Search results

Prior research has produced conflicting results on the relationship between firm-level patenting activity and financial performance. To identify a factor that impacts the results, this study tests whether the level of customer-base concentration (defined as focusing on a small number of major customer sales transactions) changes the relationship between firm-level patenting activity and financial performance (return on assets: ROA).

Using a longitudinal secondary dataset from Japanese manufacturers from 1991 to 2016, this study investigates the interaction effect between firm-level patenting activity and customer-base concentration. With additional analysis using multiple profitability measures, this study provides robust evidence that customer-base concentration is an important factor in changing the relationship between firm-level patenting activity and financial performance.

The analysis results show that there is a positive relationship between firm-level patenting activity and ROA. In addition, this relationship is positively moderated by the customer-base concentration. This means that suppliers can improve the performance of the patenting activity by concentrating on their customer base.

By identifying a moderating factor between patenting activity and financial performance, this study advances the interpretation of conflicting results in patent research. Moreover, this study reveals a situation where customer-base concentration, which has a direct negative impact on financial performance, leads to better financial performance. This also indicates that firm-level patenting activities may compensate for the negative aspects of customer-base concentration.

Firms that pursue invention face special conditions that heighten the potential conflict between managers and shareholders. High R&D spending increases the information asymmetry between managers and shareholders because the invention process is rooted in tacit knowledge. Because tacit knowledge is difficult to communicate to external parties, shareholders will have problems monitoring whether managers are spending R&D in a manner that maximizes firm value.

Using agency theory, it is argued that managerial ownership is one solution to this problem and that high levels of R&D intensity will necessitate high levels of managerial ownership to counteract agency problems. However, it is also argued based on signaling theory that a firm's patenting activity reduces ownership requirement as well as moderating the managerial ownership‐R&D relationship.

Using a sample of firms from the knowledge‐intensive biotechnology industry, a positive relationship was found between R&D spending and managerial ownership. It was also found that this relationship is most strongly moderated by patenting activity.

The findings would be strengthened by replication using samples from other knowledge‐intensive industries. Future research should examine how the critical determinants of success in other industries affect managerial ownership of firms in those industries.

The study shows that top managers have some control over the contracting environment. By aggressively pursuing patents managers can reduce their level of ownership in the firm.

The study finds evidence that in order to prevent agency problems firms undertaking inventive activity may require their managers to take larger ownership or aggressively pursue patents. High managerial ownership levels and patents can provide a signal to shareholders about the growth potential of the firm.

This study highlights the trends of qualitative intellectual capital disclosures and patent statistics in the Indian manufacturing context by considering the numerous patent applications, patent grants, forward citations and backward citations. Furthermore, the study investigates the relation among qualitative disclosures, patent statistics and firm performance.

All manufacturing companies of CNX 500 Index of National Stock Exchange of India Limited are considered. Based on data availability, 243 manufacturing firms spanning across seven major manufacturing sectors are included. Secondary data were obtained from the annual report of companies and patent databases from 2004 to 2005 to 2013–2014, generating a sample of 2,430 firm years. Content analysis and citation analysis are used for collecting the relevant data.

Overall, the study results indicated increasing trends for all types of intellectual capital disclosures. Similar trends are observed for patent applications and patent grants, indicating a surge in patenting activities across the manufacturing sector. However, increasing trends in patenting activities are not reflected for forward and backward citations. In addition, significant differences in means and trend coefficients for qualitative disclosures and patent statistics indicated industry specificity within the Indian manufacturing sector. Furthermore, industry specificity is observed when translating intellectual capital to firm performance. The measure of firm performance, that is, Tobin's Q, is having a significant positive association with qualitative disclosures and patent statistics.

As the study is based on secondary data, its accuracy is limited by the accuracy of the data sources such as the annual reports of companies and patent databases.

The study findings imply that policymakers should devise and execute sector-specific policy interventions. Moreover, managers and policymakers should emphasize the qualitative aspect of patenting activities.

The study is an original work that highlights the trends in qualitative disclosures in the Indian manufacturing context. The value relevance of intellectual capital and patent statistics has been established.

Strategy research has long understood that reconfiguration of the scope of the activities a firm engages in over time is critical to its long-run success, while under-emphasizing differences in redeployment strategy that underlie apparently similar scope and changes in scope. In this paper, we build on the idea that a firm’s number of activities (scope) and change in activities (turnover) arise from two fundamental rates of redeployment: the rate at which activities are added and the rate at which activities are subtracted. In net, the turnover rate reflects how actively a firm reconfigures its resource base by redeploying resources via addition and subtraction of activities. We develop a model that links addition and subtraction with the composition of a firm’s activities and then provide an empirical illustration using data from the U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office. As an example of one extension, the model can be generalized to incorporate elements of absorptive capacity. The analysis contributes to our understanding of how firms reconfigure their activities and provide managers with a clearer understanding of tools that guide redeployment of existing resources.

There is still an ongoing debate on the value relevance of capital structure and its determinants. Recently the issue has been explored in family firms after being explored in mature firms. This paper investigates the role of institutional investors and the firm's innovation activity in influencing the firm's decision and ability to acquire debt capital.

A large sample of 700 privately-held family firms in Italy from 2010 to 2019. Two analysis techniques are used: panel analysis and path analysis. The value of debt and the debt ratio are used as leverage measures. The value of patent (as a proxy for innovation) and institutional investor are the explanatory variables.

The results show that institutional investors have no relationship with financial leverage measures except when controlling for an interaction variable (Institutional investors × Lombardy region). The patent value is positively correlated with debt; however, the ratio patent-to-asset is negatively related to financial leverage indicating higher risk exposure. The nonlinearity test demonstrates a turning point when the relationship between patent value and debt inverts.

Firms should monitor their innovation activity since excessive innovation increases risk exposure and affects financing opportunities and value. The involvement of institutional investors does not always enhance value.

Existing literature focuses separately on family firm innovations and financial leverage as outcome variables, emphasizing the role of institutional investors in both fields by adopting agency theory and socioemotional wealth framework. In this study, the authors go further by merging both relationships, investigating the dynamics of the institutional-family firm innovation relationship in influencing the firm's capital structure. The authors contribute to the ongoing debate by providing original findings on capital structure, governance and innovation, supported by rigorous methods to enhance family firms' decision-making.

The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between open innovation and the use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The authors consider patents, industrial designs (i.e. design patents in the USA), trademarks, and copyrights.

The relationships between open innovation, IPRs, and profitability are tested with random-effects panel regressions on data from the Spanish Community Innovation Survey for 2,873 firms spanning the years 2008-2013.

A key result is that SMEs do not benefit from open innovation or from patenting in the same way as larger firms. Furthermore, the results show that SMEs profit in different ways from IPR, depending on their size and the corresponding IPR.

The different impact of IPRs on the efficiency of open innovation in firms of varying sizes highlights the importance of further investigation into IP strategies and into open innovation in SMEs.

Industrial designs are currently the most efficient IPR for SMEs to protect their intellectual property in open innovation collaborations. Depending on the company size, the use of different IPRs is recommended. Moreover, firms should seek to increase the efficiency of open innovation and the use of IPRs.

The high impact of SMEs on employment highlights the importance of fomenting efficient innovation processes in such firms.

This paper opens the black box of IPR in relation to open innovation in SMEs, and draws distinctive conclusions with regards to patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyrights.

This study explores how the firm’s proprietary information has an impact on the bank loan contracts. It explains the propensity of using the competitive bid option (CBO) in the syndicate loans to solicit the best bid for innovative firms and how it changes based on industry competition and the degree of innovations. This research also examines how the interstate banking deregulation (Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act) in 1994 affected the private loan contracts for innovative borrowers.

The study uses various econometric analyses. First, it uses the propensity score matching analysis to see the impact of patents on pricing terms. Second, it uses the two-stage least square (2SLS) analysis by implementing the litigation and non-NYSE variables. Finally, it studies the impact of the policy change of the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 on the bank loan contracts.

Firms with more proprietary information pays more annual facility fees but less other fees. The patents are the primary determinants of the usage of CBO in the syndicate loans to solicit the best bid. While innovative firms can have better contract conditions by the CBO, firms with more proprietary information will less likely to use the CBO option to minimize the leakage of private information and the severe monitoring from the banks. Finally, more proprietary information lowered the loan spread for firms dependent on the external capital after the interstate banking deregulation.

The findings of this research will help senior executives with responsibility for financing their innovative projects. In addition, these findings should prove helpful for the lawmakers to boost economies.

The purpose of this paper is to explore two distinct subsets of dynamic capabilities that need to be deployed when pursuing innovation through inter-organizational activities, respectively, in the contexts of broad networks and specific alliances. The authors draw distinctions and explore potential interdependencies between these two dynamic capability reservoirs, by integrating concepts from the theoretical perspectives they are derived from, but which have until now largely ignored each other – the social network perspective and the dynamic capabilities view.

The authors investigate nanotechnology-driven R&D activities in the 1995–2005 period for 76 publicly traded firms in the electronics and electrical equipment industry and in the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industry, that applied for 580 nanotechnology-related patents and engaged in 2,459 alliances during the observation period. The authors used zero-truncated Poisson regression as the estimation method.

The findings support conceptualizing dynamic capabilities as four distinct subsets, deployed for sensing or seizing purposes, and across the two different inter-organizational contexts. The findings also suggest potential synergies between these subsets of dynamic capabilities, with two subsets being more macro-oriented (i.e. sensing and seizing opportunities within networks) and the two other ones more micro-oriented (i.e. sensing and seizing opportunities within specific alliances).

The authors show that firms differ in their subsets of dynamic capabilities for pursuing different types of inter-organizational, boundary-spanning relationships (such as alliances vs broader network relationships), which ultimately affects their innovation performance.

The authors contribute to the growing body of work on dynamic capabilities and firm-specific advantages by unbundling the dynamic capability subsets, and investigating their complex interdependencies for managing different types of inter-organizational linkages. The main new insight is that the “linear model” of generating more innovations through higher inter-firm collaboration in an emerging field paints an erroneous picture of how high innovation performance is actually achieved.

We examine the patenting behavior of firms in an industry characterized by rapid technological change and cumulative innovation. Recent survey evidence suggests that semiconductor firms do not rely heavily on patents to appropriate returns to R&D. Yet the propensity of semiconductor firms to patent has risen dramatically since the mid-1980s. We explore this apparent paradox by conducting interviews with industry representatives and analyzing the patenting behavior of 95 U.S. semiconductor firms during 1979–1995. The results suggest that the 1980s strengthening of U.S. patent rights spawned “patent portfolio races” among capital-intensive firms, but it also facilitated entry by specialized design firms.