nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Patent Characteristics and Patent Ownership Change in Agricultural Biotechnology

verfasst von : Etleva Gjonça, Amalia Yiannaka

Erschienen in: From Agriscience to Agribusiness

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We examine the effect of various patent characteristics on changes in patent ownership that occurred due to mergers, acquisitions, and spin-offs in the agricultural biotechnology industry in the 1980s and 1990s. Our goal is to shed light on the role certain patent qualities may play in the transfer of knowledge and technology that takes place through merger and acquisition activity. Specifically, we empirically measure the effect of patent value, scope/breadth, strength, and the nationality of the patent owner on the occurrence and frequency of patent ownership change in the agricultural biotechnology sector during the 1980s and 1990s. We find that the greater the patent breadth and the less valuable and “weaker” the patent, the greater the likelihood and frequency of patent ownership change. Also, the nature of patent ownership affects patent ownership change, with patents owned by multiple owners of different nationalities most likely to change hands.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Whither the Research Anticommons?

Nächstes Kapitel Innovation and Technology Transfer Among Firms in the Agricultural Input Sector

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

A patent provides its owner exclusive rights over a claimed invention and is granted by the Patent Office of a country or group of countries (e.g., the European Patent Office) on the basis of a patent application. The exclusive right provides a legal right to the patent owner to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented invention without the owner’s permission for a period of up to 20 years from the date that the application for patent was filed. In return, the owner is required to disclose the claimed invention to the public.

In 1998, five firms (AstraZeneca, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, and Aventis) accounted for nearly two-thirds of the global pesticide market (60%), almost one-quarter (23%) of the commercial seed market, and almost all of the transgenic seed market (Johnson and Melkonyan 2003).

As an example, in August 1996, Plant Genetic Systems (PGS) was purchased by AgrEvro for $730 million, while its prior market capitalization was only $30 million. According to AgrEvro, $700 million of the purchase price was assigned to the valuation of the patent-protected trait technologies owned by PGS (Marco and Rausser 2008).

See Yiannaka and Fulton (2006) for a detailed discussion of the critical importance of patent scope/breadth in determining the value of a patent to the innovator.

For a detailed discussion of the patentee’s role in shaping the scope of patent protection, see Yiannaka and Fulton (2006).

The IPC classification consists of nine-digit classes of different technologies assigned by the patent examiner to each patent during the patent examination process.

Backward citations are the number of prior patents and other relevant references that constitute the prior art cited in a patent.

In the database, patents are categorized according to a technology classification system, which includes plant technologies, patented organisms, non-plant, metabolic pathways and biological processes in plants, metabolic pathways and biological processes in animals, protection and nutrition, and biological control of plants and animals, pharmaceuticals, genetic transformation, metabolic pathways and biological processes, DNA scale, and genomics (Schimmelpfennig and King 2006).

See http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1m04028n/http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/AgBiotechIP/. The website provides detailed information on the nature of the data and the way it was generated.

Backward citations have been used in a number of studies, such as Jaffe et al. (1993), who examined the impact of citations to previous patents in the geographical localization of the technological activity; Jaffe and Trajtenberg (1996), who used backward citations to analyze the process by which existing knowledge is transferred over time to different locations; and Jaffe and Trajtenberg (1999), who measured knowledge flows based on the information revealed by backward citations.

The results of the Pearson’s chi-square test are evaluated by reference to the chi-square distribution.

To account for the skewed distribution of the independent variables (see Table 1), we use a logarithmic transformation on each variable.

Based on the F-statistic (68.776) and the probability values (0.000), the null hypothesis that there is no heteroskedasticity was rejected.

Note that RoW owners own 0.6%, while Japanese owners own 10.6% of all patents in our dataset.

Adelman, D.E., and K. DeAngelis. 2007. Patent Metrics: The Mismeasure of Innovation in the Biotech Patent Debate. Texas Law Review 85: 1677–1744.

Brennan, M., C. Pray, A. Naseem, and J.F. Oehmke. 2005. An Innovation Market Approach to Analyzing Impacts of Mergers and Acquisitions in the Plant Biotechnology Industry. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 8 (2&3): Article 5.

