Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms

  • Robin Kleer


Big companies and small innovation factories possess different advantages in a patent contest. While large firms typically have better access to product markets, small firms often have a superior R&D efficiency. These distinct advantages immediately lead to the question of cooperations between firms. In this paper, we model a patent contest with heterogeneous firms. In a pre-contest acquisition game large firms bid sequentially for small firms to combine respective advantages. Sequential bidding allows the first large firms to bid strategically to induce a reaction of its competitor. For high efficiencies both large firms prefer to acquire immediately leading to a symmetric market structure. For low efficiencies strategic waiting of the first large firm leads to an asymmetric market structure even though the initial situation is symmetric. We also discuss two different timing setups of the acquisition stage. In all setups, acquisitions increase the chances for a successful innovation.


patent contest acquisitions innovation strategic waiting 

JEL Classification

O31 L24 G34 


  1. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (1987) Innovation, market structure, and firm size. Rev Econ Stat 69:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (1990) Innovation and small firms. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelso RR (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 609–626Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch DB, Vivarelli M (1996) Firm size and R&D spillovers: evidence from Italy. Small Bus Econ 8:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blonigen BA, Taylor CT (2000) R&D intensity and acquisitions in high technology industries: evidence from the US electronic and electrical equipment industries. J Ind Econ 48:47–70Google Scholar
  6. Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen WM, Levin RC (1989) Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee R, Willig RD (eds) Handbook of industrial organization. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 1059–1107Google Scholar
  8. Competition Commission (2004) Carl zeiss jena GmbH and bio-rad laboratories inc. A report on the proposed acquisition of the microscope business of Bio-Rad Laboratories IncGoogle Scholar
  9. Denicolò V (1996) Patent races and optimal patent breadth and length. J Ind Econ 3:249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixit AK (1987) Strategic behavior in contests. Am Econ Rev 77:891–898Google Scholar
  11. Dorazelski U (2003) An R&D race with knowledge accumulation. Rand J Econ 1:20–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ernst H, Vitt J (2000) The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors. R&D Management 30:105-119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fumagalli E, Nilssen T (2008) Waiting to merge. SSRN Working paper series available at SSRN
  14. Gilbert RJ, Newbery DMG (1982) Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. Am Econ Rev 72:514-526Google Scholar
  15. Hanan M (1969) Corporate growth through internal spin-outs. Harvard Bus Rev 55–66Google Scholar
  16. Harris C, Vickers J (1985) Patent races and the persistence of monopoly. J Ind Econ 33:461-481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hörner J (2004) A perpetual race to stay ahead. Rev Econ Stud 71:1065–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jost PJ, van der Velden C (2006) Mergers in patent contest models with synergies and spillovers. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 58:157–179Google Scholar
  19. Kamien MI, Schwartz NL (1975) Market structure and innovation: a survey. J Econ Lit 13:1–37Google Scholar
  20. Lindholm A (1996a) An economic system of technology-related acquisitions and spin-offs. University of Cambridge, ESRC Centre for Busines Research, Working paper 33Google Scholar
  21. Lindholm A (1996b) Acquisition and growth of technology-based firms. University of Cambridge ESRC Centre for Busines Research, Working paper 47Google Scholar
  22. Link AN, Rees J (1990) Firm size, university based research and the returns to R&D. Small Bus Econ 2:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazzucato M (2000) Firm size, innovation and market structure. Edward Elgar, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  24. Nilssen T, Sørgard L (1998) Sequential horizontal mergers. Eur Econ Rev 42:1683–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinganum J (1989) The timing of innovation: research, development and diffusion. In: Schmalensee R, Willig R (eds) Handbook of industrial organization. North Holland, New York, pp 849–908Google Scholar
  26. Roberts EB (1980) New ventures for corporate growth. Harvard Bus Rev 58:134–142Google Scholar
  27. Roberts EB, Berry CA (1985) Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for success. Sloan Manage Rev 26:3–17Google Scholar
  28. Rothwell R, Zegveld W (1982) Innovation and the small and medium-sized firm. Frances Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothwell R (1989) Small firms, innovation and industrial change. Small Bus Econ 1:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salant SW, Switzer S, Reynolds RJ (1983) Losses from horizontal merger: the effects of an exogenous change in industry structure on Cournot-Nash equilibrium. Q J Econ 98:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Santarelli E, Sterlacchini A (1990) Innovation, formal vs. informal R&D, and firm size: some evidence from Italian manufacturing firms. Small Bus Econ 2:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scherer FM (1965) Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. Am Econ Rev 55:1097–1125Google Scholar
  33. Scherer FM (1991) Changing perspectives on the firm size problem. In: Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (eds) Innovation and technological change: an international comparison. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 24–38Google Scholar
  34. Van Dijk B, den Hertog R, Menkveld B, Thurik AR (1997) Some new evidence on the determinants of large- and small-firm innovation. Small Bus Econ 9:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Veugelers R, Cassiman B (1999) Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Res Policy 28:63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zachau U (1987) Mergers in the model of an R&D race. University of Bonn, Sonderforschungsbereich 303, Discussion paper no A 139Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Bavarian Graduate Program in EconomicsUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations