Key policies

  • Massimiliano Granieri
  • Andrea Renda
Part of the Sxi — Springer for Innovation / Sxi — Springer per l’Innovazione book series (SXIINNO)


In this section we explore three main obstacles to the development of an effective and coherent innovation policy in the European Union: the saga of the EU patent, the problems faced by technology and knowledge/transfer legislation, and EU standardization policy. We find that in these areas, despite a long-standing debate and several attempts to converge on more socially desirable outcomes, a lot still needs to be done before the European Union will be able to count on effective and efficient legal rules and institutions that could serve as catalysts for breakthroughs in research and innovation in the EU27.


Patent Protection European Patent Intellectual Property Right European Patent Office Patent System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Amihud Y, Mendelson H, Pedersen LH (2005) Liquidity and asset prices. Found Trends Finance 1:269–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anand BN, Khanna T (2000) The structure of licensing contracts. J Ind Econ 48:103–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arora A, Ceccagnoli M (2006) Patent protection, complementary assets, and firm’s incentives for technology licensing. Manag Sci 52:293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arora A, Fosfuri A (2003) Licensing the market for technology. J Econ Behav Organ 52:277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arora A, Merges RP (2004) Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries. Ind Corporate Change 13:451–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Athreye S, Cantwell J (2007) Creating competition? Globalization and the emergence of new technology producers. Res Policy 36:209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benassi M, Di Minin A (2009) Playing in between: patent brokers in markets for technology. R&D Manag 39:68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bessen J (2003) Patent thickets: strategic patenting of complex technologies.
  10. 10.
    CEPS Task Force Report (2010) A new approach to innovation policy in the European Union. CEPS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cesaroni F (2004) Technological outsourcing and product diversification: do markets for technology affect firms’ strategies? Res Policy 33:1547–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chien CV (2010) From arms race to marketplace: the complex patent ecosystem and its implications for the patent system.
  14. 14.
    Choi JP (2002) A dynamic analysis of licensing: the “boomerang” effect and grant-back clauses. Int Econ Rev 43:803–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cockburn IM (2007) Is the market for technology working? Obstacles to licensing inventions, and ways to licensing inventions, and ways to reduce them. Paper presented at the Conference on Economics of Technology Policy, Monte Verità, Ascona, 17–22 June 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Copenhagen Economics and The IPR Company (2009) Are IPR a barrier to the transfer of climate change technology? CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cotter T (2008) Patent holdup, patent remedies, and antitrust responses. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-39Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Danguy J, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2009) Cost-benefit analysis of the Community patent, Bruegel Working Paper 08/2009Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Vries H, Blind K, Mangelsdorf A, Verheul H, Van der Zwan J (2009) SME access to European Standardization. Enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to achieve greater benefit from standards and from involvement in standardization. Rotterdam School of Management. 20Access%20Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Domowitz I (2002) Liquidity, transaction costs, and reintermediation in electronic markets. J Finan Serv Res 22:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elhauge E (2008) Do patent holdup and royalty stacking lead to systematically excessive royalties?
  23. 23.
    EPO (European Patent Office) (2007) Scenarios for the future. patentsystem/scenarios-for-the-future.htmlGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Commission (2005) More research and innovation — investing for growth and employment: a common approach, COM(2005) 448 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Commission (2007) Enhancing the Patent System in Europe, COM(2007) 165 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Commission 2007 Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation. Implementing the Lisbon Agenda, COM(2007) 182. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Commission (2008) An industrial property rights strategy for Europe, COM(2008) 465/3. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    European Commission (2008) A “Small Business Act” for Europe, COM(2008) 394 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Commission (2008) Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organizations, COM(2008) 1329. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Commission (2009) Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry, Final report, Staff Working Paper, Part I.
  31. 31.
    European Commission (2010) Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, COM(2010) 546 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    European Commission (2010) Proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, COM(2010) 790 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    European Commission (2011) A resource-efficient Europe: flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy, COM(2011) 21 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    European Commission (2011) A single market for intellectual property rights, COM (2011) 287 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    European Commission (2011) A strategic vision for European standards: moving forward to enhance and accelerate the sustainable growth of the European economy by 2020, COM (2011) 311 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    European Commission (2011) From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding, COM(2011) 48. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardization System (2010) Standardization for a competitive and innovative Europe: a vision for 2020, available at
  38. 38.
