Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation

By Edward F Sherry, David J. Teece. 2004

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff79aaf95e488c06a689d1f3df06d04d4b97bc77

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Ammon J. Salter
2. Ulrich Lichtenthaler
3. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
4. David J. Teece
5. Eckhard Lichtenthaler
6. Keld Laursen
7. Carine Peeters
8. Christos N. Pitelis

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. Ammon J. Salter
2. Eckhard Lichtenthaler
3. Keld Laursen
4. Ulrich Lichtenthaler
5. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
6. M. Crespo
7. Houssine Dridi
8. David J. Teece

Citations in the corpus

• The Open Innovation Paradox: Knowledge Sharing and Protection in R&D Collaborations (2010, unknown): “Valuation of knowledge (and of the licenses or agreements that are used to transfer it) is a very delicate but crucial issue in R&D collaborations (Granstrand, 2000; Sherry and Teece, 2004).”
• Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms (2006, background): “Applying for a patent is indeed a strategic decision that is not only driven by the desire to protect innovation rents (e.g., Teece 1998; Rivette and Kline 2000; Sherry and Teece 2004).”
• Intensification of university–industry relationships and its impact on academic research (2007, background): “With regard to patent rights, Sheery and Teece (2004) report that 2,586 cases were pled in US Federal District Courts between 1979 and 1995.”
• - in-Progress (2012, unknown): “Traditionally, within large organizations innovation is measured in terms of economic gains from price, patents, and IP (Teece, 1986; Pisano and Teece, 2007; Sherry and Teece, 2004).”
• Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation" (2006, background): “Patents, for instance, can undergo a life cycle (Sherry and Teece, 2004).”
• Technology Transfer across Organizational Boundaries: Absorptive Capacity and Desorptive Capacity (2010, background): “In addition, the royalties in licensing deals often depend on the licensee’s successful technology application and commercialization.(25)”
• The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration (2014, background): “However, the value of formal types of proection mechanisms is limited to their defensibility in legal suits nd/or the firm’s ability to demonstrate a credible threat in a legal ntervention (Gans and Stern, 2003; Sherry and Teece, 2004).”