nep-ipr New Economics Papers
on Intellectual Property Rights
Issue of 2008‒04‒15
twelve papers chosen by
Roland Kirstein
Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg

  1. A Policy Insight into the R&D-Patent Relationship By Gaétan de Rassenfosse; Bruno van Pottelsberghe
  2. Delays in International Patent Application Outcomes By Paul H. Jensen; Alfons Palangkaraya; Julia Witt
  3. Application Pendency Times and Outcomes across Four Patent Offices By Paul H. Jensen; Alfons Palangkaraya; Elizabeth Webster
  4. Collaborative Research in India: Academic Institution v/s Industry By Neeraj Parnami, Neeraj Parnami; Bandyopadhyay, T.K.
  5. Technology and intellectual property: a taxonomy of contemporary markets for knowledge and their implications for development By Mario Cimoli; Annalisa Primi
  6. Timing of innovation policies when carbon emissions are restricted: an applied general equilibrium analysis By Tom-Reiel Heggedal and Karl Jacobsen
  7. How can we Study Innovation Systems? - introducing an actor-centralised perspective By Broström, Anders
  8. Understanding Perpetual R&D Races By Yves Breitmoser; Jonathan H.W. Tan; Daniel John Zizzo
  9. Why Are Companies Offshoring Innovation? The Emerging Global Race for Talent By Arie Y. Lewin; Silvia Massini; Carine Peeters
  10. Building dynamic capabilities in product development: the role of knowledge management By ELENA REVILLA
  11. Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: empirical evidence for earlier claims By Marko P. Hekkert; Simona O. Negro
  12. From Royal Academy of Science to Reserach Institute of Society - long term policy convergence of Swedish Knowledge intermediaries By Kaiserfeld, Thomas

  1. By: Gaétan de Rassenfosse (Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Business School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels and ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels and ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.); Bruno van Pottelsberghe (Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Business School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels and DULBEA, Université Libre de Bruxelles and ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.)
    Abstract: This paper investigates whether patent counts can be taken as indicators of macroeconomic innovation performance. The empirical model explicitly accounts for the two components of patenting output: research productivity and patent propensity. The empirical analysis aims at explaining the `correct' number of priority filings in 34 countries. It confirms that the two components play a substantial role as witnessed by the impact of the design of several policies, namely education, intellectual property and science and technology policies. A major policy implication relates to the design of patent systems, which ultimately induces, or allows for, aggressive patenting strategies.
    Keywords: education policy; patent policy; propensity to patent; R&D productivity; S&T policy.
    JEL: O30 O38
    Date: 2008–03
  2. By: Paul H. Jensen (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne); Alfons Palangkaraya (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne); Julia Witt (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne)
    Abstract: One component of the duration of pending patents – why applicants choose to delay the examination process – is modelled. We use a matched sample of 9,597 patent applications. Controlling for differences between patent offices, we find evidence of strategic behaviour by applicants.
    Keywords: Patent examinations; Patent pendency; Strategic behavior
    JEL: O31 O34
    Date: 2007–11
  3. By: Paul H. Jensen (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne); Alfons Palangkaraya (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne); Elizabeth Webster (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne)
    Abstract: This paper describes two dimensions of the international patenting process: application outcomes and pendency periods using matched samples of patent applications filed at the Australian Patent Office (APO), the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO). The evidence suggests that there are substantial differences across international patent agencies. For example, Japan only grants 40 per cent of those applications that are granted by both the APO and the USPTO (although a large proportion of applications at the JPO are withdrawn). Compared to the other offices, the APO is the closest to the USPTO in terms of the relative proportion of patents granted. Furthermore, the time taken to examine an application (i.e. after the request to examine has been made by the applicant) is on average shortest at the APO (approximately 14 months) and longest at the EPO (approximately 42 months). We argue that these findings are somewhat alarming because of their potential effects on the uncertainty faced by patent applicants, especially when it is linked to the overall rate of innovative activity.
    Date: 2008–04
  4. By: Neeraj Parnami, Neeraj Parnami; Bandyopadhyay, T.K.
    Abstract: The term ‘collaboration’ is used to depict the all forms of agreement between academic institutions, corporate, universities, and any combination of such two or more parties who share the commitment to reach a common goal by using their resources available. Collaboration in Research and development (R&D) sector has been broadly used phenomenon for many years in India. In the collaborative research, the significant factors like time & cost being reduced to large extent because of sharing of the resources by the parties. Collaborative research contributes to the technological and economical development of the country. Collaboration avoids duplication in research. But there are lots of questions, may be arising in your mind like: what is actual meaning of collaborative research? Why do industries collaborate with the academic institutions? What goes on in the collaborative research? What are the effects of collaborative research? Which type of policy do they have? and simultaneously there are lots of issues - involved in collaborative research like intellectual property rights, technology licensing, confidential agreement etc. how can all these issues be resolved before or during collaboration, so that a healthy relationship may be established for the future benefits of all the parties involved? The purpose of writing this paper is to shed the light on the solutions available of all these questions and the issues arise between the parties involved in the collaborative research program.
    Keywords: Collaborative research; Intellectual property; Academic institution; Issues; University; Licensing; Industry; Driving force.
    JEL: A12 D89 I28 K11 A11
    Date: 2008–02–10
  5. By: Mario Cimoli; Annalisa Primi
    Abstract: This paper aims to contribute to frame the IP for development debate into a more extensive discussion on appropriability, within the perspective of policies shaping scientific, technological and production capabilities in the light of development theory. Through the lenses of the paradigm based theory of innovation, the authors first recognize that technological asymmetries and gaps between firms and countries appear more as sticky features than as transitory stages of (automatic) adjustment processes, thus reassessing the appropriability ad disclosure function of patents. Then, the paper presents a taxonomy of contemporary markets for knowledge, flagging the existence of what we call derivative markets for knowledge. Patents become to a certain extent liquid because they loose the weight and the density of the technological component and they can easily circulate in the market without having necessarily to be entangled in any final artifact. Just as in derivative financial markets, the value of patents is a function of expectations regarding their uncertain potential future value. The paper concludes sketching the implications for development focusing on two major issues: i) how reassessing the role of IP through an evolutionary perspective affects behavioral microfoundations of innovative conducts and ii) how asymmetries in technological and production capacities between countries mould patenting behavior and participation and exclusion in the contemporary markets for knowledge.
    Keywords: intellectual property rights, patents, appropriability, markets for knowledge, developing countries
    Date: 2008–03–30
  6. By: Tom-Reiel Heggedal and Karl Jacobsen (Statistics Norway)
    Abstract: This paper studies the timing of subsidies for environmental research and development (R&D) and how innovation policy is influenced by the costs of emissions. We use a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model with both general R&D and specific environmental R&D. We find two results that are important when subsidizing environmental R&D in order to target inefficiencies in the research markets. Firstly, the welfare gain from subsidies is larger when the costs of emissions are higher. This is because a high carbon tax increases the social (efficient) investment in environmental R&D, in excess of the private investment in R&D. Secondly, the welfare gain is greater when there is a falling time profile of the rate of subsidies for environmental R&D, rather than a constant or increasing profile. The reason is that the innovation externalities are larger in early periods.
    Keywords: Applied general equilibrium; endogenous growth; research and development; carbon emissions.
    JEL: E62 H31 O38 Q55
    Date: 2008–04
  7. By: Broström, Anders (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: The systems of innovation approach has helped advocating a view on innovation as dependent on the interaction over time between different actors and brought the role of institutions to the center of interest. However, the approach has remained a general framework rather than evolved into an analytical tool for the study of the dynamics of innovation activities. In this discussion paper, we introduce the concept of innovation system services, defined as the set of factors that have a significant potential influence on the opportunities of a certain groups of actors to perform a certain type of activities efficiently. We suggest that the relevant innovation system for the actors-activities nexus at hand can be defined as this set of system services. We examine this analytical framework in a case study on R&D investments of multinational enterprises in Sweden. In this context, innovation system services are defined as the set of external factors that the case study suggests to have significant impact on the decisions of MNEs to invest in R&D in Sweden. The focus on services allows us to analyse the influence of an innovation system on the long-term development of R&D in Sweden in a structured and coherent manner and to identify critical dynamics.
    Keywords: innovation systems; R&D collaboration; multinational enterprises; innovation in services
    JEL: D29 O31 O32
    Date: 2008–04–02
  8. By: Yves Breitmoser (Institute of Microeconomics, European University Viadrina); Jonathan H.W. Tan (Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham); Daniel John Zizzo (School of Economics, University of East Anglia)
    Abstract: This paper presents an experimental study of dynamic indefinite horizon R&D races with uncertainty and multiple prizes. The theoretical predictions are highly sensitive: small parameter changes determine whether technological competition is sustained, or converges into a market structure with an entrenched leadership and lower aggregate R&D. The subjects’ strategies are far less sensitive. In most treatments, the R&D races tend to converge to entrenched leadership. Investment is highest when rivals are close. This stylized fact, and so the usefulness of neck-to-neck competition in general, is largely unrelated to rivalry concerns but can be explained using a quantal response extension of Markov perfection.
    Keywords: R&D race; innovation; dynamics; experiment.
    JEL: C72 C91 O31
    Date: 2008–03
  9. By: Arie Y. Lewin (Duke University – The Fuqua School of Business, US.); Silvia Massini (Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK.); Carine Peeters (Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Business School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels and ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.)
    Abstract: This paper empirically studies the determinants of firms’ decision to offshore product development activities (i.e. R&D, product design and engineering services). A logit model is estimated using survey data from the Offshoring Research Network on offshore implementations initiated by US firms between 1990 and 2006. It relates the probability of offshoring product development to differences in companies’ strategic objectives (managerial intentionality), past experience (path dependence), and in environmental factors. The results show that offshoring of product development is partially explained by the emerging shortage of high skilled technical talent in the US, which drives the need to access talent globally. The data also suggest that firms use offshore cost savings opportunities to improve the efficiency of the innovation process, although not through labor arbitrages. Finally, increasing speed to market is another major reason underlying product development offshoring decisions.
    Keywords: offshoring, innovation, product development, global talent.
    JEL: O32
    Date: 2008–03
  10. By: ELENA REVILLA (Instituto de Empresa)
    Abstract: This paper contributes to the clarification of the connections between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities in the context of product development to see how they explain product development competences. Building on the knowledge management and dynamic capabilities literatures, the paper argues that the social side of knowledge management has a role to play as enabler of dynamic capabilities in the context of product development. Further, dynamic capabilities shape product development competences. Empirical evidence is provided by performing survey research with data collected from 80 product development projects developed in Spain.
    Keywords: Capabilities , Knowledge management, Organizational knowledge
    Date: 2008–03
  11. By: Marko P. Hekkert; Simona O. Negro
    Abstract: Understanding the emergence of innovation systems is recently put central in research analysing the process of technological change. Especially the key-activities that are important for the build up of an innovation system receive much attention. These are labeled ‘functions of innovation systems’. In most cases the authors apply this framework without questioning its validity. This paper builds on five empirical studies, related to renewable energy technologies, to test whether the functions of innovation systems framework is a valid framework to analyse processes of technological change. We test the claim that a specific set of functions is suitable. We also test whether the claim made in previous publications that the interactions between system functions accelerate innovation system emergence and growth is valid. Both claims are confirmed.
    Date: 2008–04
  12. By: Kaiserfeld, Thomas (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: In this paper, the formation of intermediary organizations of knowledge transfer in Sweden during the Cold War will be described and analysed. Here, intermediary organizations of knowledge transfer are defined as organizations aiming to transfer knowledge between knowledge producers and potential knowledge users (knowledge intermediaries for short). In theory, such organizations supply a platform for interaction between economic and academic life with problem-solving potential as well as development capability for the former and research opportunities for the latter.
    Keywords: knowledge intermediaries; policy convergence; innovation systems; system evolution
    JEL: N00 O25 O30
    Date: 2008–04–02

This nep-ipr issue is ©2008 by Roland Kirstein. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.