Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From discovery to commercialization: accretive intellectual property strategies among small, knowledge-based firms

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the use of publications and patents and their covariates among small, knowledge-based firms pursuing technology commercialization. It does so through an empirical examination of 1180 small firms’ R&D projects, all of which were funded through Phase II U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards. As such, the paper responds to recent calls to investigate not only how small, knowledge-based firms utilize specific IP strategies but also how accretive logic specifically differs from competitive publishing and patenting logic.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Field of use is defined as the right for a firm to utilize a specific technology that would otherwise require licensing from competitors or nonpracticing entities. Nonpracticing entities (otherwise known as “patent trolls”) generally have no in-house technical capability but patent or obtain exclusive licenses from an inventor in order to profit from patent prosecutions. See Cohen et al. (2019) for a more in-depth discussion.

  2. As part of the SBIR program’s reauthorization in 2000, the U.S. Congress commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academies to conduct a survey of a representative sample of Phase II projects as a study to inform Congress prior to the scheduled 2008 reauthorization of the program. Congress authorized the NRC to conduct follow-up surveys in 2011 and in 2014, but not all of the relevant data from those surveys are available for this study.

  3. The population of phase II projects is 1878; however, a number of phase II projects were deleted from the study. Those deleted were project that failed, that is were terminated for technical or other reasons prior to completion; projects that had not yet been completed at the time of the 2005 survey, and projects for which some of the relevant variable information was missing.

  4. More detailed discussions of the history of the SBIR program and of the 2005 NRC survey and its related phase II data are in, for example, Link and Scott (2012), Link (2013), and Leyden and Link (2015).

  5. There are exceptions to the upper limit on both phase I and phase II awards. Often the funding agency can broaden the scope of the initially funded phase II project, thus increasing the total budget above $1 million. It is not uncommon for this to happen among selected phase II projects funded by the Department of Defense.

  6. See Link and Strong (2016) and Link and Morrison (2019) for a review of the relevant literature on ownership gender and the innovative behavior of firms. See also Audretsch et al. (2019) for a study of knowledge spillovers from university involvement in research.

  7. See also Audretsch and Link (2018, 2019).

References

  • Ács, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ács, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amoroso, S. and Link, A.N. (2019). Intellectual property protection mechanisms and the characteristics of founding teams. European Commission Joint Research Centre working paper 01–2019.

  • Anton, J. J., & Yao, D. A. (2003). Patents, invalidity, and the strategic transmission of enabling information. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12, 151–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2018). Innovation capital. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1760–1767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2019). Sources of knowledge and entrepreneurial behavior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Boente, W., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2012). Financial signaling by innovative nascent ventures: the relevance of patents and prototypes. Research Policy, 41, 1407–1421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Hinger, J. (2015). From knowledge to innovation: the role of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. In C. Antonelli & A. N. Link (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the economics of knowledge (pp. 20–28). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2019). Knowledge begets knowledge: university knowledge spillovers and the output of scientific papers from U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Projects. Scientometrics, 121, 1367–1383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., & Mezzetti, C. (2005). Disclosure as a strategy in the patent race. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 365–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34, 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. J., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). Nonresponsive and relayed response to competitive mores: the roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 539–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper No. 7552.

  • Cohen, W. M., Gurun, U. G., & Kominers, S. D. (2019). Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms. Management Science, 65, 5449–5956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2021). Latent technology as an outcome of R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfenbein, D. W. (2007). Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 688–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallini, N., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). Intellectual property: when is it the best incentive system? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2, 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, D. (2008). Strategic disclosure of intermediate search results. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 17, 733–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J. H., & Sichelman, T. (2008). Why do start-ups patent? Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23, 1063–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014a). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43, 57–74.

  • Hall, B. H. (2019). Is there a role for patents in the financing of new innovative firms? Industrial and Corporate Change, 28, 657–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: a review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 375–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.

  • Harhoff. (2009). The role of patents and licenses in securing external finance for innovation. European Investment Bank Papers, 14, 74–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340–352.

  • Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003–1015.

  • Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: a knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2018). Why do knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms publish their innovative ideas? Academy of Management Perspectives, 32, 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2018). Public-sector entrepreneurship. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34, 676–694.

  • Henkel, J. and Pangerl, S. (2008). Defensive publishing: an empirical study, DRUID Working Paper No. 08–04.

  • Hicks, D. (1995). Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 401–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoenig, D., & Henkel, J. (2015). Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing. Research Policy, 44(5), 1049–1064.

  • Hopenhayn, H., Llobet, G., & Mitchell, M. (2006). Rewarding sequential innovators: prizes, patents, and buyouts. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 1041–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., Hall, B. H., & Czarnitzki, D. (2015). Patents as quality signals? The implications for financing constraints on R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25, 197–217.

  • Hottenrott, H., Hall, B. H., & Czarnitzki, D. (2017). Patents as quality signals? The implications for financing constraints on R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25, 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. P. (2014). Defensive publishing by a leading firm. Information Economics and Policy, 28, 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.

  • Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: U.S Technology and Innovation Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1016–1033.

  • Lichtman, D., Baker, S., & Kraus, K. (2000). Strategic disclosure in the patent system. Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 2175–2217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. (2013). Public support of innovation in entrepreneurial firms. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publisher.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Morrison, L. T. R. (2019). Innovative activity in minority-owned and women-owned business. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). Employment growth from public support of innovation in small firms. Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Strong, D. R. (2016). Gender and entrepreneurship: an annotated bibliography. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12, 287–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2020). The use of intellectual property protection mechanisms by publicly supported firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1843993.

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34, 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parchomovsky, G. (2000). Publish or perish. Michigan Law Review, 98, 926–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 782–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: a longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1314–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. (1991). Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (2000). Managing intellectual capital. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2012). Partnering with universities: a good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Business Economics, 38, 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Christopher S. Hayter

  2. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Albert N. Link

Authors
  1. Christopher S. Hayter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert N. Link
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. Hayter.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper has benefitted greatly from discussions with David Audretsch at Indiana University, John Scott at Dartmouth College, and Silvio Vismara at University of Bergamo. Any remaining shortcomings are our own.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayter, C.S., Link, A.N. From discovery to commercialization: accretive intellectual property strategies among small, knowledge-based firms. Small Bus Econ 58, 1367–1377 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00446-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00446-z

Keywords

JEL

Search

Navigation