Cost‐Reducing Innovation and the Role of Patent Intermediaries in Increasing Market Efficiency

Patent intermediaries have gained importance as non-practicing entities in the innovation domain, buying innovations from an external provider and then licensing them to practicing firms. In this study, we analyze the competition between two identical incumbent firms and a patent intermediary for the acquisition and licensing of a cost-reducing innovation developed by an external innovator. We show that the outcome of the IP acquisition and licensing game critically depends on the degree of the cost-reducing innovation. Patent intermediaries win IP rights in patent markets if the innovation is incremental. They also win the IP rights when the innovation is moderate or radical, providing they have significant efficiency advantages over incumbent firms and the uncertainty about the degree of innovation is low. We also show that patent intermediaries serve to make markets more efficient. When the innovation is incremental or moderate, they help ensure a lower cost of production and a lower price for customers, and when the innovation is radical, they help increase the profits of the incumbent firms.

[1]  Andrea Fosfuri The Licensing Dilemma: Understanding the Determinants of the Rate of Technology Licensing , 2006 .

[2]  Y. Tauman,et al.  Optimal licensing of cost-reducing innovation , 1992 .

[3]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis Don't Fence Me in: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 2—Spring 2005—Pages 75–98 Probabilistic Patents , 2022 .

[5]  Stephen M. Gilbert,et al.  Implications of Channel Structure for Leasing or Selling Durable Goods , 2009, Mark. Sci..

[6]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed” , 2007 .

[7]  C. Tam,et al.  Cost-Reducing Innovation Collaboration in Supply Chain Management , 2007, 2007 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing.

[8]  Nicos Savva,et al.  Opt‐Out Options in New Product Co‐development Partnerships , 2014 .

[9]  James Bessen,et al.  The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls , 2011 .

[10]  Stuart J.H. Graham,et al.  Why Do Start-Ups Patent? , 2008 .

[11]  Sudheer Gupta,et al.  Research Note - Channel Structure with Knowledge Spillovers , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[12]  Ashish Arora,et al.  Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Yi Xu,et al.  The Impact of Royalty Contract Revision in a Multistage Strategic R&D Alliance , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[14]  K. Leffler,et al.  Transactions Costs and the Efficient Organization of Production: A Study of Timber-Harvesting Contracts , 1991, Journal of Political Economy.

[15]  M. Reitzig,et al.  Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology , 2010 .

[16]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992 , 2002 .

[17]  M. Ceccagnoli Appropriability, Preemption, and Firm Performance , 2007 .

[18]  Peter R. Dickson,et al.  Getting Return on Quality: Revenue Expansion, Cost Reduction, or Both? , 2002 .

[19]  B. RenÃ,et al.  Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance , 2004 .

[20]  Bowon Kim,et al.  Coordinating an innovation in supply chain management , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Anne Layne-Farrar,et al.  Elves or trolls? The role of non-practicing patent owners in the innovation economy , 2012 .

[22]  Lihui Lin,et al.  Impact of Licensing on Investment and Financing of Technology Development , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  What's Experience Got to Do With It? Sources of Cost Reduction in a Large Specialty Chemicals Producer , 2000 .

[24]  Yi Xu,et al.  Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[25]  Sanjiv Erat,et al.  Introduction of New Technologies to Competing Industrial Customers , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Tarun Kabiraj Patent Licensing in a Leadership Structure , 2004 .

[27]  Sandra Rothenberg,et al.  Suppliers and Environmental Innovation: The Automotive Paint Process , 2000 .

[28]  Y. Tauman,et al.  Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent , 1986 .

[29]  Stylianos Kavadias,et al.  A Theoretical Framework for Managing the New Product Development Portfolio: When and How to Use Strategic Buckets , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[30]  X. Wang,et al.  Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model , 1998 .

[31]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice? , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[32]  Sudheer Gupta,et al.  Process Innovation, Product Differentiation, and Channel Structure: Strategic Incentives in a Duopoly , 1998 .

[33]  Fred M. Gerguras Intellectual property protection in the USA , 1987 .

[34]  Ashby H. B. Monk The Emerging Market for Intellectual Property: Drivers, Restrainers, and Implications , 2008 .

[35]  Roberto Mazzoleni,et al.  How Do University Inventions Get into Practice ? , 2000 .

[36]  Allen W. Wang Rise of the Patent Intermediaries , 2010 .

[37]  Julie A. Hedlund Patents Pending: Patent Reform for the Innovation Economy , 2007 .

[38]  Sanjiv Erat,et al.  Managing Delegated Search Over Design Spaces , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[39]  Fernando Bernstein,et al.  Dynamic Cost Reduction Through Process Improvement in Assembly Networks , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[40]  Praveen Kumar,et al.  Optimal Patenting and Licensing of Financial Innovations , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[41]  Stephen M. Gilbert,et al.  Strategic interactions between channel structure and demand enhancing services , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[42]  Ulrich Lichtenthaler,et al.  The role of innovation intermediaries in the markets for technology , 2011 .

[43]  Ron Adner,et al.  Disruptive Technologies and the Emergence of Competition , 2003 .

[44]  Yair Tauman,et al.  General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation , 2007, Games Econ. Behav..

[45]  David B. Yoffie,et al.  The New Patent Intermediaries: Platforms, Defensive Aggregators and Super-Aggregators , 2013 .

[46]  Scott Shane,et al.  The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[47]  Michael L. Katz,et al.  On the licensing of innovations , 1985 .

[48]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology - An Empirical Analysis of Trolls' Patent Acquisitions , 2010 .