Patent-based investment funds: from invention to innovation

  • Svenja JarchowEmail author
  • Andrea Röhm


In the context of entrepreneurial ecosystems the transformation of inventions to innovations is a crucial measure of success. Yet, the exploitation of inventions stemming from academic or corporate research is not as extensive as we would wish leaving room for improvements. Drawing on the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship we investigate the phenomenon of patent-based investment funds as a new type of intermediary in the knowledge spillover process, which could facilitate the transformation from invention to innovation. Using a qualitative research design we analyze data from 21 expert interviews and complementary archival data. We find common characteristics of funds’ activities which decrease knowledge filters and fill the financing gap in the early stages of technology development. We propose a classification of commercialization strategies and link them to a specific set of invention characteristics. Our insights contribute to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and to the knowledge filter model by providing empirical evidence for the division of labor between knowledge creator and commercialization agent. This adds to our view on entrepreneurial ecosystems as we shed light on different players in the transition process from invention to innovation and thus enhance our understanding of the multifaceted aspects in such an ecosystem. In addition, we refine the literature on patent-based investment funds by providing a classification of the entire commercialization spectrum used by funds and add to extant theorizing on how the nature of a technology determines its commercialization.


Patent-based investment funds Technology intermediaries Knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship Invention characteristics 

JEL Classification

G23 M13 O32 O34 



We owe special thanks to Prof. Reiner Braun who was of great help in developing the ideas for this paper and our work. Furthermore, this work wouldn’t have been possible without the openness of and fruitful conversation with our interview partners–we thank them for the time and insights they provided. Also, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who helped us to improve our manuscript to this status through thoughtful commenting and advice. Last but not least our thanks goes to the editors of this special issue for bringing forward a topic of importance and relevance with a strong link between research and practice.


  1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy #0805, MPI Jena.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z. J., & Sanders, M. (2012). Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 801–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora, A., Gambardella, A., & Fosfuri, A. (2001). Markets for technology and corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 419–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B. (2007). Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(1), 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1999). Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: Sources and incentives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(1), 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benassi, M., & Di Minin, A. (2009). Playing in between: Patent brokers in markets for technology. R&D Management, 39(1), 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Block, J. H., Thurik, R., & Zhou, H. (2013). What turns knowledge into innovative products? The role of entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(4), 693–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 349–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlsson, B., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2009). Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1193–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 923–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahlborg, C., Lewensohn, D., Danell, R., & Sundberg, C. J. (2017). To invent and let others innovate: A framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 538–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. (2010). An update to the individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (2nd ed., pp. 47–76). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elton, J. J., Shah, B. R., & Voyzey, J. N. (2002). Intellectual property: Partnering for profit. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 59–67.Google Scholar
  21. Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Festel, G., Breitenmoser, P., Würmseher, M., & Kratzer, J. (2015). Early stage technology investments of pre-seed venture capitalists. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 7(4), 370–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Festel, G., & De Cleyn, S. (2013). Founding Angels as an emerging investment model in high-tech areas. Journal of Private Equity, 16(4), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer, T., & Henkel, J. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology—An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9), 1519–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for ‘ideas’: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerbin, A., & Drnovsek, M. (2016). Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: A review and a conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 979–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giuri, P., Mariani, M., Brusoni, S., Crespi, G., Francoz, D., Gambardella, A., et al. (2007). Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy, 36(8), 1107–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goel, R. K., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2018). What drives academic patentees to bypass TTOs? Evidence from a large public research organisation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gredel, D., Kramer, M., & Bend, B. (2012). Patent-based investment funds as innovation intermediaries for SMEs: In-depth analysis of reciprocal interactions, motives and fallacies. Technovation, 32(9), 536–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayter, C. S. (2013). Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: Perspectives from the literature. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 899–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the semiconductor photolithographic alignment equipment industry. Rand Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kamiyama, S., Sheehan, J., & Martinez, C. (2006). Valuation and exploitation of intellectual property. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2006/05. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  37. Kelley, A. (2011). Practicing in the patent marketplace. University of Chicago Law Review, 78, 115–137.Google Scholar
  38. Kirchberger, M. A., & Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: A literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1077–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krech, C. A., Rüther, F., & Gassmann, O. (2015). Profiting from invention: Business models of patent aggregating companies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lehmann, E. E., Braun, T. V., & Krispin, S. (2012). Entrepreneurial human capital, complementary assets, and takeover probability. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leone, M. I., & Laursen, K. (2011). Patent exploitation strategies and value creation. In F. Munari & R. Oriani (Eds.), The economic valuation of patents: Methods and applications—New horizons in intellectual property series. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Lloyd, R. (2015). Following hook-up with Uniloc, Marathon becomes the latest NPE to explore commercialisation + licensing. Intellectual Asset Management magazine. Accessed 23 March 2017.
  43. Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mason, C., & Harrison, R. (2004). Does investing in technology-based firms involve higher risk? An exploratory study of the performance of technology and non-technology investments by business angels. Venture Capital, 6(4), 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matteo, D. C. (2014). Evolving is not just for business models. Intellectual Asset Management Magazine, 65, 8.Google Scholar
  47. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). Expertlnneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In D. Grarz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung (pp. 441–468). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2018). The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 640–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pries, F., & Guild, P. (2007). Commercial exploitation of new technologies arising from university research: Start-ups and markets for technology. R&D Management, 37(4), 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rüther, F. (2012). Patent Aggregating Companies: Their strategies, activities and options for producing companies. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen, & Z. Wang (Eds.), Handbook for entrepreneurship and small business (pp. 407–422). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  62. Thomas, L. D. W., & Autio, E. (2014). The fifth facet: The ecosystem as an organizational field. Academy of Management Proceedings.Google Scholar
  63. van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang, A. W. (2010). Rise of the patent intermediaries. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25(1), 159–200.Google Scholar
  65. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chairs in Entrepreneurial Finance, Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies, TUM School of ManagementTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations