Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Table 4: Applicability <strong>of</strong> tactical moves
Albrecht Fritzsche and Rebecca Geiger
Tactical Move 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Technical Leadership z x, z x, y, v x, y x, y
Aggressive Competition x, y, v y y x, y
Claiming Niches v, t x x, z z y v y y
Licensing x, v z z
x – Rahn (1994) y – Granstrand (1999) z – Shapiro (2001) y – Burr et al. (2007) t – Burr (2004)
5. Implications for competitive advantage
5.1 The contextual background <strong>of</strong> patent trade
It is important to understand that <strong>the</strong> awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> different effects that patents can have does not
only enable a systematic approach to patent management; it also has consequences for <strong>the</strong> assessment
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> patent value. Based on <strong>the</strong> patent strategies <strong>the</strong>y pursue and <strong>the</strong> tactical moves <strong>the</strong>y apply,
companies can express very specific interest in <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> patents and realise it ei<strong>the</strong>r by internal
research and development, external consulting, purchase <strong>of</strong> licenses or <strong>the</strong> takeover <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r companies.
Evans/Wurster (1997) have described <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> such activities as a consequence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
transformation <strong>of</strong> business transactions towards an economy <strong>of</strong> information. According to Monk (2009),
this development is still in an early stage that can be compared to <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>of</strong> financial derivates in
<strong>the</strong> early nineteen-eighties. The biggest restraining force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> development is <strong>the</strong> problem that it is
difficult to say how much a single patent is actually worth. For that reason, intermediaries with high
expertise in legal, economic and technical questions play an important role for patent trade.
The previous reflections in this paper suggest that <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> a patent for competitive advantage
unfolds itself in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> patenting strategies and tactics. It is impossible to estimate what a
company would be willing to pay for <strong>the</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> a patent without knowing if <strong>the</strong> company wants to
use it for trading licenses, claming a niche, interfering with <strong>the</strong> competition or protecting its position as
technical leader. In addition, it is necessary to find out how <strong>the</strong> patent contributes to <strong>the</strong> tactical moves
that a company may apply. As we have seen, many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se moves involve a number <strong>of</strong> different
patents. The reference to a certain market value only seems to make sense for a patent which is so
fundamental that possessing it means a tactical move that applies to all four strategies.
5.2 Patents and competitive instruments
The value <strong>of</strong> a patent is usually expressed by indicators like <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> citations, renewals and
claims, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> contributors, <strong>the</strong> places where it is registered or <strong>the</strong> route in which it was subsequently
registered in different locations (see e.g. Frietsch et al. 2010). These indicators have proven
to be helpful to estimate <strong>the</strong> innovative power <strong>of</strong> certain companies and regions. The separate assessment
<strong>of</strong> single patents, however, raises questions which can hardly answered by <strong>the</strong>se indicators.
For example, it remains unclear how strong <strong>the</strong> protection is that <strong>the</strong> patent can exert, both in terms <strong>of</strong>
efficiency and effectiveness. There is good reason to assume that <strong>the</strong> situation would become much
easier if <strong>the</strong> evaluation referred to <strong>the</strong> tactical moves <strong>of</strong> patenting instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> patents <strong>the</strong>mselves. In
contrast to <strong>the</strong> patents, <strong>the</strong> tactical moves are already expressed in instrumental terms. The effect <strong>the</strong>y
are supposed to have is clearly defined and it is possible to make comparisons between one tactical
move and ano<strong>the</strong>r.
If all this is true, <strong>the</strong> emerging market for patents ra<strong>the</strong>r seems to be a market for protective instruments
that involve patents and that can be applied as tactical moves in pursuing a certain patenting strategy.
For <strong>the</strong> patent intermediaries, it is <strong>the</strong>refore ra<strong>the</strong>r important to select patents carefully according to <strong>the</strong>
strategies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir customers. For tactical moves like fencing and surrounding o<strong>the</strong>r patents, it is also
necessary to create bundles <strong>of</strong> different patents and possibly o<strong>the</strong>r protective measures. These bundles
show that it is less important to clarify a certain technical innovation than it is to clarify what can or
cannot be done with it. In that sense, <strong>the</strong> tactical moves refer back to a more general kind <strong>of</strong> intellectual
capital than what is expressed in <strong>the</strong> description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> patent. Patenting presents itself as a sophisticated
behaviour. It requires expertise from both R&D and marketing departments.
162