

[42]  Lara Agostini,et al.  R&D collaboration in the automotive innovation environment: An analysis of co-patenting activities , 2015 .

[43]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[44]  Gregory F. Nemet,et al.  Inter-technology knowledge spillovers for energy technologies , 2012 .

[45]  Kristie Briggs,et al.  Co-owner relationships conducive to high quality joint patents , 2015 .

[46]  J. Hagedoorn.  Sharing intellectual property rights - an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies. , 2003 .

[47]  Show-Ling Jang,et al.  Measuring technological diversification: identifying the effects of patent scale and patent scope , 2010, Scientometrics.

[48]  M. Tushman,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations , 2010 .

[49]  Bart van Looy,et al.  Technological Diversification, Coherence and Performance of Firms , 2007 .

[50]  O. Granstrand,et al.  Technological and corporate diversification , 2004 .

[51]  Mark Funk.  Patent sharing by US universities: an examination of university joint patenting , 2013 .

[52]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[53]  A. Salter,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University–Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom , 2011 .

[54]  J. Lerner.  The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis , 1994 .

[55]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[56]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies , 2001 .

[57]  Shai Bernstein.  Does Going Public Affect Innovation? , 2012 .

[58]  R. Gulati.  Alliances and networks , 1998 .

[59]  Ajay Agrawal,et al.  Have university knowledge flows narrowed?: Evidence from patent data , 2009 .

[60]  Ove Granstrand,et al.  Technology diversification in "MUL-TECH" corporations , 1994 .

[61]  S. Shane,et al.  Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination of academically sourced inventions , 2007 .

[62]  S. Sedita,et al.  How Do Collaborations with Universities Affect Firms' Innovative Performance? The Role of "Pasteur Scientists" in the Advanced Materials Field , 2009 .

[63]  Hei-Chia Wang,et al.  Effects of firm size and geographical proximity on different models of interaction between university and firm: A case study , 2015 .

[64]  Dovev Lavie,et al.  Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[65]  Roland Ortt,et al.  Cooperating with technologically (dis)similar alliance partners: the influence of the technology life cycle and the impact on innovative and market performance , 2015, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[66]  F. Malerba,et al.  Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification , 2003 .

[67]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[68]  V. Oltra,et al.  Determinants and Specificities of Eco-Innovations Compared to Other Innovations—An Econometric Analysis for the French and German Industry Based on the Community Innovation Survey , 2013 .

[69]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[70]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[71]  Denisa Mindruta,et al.  Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach , 2013 .

[72]  Jasjit Singh.  Distributed R&D, Cross-Regional Knowledge Integration and Quality of Innovative Output , 2006 .

[73]  Kira R. Fabrizio,et al.  The Use of University Research in Firm Innovation , 2006 .

[74]  María García‐Vega.  Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms , 2006 .

[75]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .