Search results

In the intellectual property (IP) and management literature, the question of how external patent attorneys impact patent filings has been understudied. The purpose of this paper is to advance this area of research by examining how the use of external patent attorneys influences the patent filing strategies of firms and what impact firms’ level of experience with the exclusive use of in-house resources has on filing strategies. This study, thus, provides insights into the strategic dimension behind patent filing, a process which is affected by patent attorneys’ work and decision-making processes.

The econometric analysis is based on a patent database of 922,553 patents which is combined with an EPO patent database covering applications from 1990 to 2010. The authors test the hypotheses for this study using patent indicators addressing the impact of in-house firm experience vs the use of external patent attorneys on firm’s filing strategy.

This research finds empirical evidence that external patent attorneys’ work has an effect on patent scope, international scope, and patenting speed. Moreover, it can be shown that external patent attorneys have a positive impact on most filing dimensions, such as patent scope, international scope and the Patent Cooperation Treaty option, whereas the level of in-house firm experience has a negative impact on most filing dimensions. This implies that external patent attorneys seem to pursue a “maximization approach” while experienced firms seem to pursue a more differentiated approach to filing patents, for instance, drafting narrower and more focused patents.

The study suggests that effective filing strategies require an integrated approach between diverse IP stakeholders. More particularly, filing strategies should be communicated and aligned between all actors, including external patent attorneys in order to achieve the targeted patenting output.

The current study develops a patent filing typology, which accounts for patent attorneys’ decision options. In providing insights into patent attorneys’ work and their impacts on intellectual property rights management, the study is a useful complement to prior research, which has predominantly focused on applicants or examiners.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

The increasingly complex issue of patent filing demands specialist knowledge and skills to identify appropriate strategies. Patent attorneys therefore have a critical role to play and can significantly influence a patent in terms of its breadth, international scope, and speed. Firms need to decide whether to use in-house capabilities or employ external patent lawyers who might have different motivations to their own.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

Few areas of reference services seem to be as shrouded in fearful mystery as those of patent searching. For many librarians, the very word “patent” conjures up images of strange individuals with equally strange ideas. Some think of endless tedium in selecting from among incomprehensible classifications leading to huge lists of meaningless numbers. Still others are repelled by the notion that many inventors and patent searchers are seeking assistance with what may be expensive legal matters.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how multinational enterprises have historically managed global patenting and to what extent the localization of patent management has supported the expansion of these enterprises. This study focuses on the electric appliance industry (one of the first industries to see the emergence of global companies) and consider the case of Siemens, a German multinational company, comparing it to General Electric (GE), an American company.

The work adopts a global business history approach. Taking GE’s global patent-management model, described by Nishimura (2004, 2009, 2016), as the benchmark, this study analyzed Siemens’ worldwide control of its intellectual property rights between 1890 and Second World War, using German, Japanese and American primary sources.

Patent management is a common means for firms to globalize and transfer technology internationally, but it can take various forms. While GE transferred patent management to its foreign subsidiaries (a process known as localization), Siemens kept worldwide patent management at its headquarters – except in Japan, where in time it transferred this activity to a joint venture. The transfer of production called for localization of patent management while focusing on exporting to other markets made it possible to keep patent management at headquarters.

Patents are usually a source for quantitative surveys. This paper uses them to discuss how multinational companies manage property rights globally. It is the first paper to address this issue by comparing two major actors in a similar industry.

Unlike well-documented market or behavioral uncertainty, patent uncertainty has been significantly under-explored in the field of international entrepreneurship. Drawing on an institution-based view of strategy, this study investigated Netac, a Chinese knowledge-based international new venture (KINV), which was facing uncertainty over patents in China and the US. The aim was to address two questions: (1) how does patent uncertainty emerge in the context of KINVs? And (2) how can KINVs navigate patent hazards by interacting with national patent institutions?

A longitudinal single-case study approach was adopted as the most appropriate method for exploring novel business phenomena and dynamic processes.

Results suggested that a KINV can adopt strategies to build a unique identity and so better conform to the expectations of institutions that ultimately decide on patent validity. Strategies may involve building institutional awareness, amplifying mass media effects, and strategically managing the intellectual property and socio-emotional tensions between China and the US.

This study introduced the notion of patent uncertainty into research around international new ventures, highlighting how this type of uncertainty in the advanced technology sector can affect the end-product and patent licensing opportunities of KINVs. It also explored the institution-based view of company strategy in the internationalization process by emphasizing interactive institutional mechanisms, and the role of an organization’s identity when interacting with institutions. The study enriches the literature on institutional theory and organizational identity, and also suggests solutions for firms dealing with efforts by competitors to invalidate patents.

In this study, we investigate how capability in managing intellectual property may be treated as a type of “dynamic capability,” and we seek to understand how, when it is linked to the new technology development capability of a complex technological organization, these two types of dynamic capabilities may coevolve.

We conducted a longitudinal empirical case study of Airbus, incorporating an abductive research methodology that required investigating theory and empirical data concurrently and iteratively. The data, ranging over a period of two decades from 2000 to 2021, was collected from four different sources, including interviews, internal company documents, publicly available information and patent data.

Our main findings are that the capabilities and roles of the Intellectual Property function in Airbus and their interaction with the company's Technology function have indeed influenced the overall innovation strategy of the organization, and that three coevolutionary phases may be identified in the interactive development of the two functions.

Our investigation into how new technology development and intellectual property (IP) management capabilities coevolve within complex technological organizations, exemplified by Airbus, provides significant theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, it enhances understanding of capability co-development dynamics in complex organizations, particularly in strategic IP management. Practically, it suggests aligning IP strategy with overall corporate objectives and optimizing organizational structures to promote collaboration and efficiency across IP and technology teams. This alignment may foster innovation, maximize the value of intellectual assets and strengthen collaborations, positioning organizations for long-term success in competitive landscapes.

This study makes a fresh contribution to the innovation studies literature by showing how if intellectual property management is treated as a core function of a complex technological organization – rather than simply as a vehicle for protecting new inventions and products after the fact or simply as a constituent part of the organization's legal function – it may contribute proactively to the organization's technological innovation performance. We also address the current gap in the academic literature for a clear understanding of the processes by which different function-specific dynamic capabilities may coevolve in a complex organization operating as part of a dynamic and complex adaptive system.

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.

This chapter discusses current issues raised by the use of patents in university-industry technology commercialization. After introducing how patent laws operate in the global marketplace, this chapter provides an overview of the U.S. patent system, describing aspects of the process by which patents are obtained and enforced. The focus of the chapter then turns to some of the benefits and costs to academia of the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities to capture returns from federally funded research. The chapter identifies some of the challenges created by the expanding scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection and concludes with a discussion of some of the issues and opportunities associated with the strategic licensing and enforcement of patents that may impact invention and innovation in the academy and beyond.

Uncertainty about Intellectual Property Regulations (IPR) is prevalent in today’s knowledge-based and creative industries. While prior literature indicates that regulatory uncertainty affects creative processes, studies that systematically analyze the effects of IPR on the experiencing of involved actors in creative processes across fields are rare. We ask how core professional actor groups including creators, legal professionals and managers involved in creative processes experience regulatory uncertainty in the fields of music and pharma. By studying practices of engaging with, circumventing and avoiding regulatory uncertainty about IPR, we show how creative processes in both the music and pharma fields are entrenched with emotional-cognitive experiences such as anxiety, indifference and hope that vary by professional group. Our findings point toward managers and legal professionals observing, exposing and cultivating emotions by ascribing experiences to other actor groups. We conclude that comparing regulation-related emotions of involved actors across fields helps to develop a deeper understanding of the dynamics of creative processes.