Abstract
Since the relationship between patents and Tobin’s q is confusing, this paper utilizes panel threshold regression model to re-examine the relationship between patent counts/sales and Tobin’s q. This study finds out patent citations/sales has a single threshold effect on the relationship between patent counts/sales and Tobin’s q in the US pharmaceutical industry. The single threshold value of patent citations/sales is 328.81, and it divides the value of patent citations/sales into two regimes: the first regime (patent citations/sale ≦ 328.81) and the second regime (patent citations/sale > 328.81). The results indicate that patent counts/sales positively affect Tobin’s q in the two regimes. In addition, this study demonstrates that the extent of the positive effect of patent counts/sales on Tobin’s q is different. This study verifies that patent citations/sales moderates the relationship between patent counts/sales and Tobin’s q. Once patent citations/sales is below the threshold value, the extent of the positive relationship between patent counts/sales and Tobin’s q is the most. Therefore, this study finds out that the first regime is optimal.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bhat, V. N. (2005). Patent term extension strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals Policy & Law, 6(1), 109–122.
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. Economic Journal, 112(478), 97–116.
Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Review of Economic Studies, 66(228), 529–554.
Bosworth, D., & Rogers, M. (2001). Market value, R&D and intellectual property: An empirical analysis of large Australian firms. Economic Record, 77(239), 323–337.
Brockhoff, K. (1991). Competitor technology intelligence in German companies. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(2), 91–98.
Brown, M. G., & Svenson, R. A. (1988). Measuring R&D productivity. Research Technology Management, 31(4), 11–15.
Cardinal, L. B., & Hatfield, D. E. (2000). Internal knowledge generation: The research laboratory and innovative productivity in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3–4), 247–271.
Chan, K. S. (1993). Consistency and limiting distribution of the least squares estimator of a threshold autoregressive model. The Annals of Statistics, 21, 520–533.
Chan, K. S., & Tsay, R. S. (1998). Limiting properties of the least squares estimator of a continuous threshold autoregressive model. Biometrika, 85, 413–426.
Chen, Y.-S. (2011). Using patent analysis to explore corporate growth. Scientometrics, 88(2), 433–448.
Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2009). Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies. Scientometrics, 80(3), 637–655.
Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2010a). Analyzing the nonlinear effects of firm size, profitability, and employee productivity on patent citations of the US pharmaceutical companies by using artificial neural network. Scientometrics, 82(1), 75–82.
Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2010b). Exploring the nonlinear effects of patent citations, patent share, and relative patent position on market value in the US pharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(2), 153–169.
Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2010c). The nonlinear nature of the relationships between the patent traits and corporate performance. Scientometrics, 82(1), 201–210.
Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2010d). The relationship between a firm’s patent quality and its market value—the case of US pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 20–33.
Chen, Y.-S., & Chen, B.-Y. (2011). Utilizing patent analysis to explore the cooperative competition relationship of the two LED companies: Nichia and Osram. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 294–302.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Patents, priority and imitation or, the economics of races and waiting games. Economic Journal, 98(389), 66–80.
Davies, R. B. (1977). Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika, 64, 247–254.
Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 20–32.
Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 14(5), 375–393.
Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(4), 279–308.
Ernst, H. (1999). Evaluation of dynamic technological developments by means of patent data. In K. Brockhoff, A. K. Chakrabarti, & J. Hauschildt (Eds.), The dynamics of innovation: Strategic and managerial implications. Berlin: Springer Corporation.
Ernst, H. (2001). Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: Evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, 30(1), 143–157.
Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233–242.
Ganguli, P. (2003). Global pharmaceutical industry: Intellectual wealth and asset protection. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(3/4), 284–313.
Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. G. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526.
Griliches, Z. (1981). Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters, 7, 183–187.
Griliches, Z. (1987). R&D and productivity: Measurement issues and econometric results. Science, 237(4810), 31–35.
Griliches, Z., Hall, B. H., & Pakes, A. (1991). R&D, patents, and market value revisited: Is there a second (technological opportunity) factor? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1(3), 183–201.
Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.
Hall, B. H. (1993). The stock market’s valuation of R&D investment during the 1980’s. American Economic Review, 83(2), 259–264.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.
Hansen, B. E. (1996). Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis. Econometrica, 64, 413–430.
Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345–368.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.
Hirschey, M. (1982). Intangible capital aspects of advertising and R&D expenditures. Journal of Industrial Economics, 30(4), 375–390.
Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2001). Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and U.S. firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9(1), 65–82.
Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107.
Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market values. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.
Jensen, E. J. (1987). Research expenditures and the discovery of new drugs. Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(1), 83–95.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.
Lee, Y. G., Lee, J. D., Song, Y. I., & Lee, S. J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(1), 27–39.
Lindenberg, E. B., & Ross, S. A. (1981). Tobin’s q ratio and industrial organization. Journal of Business, 54(1), 1–32.
Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(2), 173–181.
Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., & Wagner, S. (1981). Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Economic Journal, 91(364), 907–918.
Mossinghoff, G. J., & Bembelles, T. (1996). The importance of intellectual property protection to the American research-intensive pharmaceutical industry. Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(1), 38–48.
Schankerman, M., & Pakes, A. (1986). Estimates of the value of patent rights in European Countries during the post-1950 period. Economic Journal, 96(384), 1052–1076.
Slaughter, D. (2002). Patenting activity as an indicator of revenue growth: Five industries. Patent Journal, 1(7), 4–10.
Tong, H. (1983). Threshold models in non-linear time series analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag Press.
Tancer, R. S. (1995). Trends in worldwide intellectual property protection: The case of the pharmaceutical patent. The International Executive, 37(2), 147–166.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.
Toivanen, O., Stoneman, P., & Bosworth, D. (2002). Innovation and the market value of UK Firms, 1989–1995. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(1), 39–61.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.
Trajtenberg, M. (2001). Innovation in Israel 1968–1997: A comparative analysis using patent data. Research Policy, 30(3), 363–389.
Yang, C.-H., & Chen, J.-R. (2003). Innovation and market value in newly-industrialized countries: The case of Taiwanese electronics firms. Asian Economic Journal, 17(2), 205–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, YS., Shih, CY. Re-examine the relationship between patents and Tobin’s q. Scientometrics 89, 781–794 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0471-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0471-1