Folder Teaching slides on IP - based on articles summaries


pdf IP _Highlights_Better practices for managing intellectual assets in collaborations Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on article Better Practices for Managing Intellectual Assets in Collaborations
Source: Mehlman, S.K., Uribe-Saucedo, S., Taylor, R.P., Slowinski, G., Carreras, E. and Arena, C., (2010), “Better practices for managing intellectual assets in collaborations”, Research-Technology Management, 53(1), pp.55-66.

Summary: This paper studies how companies successfully manage intellectual assets (IA – broad term for IP includes patents, trademarks, know-how, show-how, marketing assets, pricing algorithms, customer lists, and marketing strategies) in collaborative relationships at Industrial Research Institute (IRI). Authors argued that generation and consumption of IA in collaborations are key factors. The process of collaboration can be divided into three main phases:

-          Exploration: Interested parties seek the opportunity to start co-working.

-          Joint Development: Collaboration contract takes place and co-development starts

-          Commercialization: Output of previous process is ready to reap financial benefit through market launch.

The paper covers in detail the above mentioned phases and the potential associated issues with each phase and how the firms address those. In the end authors have summarized the list of better practices along with pros or cons of each that came up during the research.

pdf IP_Highlights_Click here to agree - Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on the article Click here to agree: Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions
Source: de Beer, J., McCarthy, I., P., Soliman, A., and Treen, E., (2016), “Click here to agree: Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions”,

Summary: This article investigates the growing trend of crowdsourcing in firms from the perspective of intellectual property (IP) management, associated risks and risk mitigation. Authors argued that utilizing crowd’s creativity is a resourceful approach to capture novel ideas for problem solving, but there are some IP legal risks (illustrated through some case studies) associated with this approach. Paper discusses the threats of ignoring legal risks with crowdsourcing and countermeasures to minimize or eliminate the impact of such risks. Authors presented a typology (four approaches: passive, possessive, persuasive, and prudent) based on how firms gain IP and diminish linked risks. Paper provided suggestions for firms on usage and customization of approaches in presented typology while sourcing IP from a crowd. In concluding remarks, authors quoted “reciprocating relationship” and interdependence between legal approach to manage IP from crowdsourcing and format of crowdsourcing campaign.

pdf IP_Highlights_Coping_With_Open_Innovation Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on the article Coping With Open Innovation: Responding to the Challenges of External Engagement in R&D
Source: Salter, A., Criscuolo, P. and Ter Wal, A.L., (2014), “Coping with Open Innovation: Responding to the Challenges of External Engagement in R&D”, California Management Review, 56(2), pp.77-94.

Summary: This multistage empirical study (comprises of exploratory interviews, in-depth individuals’ case studies through semi-structured interviews, NVivo analysis, and findings validation through discussion with stakeholders in participating organization) investigates how firms’ R&D employees handle adoption of inbound open innovation (OI) and how firms can support them through practices and policies. This paper classified the individual-level issues and firms practices of OI against the four stages of external engagement (i.e. getting the right mindset, building partnership, starting the conversation, and taking advantage). Authors categorized precise issues faced and managing strategies of individuals during OI implementation into four of each. Then, paper recommends OI managerial practices that a firm can take up to support its employees. Authors reported the finding that failure of OI mostly linked to the individual level, when employee come across issues that they are unable to handle on their own. In conclusion, paper recognized a new and improved research and development reward system complementary to internal and external firm’s environment that encourages employees to accept OI challenges and incentivize them for success.

pdf IP_Highlights_Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on article Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation?
Source: Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., and Salter, A., (2009), “Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation?”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Retrieved Online: [Accessed: 22.12.2016]
Summary: This article discusses how a company’s IP strategy can become the enabler or disabler for open innovation (OI) initiatives. The “one-size-fits-all” IP strategy rollout from IP department is mostly lethal for OI framework. The use of imprudent policies in collaboration, patent approach, IP asset utilization, and tapping future innovation opportunities in lieu of immediate financial gains in industry as well as in universities are hampering the OI progress.

Excessive emphasis on IP and highly inflexible IP policies are detrimental to collaboration and diminishes company’s innovative image. In light of benefits from OI, IBM has restructured the IP strategy and policies to make those encouraging and productive for collaborators. Thus considering IP as a natural enemy to OI is wrong, in numerous circumstances IP turned out to be the enabler.

Authors presented a two-dimensional analysis encompasses “technological environment” on the scale of calm to turbulent and “knowledge distribution” in range of with few to many. This study gives four possible settings for a firm and which IP strategy to use in those settings for enabling the OI initiatives. By employing the framework, a keen firm can make judicious decisions holistically for betterment of IP policies and procedures.

pdf IP_Highlights_How open innovation affects the drivers of competitive advantage. Trading the benefits of IP creation and ownership for free invention Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on the article How open innovation affects the drivers of competitive advantage: Trading the benefits of IP creation and ownership for free invention
Source: Reed, R., Storrud-Barnes, S. and Jessup, L., (2012), “How open innovation affects the drivers of competitive advantage: Trading the benefits of IP creation and ownership for free invention”, Management Decision, 50(1), pp.58-73.

Summary: This paper focuses on the effects of open innovation (OI) on firm’s strategy and subsequently on firm’s performance through theoretical investigation in the field of cost-and-differentiation based competitive advantage under purview of community controlled open innovation. While competitive advantage frameworks still important, introduction of OI modified the independent performance variables. OI has offered opportunities for a firm to earn revenue on the intellectual property (IP) that it do not own. Authors illustrates how OI is changing the landscape of firms’ revenue sources, economic rents from IPRs vanishing, benefits from economies of scale and asset needs are declining, whereas those from experience curve effects, distribution, distinction, switching cost sustaining. Correspondingly, revenues from hard to replicate networks’ assets and brand value remain untouched, but those from employee experiences and culture are possibly to remain with reduction. Lastly, paper concluded that for some companies OI will not poorly impact competitive advantage whereas those who derive benefits from market entry-barriers, innovation skills, and proprietary offerings, can be at loss in the long run. Visibly, there are some perils linked with the adoption of open innovation. Still, non-adoption of open innovation may be even perilous.

pdf IP_Highlights_Intellectual property and licensing strategies in open collaborative innovation Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on the article Intellectual Property and Licensing Strategies in Open Collaborative Innovation
Source: Bogers, M., Bekkers, R. and Granstrand, O., (2012), “Intellectual property and licensing strategies in open collaborative innovation”, Open Innovation at Firms and Public Administrations: Technologies for Value Creation, pp.37-58.

Summary: This paper throws light on some strategic deliberations a firm need to pursue for intellectual property (IP) management in open collaborative innovation environment. For a positive innovation outcome in collaborative relationship, knowledge flow happens across firm’s boundary with partner(s) along with vigilant IP protection. Authors discuss use of licensing tactics to balance the objectives of knowledge sharing and protection in open collaborative innovation, especially management of shared and generated knowledge in collaboration through IP licensing. Papers enlist some typical licensing patterns and illustrate “architectures” of “modules” that can be applied to open collaborative innovation. Finally, authors recommend some discrete knowledge exchange schemes covering open exchange and layered schemes, thus charting a few circumstances for fruitful open collaborative innovation.

pdf IP_Highlights_Knowledge and intellectual property management in customer–supplier relationships Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on the article Knowledge and Intellectual Property Management in Customer–Supplier Relationships
Source: Paasi, J., Luoma, T., Valkokari, K. and Lee, N., (2010), “Knowledge and intellectual property management in customer–supplier relationships”, International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(04), pp.629-654.

Summary: This paper empirically studies the practices of knowledge and intellectual property (IP) management employed by firms in customer-supplier associations. The research encompasses qualitative methodology through semi-structured interviews of management professionals in 36 firms spread in Finland and the Netherlands. All firms were engaged in innovation partnerships with their suppliers and customers, but the breadth and depth of that partnership differs considerably that leads to management of IP and knowledge a puzzling task. Authors argued that IP and knowledge management in firms could be improved through proper differentiation of knowledge management between exploration period of new venture and exploitation period of innovation result. In the concluding section, based on literature review and research work authors posed three propositions: (i) classification of inter-firm innovation practices between suppliers and customers, (ii) Agreement/Contracts that drove trust at the start of exploration stage, and (iii) business models based on the classification of knowledge transaction relationships for operationalizing the exploitation of partnered innovation result.

pdf IP_Highlights_Networking as a means to strategy change:The case of open innovation in mobile telephony Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on the article Networking as a Means to Strategy Change: The Case of Open Innovation in Mobile Telephony
Source: Dittrich, K. and Duysters, G., (2007), “Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of open innovation in mobile telephony”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), pp.510-521.

Summary: Authors applied longitudinal qualitative and quantitative research approach to investigate the use of innovation networks to deal with the changing environment of technology. This paper pooled the various research and development (R&D) collaboration models of big companies and used those to analyze Nokia Corporation’s R&D coalition projects during 1985-2002. To distinguish between exploration and exploitation approach for empirical analysis, three measures were used: first was about the capabilities of the contracting firms, second was about partner turnover and the third was type of alliance contract that will be employed. The case of Nokia showed the importance of strategic technology networks in international environment for strategic repositioning under the changing circumstances. The first two generations in development of mobile telephony Nokia followed the exploitation strategy and for third generation employed the exploration strategy. Using these two different strategies helped the company to become the leader in the cellphone industry and helped the company to sustain its position in this radically changing technological environment. Paper illustrate that how Nokia uses the open innovation strategies for the development of new products and services also for setting of technological standard for the mobile communication applications. These inter-company networks apparently provide elasticity, pace, innovation, and the agility to respond varying market needs and new prospects.

pdf IP_Highlights_Open Innovation and Intellectual Property A Two-Sided Market Perspective Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on article Open Innovation and Intellectual Property – A Two-Sided Market Perspective
Source: Chesbrough, H. and Ghafele, R. (2014). “Open Innovation and Intellectual Property: A Two-Sided Market Perspective” In Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 191-207.

This chapter of the book illustrate the IP management and its impact on open innovation, in context of secondary IP market. Authors argued that the till date literature neglected the role of management and influence of their decision on innovation process in a firm. Authors enlist the series of events lead to evolution of IP management along with open innovation in industry and pose the question on drivers to transact IP. Then authors explain the evolution of “intermediate markets” or markets for innovations by giving examples from chemical, semi-conductor, pharmaceutical, FMCG, and service industries that lead to deep specialization of companies in particular domain. And, this specialization leads to some challenges in IP management. Authors illustrated use of business networks in acquiring or developing the solution for a business challenge and potential IP threats associated with such engagements. Later, paper described the obstacles for proficient IP market that are Quality of an IP and some inherent inadequacies hindering secondary IP market growth. To tap the underlying IP asset, a variety of processes developed throughout industry: securitizations, pooled patent portfolios, public auctions, and financial exchanges. To overcome inefficiency related to opaque IP transactions and unavailability of associated historical data, some online trading platforms (TAEUS PatentBooks, ITRI, and Nike’s Green Exchange) have been developed. In closing remarks, authors emphasized for culture change within corporations through conscious efforts of management to overcome the risk of lawsuit and “not invented here” syndrome for development of secondary IP markets under the guidance of open innovation concept.

pdf IP_Highlights_Open Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights – The Two-edged Sword Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on article Open Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights – The Two-edged Sword
Source: Hall, B., H., (2009), “Open Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights – The Two-edged Sword”, Paper prepared for Japan Spotlight, Retrieved Online: [Accessed: 22.12.2016]

The paper begin with questioning the irony exist between open innovation (OI) concept (or principles) adoption by some of the world’s leading patent holding firms (e.g. IBM, Philips, & Microsoft) and their IPRs management strategy. Post adoption, these firms have moved some of their IPR in public domain, so that other can take benefit out of those, whereas firms were also able to reap some benefits out of these practices (for e.g. open source software business model). Moving forward, author discusses the importance and ways to fare IP beneficially: Referencing patent’s legal language to construct OI partnership agreements; Defensive usage of IPRs in cross licensing contract of matching technologies (used extensively in computer hardware, semiconductor, and computing software domain); and Customizing IP administration strategies for case to case basis (for e.g. Intel safeguard its interest through royalty-free license usage for university patents generated through Intel funding).

With growth of technology markets, existence of IPR regulations enabled some high-tech industries like semiconductor and biotech necessity to operate in vertical integrated model obsolete and those firms can only focus on R&D and through adoption of OI can make sustainable profits. Nevertheless, managing OI model only through IPR management has some constraints. With evolution of new business models (for e.g. Web 2.0), which solely based on OI concepts are less dependent on IP contracts than conventional firms.

pdf IP_Highlights_The Case against Patents Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on article The Case against Patents
Source: Boldrin, M. and Levine, D.K., (2013), “The case against patents”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), pp.3-22.

Summary: This paper identifies the empirical research gap exist in current literature on positive effect of patents in increasing the innovation and productivity, also termed as “patent puzzle”. Quoting the example of US economy, authors argued that it has experienced exponential increase in quantity of patents and stronger IP regulations but there is no proportional technological growth or amplified R&D investments. It has been identified that patents can impact incentives to invent positively but can have ill-effect on innovation. Authors advocate that, fragile patent regulations may help in improving innovation slightly with a few effects whereas a tough regulations hinder innovation with numerous undesirable impacts, through historical data in this domain. The conventional industry have grown due to competitive environment and not due to any patent regulation. And, post maturation inclination of firms shifted towards IP defense because growth opportunities reduces and market place gets crowded. The current governmental patent regulations of granting monopoly as incentive for innovation is based on “Schumpeterian” economic theories that contradict the theories of innovation, stressing competition as innovation growth agent. These governmental regulations are the result of lobbying efforts of conventional stagnant industries backing stronger patent protection. To overcome this flawed system, authors suggest to eradicate the patents completely and look for alternative regulations free from lobbying and incentives-based. Also, authors prescribed continual improvement approach to diminish the ill-effects of current patent system, if eradication seems impossible.

pdf IP_Highlights_The Challenge of Closing Open Innovation: The intellectual property disassembly problem Popular


SLIDES to be used as teaching support
IP HIGHLIGHS based on article The Challenge of Closing Open Innovation: The intellectual property disassembly problem
Source: Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M., (2014), “The challenge of closing open innovation: The intellectual property disassembly problem”, Research Technology Management, 57(5), 19-25.
This article contributes to the literature in the uncharted area of challenges during the closure of an open innovation (OI) project involving coupled approach. Authors utilized a court case between a European global corporation and US based R&D Company (maintaining confidentiality of names) post open innovation project for collaborative development and commercialization of a technology   to clarify the issues in “IP disassembly” (dividing/segregating IPRs post project completion/end). Authors presented overview of contract between firms in layman language and detailed out the differences appeared in partnership with legal claims. Paper then take the guiding path for IP management through the concept of knowledge variants (Background, Foreground, Sideground, and Postground) in an OI relationship. Supplementing article with typical clauses (assign-back, grant-back, grant-forward, change-of-control, no-challenge, and termination) in a formal contract before start of the OI project, authors suggested that with proper control “IP disassembly” process can be a good prospect as well through strategic management for future IP base. In the concluding section, paper sum-up the disagreement in sideground and postground knowledge lead to the failure of “IP disassembly” process, and advises IP managers to put more focus on project closure processes and consider incorporating relevant knowledge types in agreements.