Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Creating value through external intellectual property commercialization: a desorptive capacity view

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In open innovation systems, capturing value through external intellectual property (IP) commercialization is an increasingly important strategy for firms to keep pace with competitive changes. However, many firms have major difficulties in creating value through external patent exploitation. To understand these challenges, this paper explores how firms manage their external patent exploitation based on a multiple case study research design with fourteen firms from the pharmaceutical and chemical industry. Adopting a desorptive capacity perspective we find four main factors influencing the firms’ management of external patent exploitation: the type of value creation, the organizational structure, the locus of initiative, and the extent of know-how transfer along with the patent. Based on these factors, three archetypes of external patent exploitation with different levels of desorptive capacity are identified. The article extends the concept of desorptive capacity and existing literature on intellectual property management in the context of open innovation. Managerial implications helping firms to implement external IP commercialization structures are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2009). Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Fosfuri, A. (2000). The market for technology in the chemical industry: Causes and consequences. Revue d’économie industrielle, 92(2+3), 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 419–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 775–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benassi, M., & Di Minin, A. (2009). Playing in between: Patent brokers in markets for technology. R&D Management, 39(1), 68–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Chiesa, V. (2011a). Organisational modes for open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An exploratory analysis. Technovation, 31(1), 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011b). Organizing for external technology commercialization: Evidence from a multiple case study in the pharmaceutical industry. R&D Management, 41(2), 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., Dumitriu, M., Glass, J., Nard, C., & Barrett, R. (2008). Intellectual property (IP) management: Organizational processes and structures, and the role of IP donations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 549–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 127–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or Not). NBER Working Paper, wp 7552.

  • Davis, J. S., & Harrison, S. S. (2001). Edison in the Boardroom: How leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. (2004). Intellectual property rights, strategy and policy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(5), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhardt, M. (2004). Network effects, standardization and competitive strategy: How companies influence the emergence of dominant designs. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2/3), 272–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, J. J., Shah, B. R., & Voyzey, J. N. (2002). Intellectual property: Partnering for profit. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, T., & Feldman, R. (2012). The giants among us. Stanford Technology Law Review, 1, 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. H. (1996). Industry clockspeed and competency chain design: An introduction essay. In Proceedings of the 1996 manufacturing and service operations management conference. Hanover: Dartmouth College.

  • Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class—And it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A. (1995). Science and innovation: The US pharmaceutical industry during the 1980s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., & Luzzi, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36(8), 1163–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36, 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 3(40), 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., & Reepmeyer, G. (2005). Organizing pharmaceutical innovation: From science-based knowledge creators to drug-oriented knowledge brokers. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 233–245. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00344.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, P., Mariani, M., Brusoni, S., Crespi, G., Francoz, D., Gambardella, A., et al. (2007). Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy, 36(8), 1107–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (2000). The economics and management of intellectual property: Towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (2004). The economics and management of technology trade: Towards a pro-licensing era? International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2), 209–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilhon, B. (Ed.). (2001). Technology and markets for knowledge: Knowledge creation, diffusion and exchange within a growing economy (Vol. 22, Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation). Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harabi, N. (1995). Appropriability of technical innovations: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 24(6), 981–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Determinants of technology licensing: The case of licensors. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(4), 235–249. doi:10.1002/mde.1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, D. (2003). Sharing the corporate crown jewels. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koruna, S. M. (2004). External technology commercialisation—Policy guidelines. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutvonen, A. (2011). Strategic application of outbound open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 460–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutvonen, A., Torkkeli, M. T., & Lin, B. (2010). Pre-commercialisation activities in external exploitation of technology. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 8(2), 208–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: Review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2007). The drivers of technology licensing: An industry comparison. California Management Review, 49(4), 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: Examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). The evolution of technology licensing management: Identifying five strategic approaches. R&D Management, 41(2), 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2008). Intermediary services in the markets for technology: Organizational antecedents and performance consequences. Organization Studies, 29(7), 1003–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H., & Hoegl, M. (2010). Not-sold-here: How attitudes influence external knowledge exploitation. Organization Science, 21(5), 1054–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2010). Technology transfer across organizational boundaries: Absorptive capacity and desorptive capacity. California Management Review, 53(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., Lichtenthaler, E., & Frishammar, J. (2009). Technology commercialization intelligence: Organizational antecedents and performance consequences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(3), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(2), 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Hubermann, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, A. (2009). The emerging market for intellectual property: Drivers, restrainers, and implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4), 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomeras, N. (2007). An analysis of pure-revenue technology licensing. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(4), 971–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkethly, R. H. (2001). Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: Patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy, 30(3), 425–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razgaitis, R. (2004). U.S./Canadian licensing in 2003: Survey results. Les Nouvelles, 34(4), 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (2000). Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruether, F. (2012). Patent aggregating companies: Their strategies, activities, and options for producing companies. Doctoral Thesis. St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen.

  • Teece, D. J. (1981). The market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. P., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thumm, N. (2001). Management of intellectual property rights in European biotechnology firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67(2–3), 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, B., Jackson, S., & Kempner, R. (2008). Managing generic competition and patent strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 3(4), 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Nicole Ziegler

  2. Institute of Technology Management, University of St. Gallen, Dufourstrasse 40a, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Frauke Ruether, Martin A. Bader & Oliver Gassmann

Authors
  1. Nicole Ziegler
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frauke Ruether
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin A. Bader
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oliver Gassmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Ziegler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ziegler, N., Ruether, F., Bader, M.A. et al. Creating value through external intellectual property commercialization: a desorptive capacity view. J Technol Transf 38, 930–949 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9305-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9305-z

Keywords

JEL Classification