    Federal Trade Commission (2003) To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and the patent law and policy.
  39. 39.
    Feldman M, Feller I, Bercovitz J, Burton R (2002) Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Manag Sci 48:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fischer T, Henkel J (2009) Patent trolls on markets for technology: an empirical analysis of trolls’ patent acquisitions.
  41. 41.
    Friedman DD, Landes WM, Posner RA (1991) Some economics of trade secret law. J Econ Perspect 5:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gallini NT (2002) The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. J Econ Perspect 16:131–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res Policy 32:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garman MB (1976) Market microstructure. J Financ Econ 3:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Graham SJH, Harhoff D (2006) Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of US and European patents. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5680Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Graham SJH, Merges RP, Samuelson P, Sichelman T (2010) High technology entrepreneurs and the patent system: results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey. Berkeley Technol Law J 24:1255–1328Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Green J, Scotchmer S (1990) Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND J Econ 21:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grindley PC, Teece DJ (1997) Managing intellectual capital: licensing and crosslicensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif Manag Rev 39:8–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hall BH, Helmers C (2011) Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: can patent commons help? NBER Working Paper No. 16920Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harhoff D, Hall BH, Von Graevenitz G, Hoisl K, Wagner S (2007) The strategic use of patents and its implications for enterprise and competition policies, Final Report.
  51. 51.
    Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Henderson P, Pierantozzi M (2008) Increasing transparency in the IP transaction markets. Intellect Asset Manag 31Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hovenkamp H (2008) Patent Continuations, patent deception, and standard setting: the Rambus and Broadcom decisions. University of IOWA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-25Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hsu Y, Ziedonis RH (2007) Patents as quality signals for entrepreneurial ventures. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2007, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, 18–20 June 2007Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (2007) Current and emerging intellectual property issues for business. A roadmap for business and policy makers, 8th edn. ICC, ParisGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jensen R, Thursby M (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing. Am Econ Rev 91:240–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation (JIII) (2003) Survey on patent valuation system in patent licensing market. JIII, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kessel M, Hall S (2006) Avoiding premature licensing. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:985–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kim YJ, Vonortas NS (2006) Technology licensing partners. J Econ Bus 58:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kline D (2003) Sharing the corporate crown jewels. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 44:89–93Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Knight D (2008) Cost of patent disputes. IAM Magazine: Patents in Europe 2008: 25–28Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kulatilaka N, Lin L (2006) Impact of licensing on investment and financing of technology development. Manag Sci 52:1824–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lanjouw JO, Shankerman M (2004) Protecting intellectual property rights: are small firms handicapped? J Law Econ 47:45–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lee R (1998) What is an exchange? Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lemley M (2002) Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations. Boalt Working Papers in Public Law No. 24Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lemley M, Shapiro C (2007) Reply: Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Rev 85:2163–2173Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Leone JR, Berneman LP (2008) Revenue interest financing: a strategic alternative to accessing capital through licensing in the life sciences. Les Nouvelles (Dec)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Leone MI, Laursen K (2011) Patent exploitation strategies and value creation. In: Munari F, Oriani R (eds) The economic valuation of patents. Methods, application and cases. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 82–106Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Leone MI, Oriani R (2009) Licensing as a source of financing. Paper presented at the 29th Annual International Conference of the Strategic Management Society, Washington, DC, 11–14 October 2009Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND J Econ 25:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lerner J (1995) Patenting in the shadow of competitors. J Law Econ 38:463–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lewis T, Reichman JH (2003) Using liability rules to stimulate local innovations in developing countries: a law and economics primer.
  73. 73.