Denicolo, V. 1996. Patent Races and Optimal Patent Breadth and Length. The Journal of Industrial Economics 44 (3): 249–265.CrossRef

Gallini, N.T. 1992. Patent Policy and Costly Imitation. The Rand Journal of Economics 23 (1): 52–63.CrossRef

Gilbert, R., and C. Shapiro. 1990. Optimal Patent Length and Breadth. The Rand Journal of Economics 21 (1): 106–112.CrossRef

Graff, G.D., G.C. Rausser, and A.A. Small. 2003. Agricultural Biotechnology’s Complementary Intellectual Assets. The Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (2): 349–363.CrossRef

Green, J.R., and S. Schotchmer. 1995. On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics 26 (1): 20–33.CrossRef

Hall, B.H., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2005. Market Value and Patent Citations. The Rand Journal of Economics 36 (1): 16–38.

Harhoff, D., and M. Reitzig. 2004. Determinants of Opposition Against EPO Patent Grants-the Case of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22: 443–480.CrossRef

Hopenhayn, H.A., and M. Mitchell. 2001. Innovation Variety and Patent Breadth. The Rand Journal of Economics 32 (1): 152–166.CrossRef

Jaffe, A.B., and M. Trajtenberg. 1996. Flows of Knowledge from Universities and Federal Laboratories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93: 12671–12677.CrossRef

———. 1999. International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8: 105–136.CrossRef

Jaffe, A.B., R. Henderson, and M. Trajtenberg. 1993. Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 577–598.CrossRef

Johnson, S.R., and T. Melkonyan. 2003. Strategic Behaviour and Consolidation in the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 (1): 216–233.CrossRef

King, J., and D. Schimmelpfennig. 2005. Mergers, Acquisitions and Stocks of Agbiotech Intellectual Property. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 8 (2&3): Article 4.

Lanjouw, J.O., and M. Schankerman. 2001. Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. The Rand Journal of Economics 32 (1): 129–151.CrossRef

Lerner, J. 1994. The Importance of the Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The Rand Journal of Economics 25: 319–333.CrossRef

Marco, A.C., and G.C. Rausser. 2008. The Role of Patent Rights in Mergers: Consolidation in Plant Biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (1): 133–151.CrossRef

Matutes, C., P. Regibeau, and K. Rocket. 1996. Optimal Patent Design and the Diffusion of Innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics 27 (1): 60–83.CrossRef

Merges, R.P., and R.R. Nelson. 1990. On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope. Columbia Law Review 90 (4): 839–916.CrossRef

Miller, A., and M. Davis. 1990. Intellectual Property, Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights in a Nutshell. 2nd ed. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Company.

O’Donoghue, T., S. Scotchmer, and J.F. Thisse. 1998. Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 7 (1): 1–38.CrossRef

Rausser, G.C. 1999. Private/Public Research: Knowledge Assets and Future Scenarios. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 1011–1027.CrossRef

Schimmelpfennig, D., J.L. King, and A. Naseem. 2003. Intellectual Capital in a Q-Theory of Ag-Biotech Mergers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1275–1282.CrossRef

Schimmelpfennig, D., and J. King. 2006. Mergers, Acquisitions and Flows of Agbiotech Intellectual Property (Chapter 9). In International trade and policies for genetically modified products, ed. R.E. Evenson and V. Santeniello. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Takalo, T. 2001. On the Optimal Patent Policy. Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Society for Economic Research 14 (1): 33–40.

Trajtenberg, M. 1990. A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics 21 (1): 172–187.CrossRef

US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). 2006. Agricultural Biotechnology Intellectual Property [database]. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service. Available on the World Wide Web: http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1m04028n/http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/AgBiotechIP/.

Yiannaka, A., and M. Fulton. 2006. Strategic Patent Breadth and Entry Deterrence with Drastic Product Innovations. International Journal of Industrial Organization 24 (1): 177–202.CrossRef

Titel: Patent Characteristics and Patent Ownership Change in Agricultural Biotechnology
verfasst von: Etleva Gjonça
Amalia Yiannaka
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: From Agriscience to Agribusiness
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67957-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-67958-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner