Abstract
The paper presents the limited quantitative and qualitative analysis of the biotechnology industries in Lithuania and Arizona (US) focusing on the role of intellectual property for the business income of the small and medium firms (SMEs). The paper also discussed theoretical aspects of the role of intellectual property in the biotech SMEs, presents empirical data on the SME intellectual property holding, employment and income data in Lithuania and Arizona based on the conducted case analysis. In depth analysis of the intellectual property, employment and revenue profile and correlations of the selected biotechnology firms are provided. Case analysis focused on patents, which are dominant and easy to study public form of intellectual property in biotechnology firms. Arizona biotechnology firms were found to especially capitalize on patents, even if the number of employees is small, while in Lithuania biotechnology firms appear to lack clear focus on on patents and instead have non-innovative intellectual property, such as trademarks. This trend is the strongest in the small firms (by the number of employees). Analysis suggests that business value of intellectual property is much higher in Arizona, and is not sufficiently ascertained in Lithuania. Analysis also shows that biotech SMEs in the US benefit from the patent focus and derive significant business value from patents, while the benefits of dispersed approach to intellectual property in Lithuania are uncertain. The authors suggest that biotech SMEs in Europe may benefit from focused patenting.
Highlights
Intellectual property rights may be described as a number of distinct property related rights with respect to intangible virtues, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, plant varieties, not patented innovations and so on (Rezk et al 2015; Rezk et al 2016; Pauceanu 2016; Lace et al 2015; Laužikas et al 2015; Hofmann, Prause 2015; Lavrinenko et al 2016; Ignatavičius et al 2015)
In Lithuania there are more than 20 biotechnology firms
Many European countries are often defined as having technocratic legal approach to intellectual property rights, when business value of intellectual property is not appreciated
Summary
Intellectual property rights may be described as a number of distinct property related rights with respect to intangible virtues, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, plant varieties, not patented innovations and so on. Optimal policy to protect intellectual property of a firm involves market-dependent protection, since intellectual property rights inherently provide greater protection to technology leaders than those that are close to their followers. This market supported protection to the firms that are further ahead in their R&D, compared to their followers increases the R&D incentives (Acemoglu, Akcigit, 2011). By employing intellectual property righs firms may increase financial assets, commercial viability, attract new investments, as well as develop new products and services (Ryder, Madhavan, 2014) For these reasons it is essential for a modern firm to select appropriate intellectual property rights for their existing technology. Statistical analysis, comparative empirical analysis, phenomenological, quantitative and qualitative analysis methods are used for the research presented in this paper
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