    Lichtenthaler U, Ernst H (2007) Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Res Policy 36:37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    London Economics (2010) Patent backlogs and mutual recognition, Final Report to the Intellectual Property Office. LondonGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mann RJ, Sager TW (2007) Patents, venture capital and software start-ups. Res Policy 36:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mansfield E (1991) Academic research and industrial innovation. Res Policy 20:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Maskus KE (2006) Reforming U.S. patent policy. Council on Foreign Relations, CRS No. 19Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mendi P (2007) Trade in disembodied technology and total factor productivity in OECD countries. Res Policy 36:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Merges PR (1998) Property rights, transactions, and the value of intangible assets. University of California at Berkeley, School of Law (mimeo)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Michel P (2011) Fellow citizens: be on guard. J Patent Trademark Office Soc.
  81. 81.
    Monk AHB (2009) The emerging market for intellectual property: drivers, restrainers, and implications. J Econ Geography 9:469–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Moore K (2005) Worthless patents. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 04-29Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Morgan K (2004) The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. J Econ Geography 4:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Munari F, Odasso C, Toschi L (2010) Patent-backed finance. In: Munari F, Oriani R (eds) The economic valuation of patents. Methods, application and cases. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 337–357Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Munari F, Toschi L (2008) How good are VCs at valuing technology? An analysis of patenting and VC investments in nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA, 8–13 August 2008Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    OECD (2006) Valuation and exploitation of intellectual property. OECD STI Working Paper 2006/5Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    OECD (2009) The emerging patent marketplace. OECD STI Working Paper 2009/9Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ogus A (1999) Competition between national legal systems: a contribution of economic analysis to comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 48:405–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ordover JA (1991) A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion. J Econ Perspect 5:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pagano M (1989) Trading volume and asset liquidity. Q J Econ 104:25–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    PATQUAL (2011) Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe. PATQUAL, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Pitkethly R (2001) Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Res Policy 30:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Polk Wagner R (2009) Understanding patent quality mechanism. Univ Pa Law Rev 157:2135–2173Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Rai A, Graham S, Doms M (2011) Patent reform. Unleashing innovation, promoting economic growth & producing high-paying jobs. White Paper from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rato M, Geradin D (2007) Can standard-setting lead to exploitative abuse? A dissonant view on patent hold-up, royalty stacking and the meaning of FRAND. Eur Competition J 3:101–107Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Razgaitis R (2004) U.S./Canadian licensing in 2003: survey results. J Licensing Exec Soc 39:139–151Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Reitzig M (2006) Valuing patents and patent portfolios from a corporate perspective: theoretical considerations, applied needs and future challenges. In: Bosworth D, Webster E (eds) The management of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Reitzig M, Henkel J, Schneider F (2009) Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Ind Corp Change 19:947–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    RICARDIS (2006) Reporting intellectual capital to augment research, development and innovation in SMEs. RICARDIS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rivette K, Kline D (2000) Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Bus Rev 55–66Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Shacht WS, Thomas JR (2011) The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: innovation issues. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innov Policy Econ 1:119–150Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Shapiro RJ, Pham ND (2007) Economic effects of intellectual property-intensive manufacturing in the United States, a report for World Growth, available at
  104. 104.
    Stern P (2005) The role of intermediaries in technology transfer. Paper presented at the EPO-OECD-BMWA International Conference on Intellectual Property as an Economic Asset: Key Issues in Valuation and Exploitation, Berlin, 30 June–1 July 2005Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Stoll HR (1992) Principles of trading market structure. J Financ Serv Res 6:75–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Teece D J (1988) Capturing value from technological innovation: integration, strategic partnering, and licensing decisions. Strat Manag 18:46–61Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    The Patent Prospector (2007) available at
  108. 108.
    Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2010) Europe should stop taxing innovation. Bruegel Policy Brief, BruegelGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, Van Zeebroeck N (2008) Filing strategies and patent value. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP6821Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Vattenfall Institute and McKinsey (2007) Global cost curve of GHG abatement opportunities beyond business as usual by 2030. McKinsey & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wadhwa V, Rissing B, Chopra A, Balasubramanian R, Freilich A (2007) US-based global intellectual property creation. Kauffman FoundationGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2003) Intellectual property (IP) rights and innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. WIPO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E (2004) Prediction markets. J Econ Perspect 18:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimiliano Granieri
    • 1
  • Andrea Renda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly
  2. 2.Department of ManagementLUISS Guido CarliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations