Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different characteristics between auctioned and non-auctioned patents

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, firms have increased their use of internal and external knowledge through intermediaries. Knowledge brokers match buyers and sellers in the technology marketplace as well as connect and combine existing knowledge. We discuss how financial incentives in the technology marketplace can address challenges to open innovation, and how the marketplace could make individual inventors essential contributors. And then, we identify the key determinants of intellectual-property auction bids and different characteristics of auctioned and non-auctioned patents. Relevance, the scope of patents, and other factors suggested in the literature impact patent auctions, as mediated by knowledge brokers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  • Abramowicz, M. (2006). Patent auctions, Bepress Legal Series, Working Paper 1177, http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1177.

  • Ahonen, M., Antikainen, M., Makipaa, M. (2007). Supporting collective creativity within open innovation. In EURAM 2007 conference proceedings, May 16–19. Paris: EURAM.

  • Aldrich, H., & von Glinow, M. A. (1991). Business starts-ups: The HRM imperative. In S. Subramony (Ed.), International perspectives on entrepreneurship research (pp. 233–253). New York, NY: Elsevier Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arya, A., & Mittendorf, B. (2004). Purchasing sleeping patents to curtail budget padding. Economics Letters, 82, 221–226.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Astebro, T. (2003). The return to independent invention: Evidence of unrealistic optimism, risk seeking or skewness loving? The Economic Journal, 113, 226–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzel, Y. (1968). Optimal timing of innovations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 50(3), 348–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benassi, M. (2007). Playing in between: IP brokers in markets for technology, Econpapers, Working paper from Department of Economics University of Milan Italy, http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/milwpdepa/2007-15.htm.

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation model. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, C.-W., Kim, S.-K., & Park, Y.-T. (2007). A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: The case of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, l74, 1296–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, D., & Cooper, M. (2005). Participatory processes: Creating a marketplace of ideas with open space technology. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin, K., Taylor, M., & Fichman, M. (2004). Today’s Edison or weekend hobbyists: Technical merit and success of inventions by independent inventors. Research Policy, 33, 1167–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1985). Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology. Review of Economic Studies, 52, 383–401.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2000). Incumbency and R&D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9, 485–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilfillan, C. S. (1935). The sociology of invention. Chicago, Illinois: Follett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J. H., & Mowrey, D. C. (2004). Submarines in software? Continuations in US software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(5), 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & Potterie, B. V. P. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69, 109–114.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly in Business, 42(4), 716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition, and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z.-L., Lim, K., & Wong, P.-K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35, 1147–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-G. (2008). Patent licensability and life: A study of U.S. patents registered by South Korean public research institutes. Scientometrics, 75(3), 463–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-G. (2009a). What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach, Scientometrics, 79(3), Forthcoming.

  • Lee, Y.-G. (2009b). Sectoral strategic differences of technological development between electronics and chemistry: A historical view from analyses of Korean-invented US patents during the period of 1989 to 1992, Scientometrics, Forthcoming.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. D., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of the open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2, 197–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 91, 839–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niioka, H. (2006). Patent auctions: Business and investment strategy in IP commercialization. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 1(11), 728–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prusa, T., & Schmitz, J. (1991). Are new firms an important source of invention? Evidence from the PC software industry. Economics Letters, 35, 339–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. (2006). Two styles of knowing and knowledge regimes: Between “exploitation” and “exploration” under conditions of functional specialization or fragmental distribution. In J. Hage (Ed.), Innovation, science, and institutional change (pp. 256–284). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinganum, J. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73, 741–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (June, 2003). In the weed: Amateur innovation. In Technology review (p.18). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohert, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: Institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R&D Management, 26, 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

  • Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Rankin, N. (1996). Bricoleurs and boundary riders: Managing basic research and innovation knowledge networks. R&D Management, 26, 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J., Viscounty, M. W. D. V., Eric, M. K. (2006, May 8), Patent auctions: Emerging trend? The National Law Journal.

  • Wang, S.-J. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71(3), 509–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartburg, W. I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Open innovation in open source software. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 82–106). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Policy Planning, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 131, Cheongryang, Seoul, 130-650, South Korea

    Yong-Gil Lee

  2. Department of Technology Management and Policy, Korea University of Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea

    Yong-Gil Lee & Ji-Hoon Lee

Authors
  1. Yong-Gil Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ji-Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong-Gil Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, YG., Lee, JH. Different characteristics between auctioned and non-auctioned patents. Scientometrics 82, 135–148 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0029-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0029-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation