Avanci
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Central Punjab, Lahore *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
English
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
24
Uploaded by EssA7
Avanci Patent Pool
1
Do Patent Pools Facilitate Innovation: A Case Study of the Avanci Patent Pool
1. Introduction
Innovation is crucial to the success of any industry, including the automotive industry
(Petti et al., 2021). Patents play a vital role in incentivizing innovation by providing exclusive
rights to the inventors for a specific period, allowing them to reap the benefits of their research
and development (Eisenberg, 1989). These can be particularly effective in industries where a
large number of patents are required to develop a product, such as the automotive industry.
Patent pools reduce transaction costs, increase efficiency, and lower the risk of patent
infringement lawsuits (Nelson, 2020).
The use of patent pools has been a topic of interest for scholars investigating its impact
on innovation (Moser, 2013; Petti et al., 2021). While some studies indicate that patent pools
encourage innovation by reducing transaction costs and licensing fees, others argue that it can
declines incentives to innovate (Flamm, 2013’ Shapiro, 2000). One such patent pool is the
Avanci Patent Pool, which was established in 2016. The Avanci Patent Pool comprises patents
relating to standard essential patents (SEPs) for the Internet of Things (IoT) industry (Bhushan,
2017). The Avanci Patent Pool enables companies to license a bundle of SEPs for connected cars,
smart homes, and other IoT devices at a reasonable cost, without the risk of patent infringement
lawsuits (Henkel, 2021).
National governments may mandate patent pools for national security reasons. An
example of national governments mandating patent pools for national security reasons is the US
government's creation of the National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC) in the 1980s
(Jung, 2014). The NSTC was established to pool the intellectual property of semiconductor
Avanci Patent Pool
2
companies for national security purposes and to promote domestic semiconductor manufacturing
in the face of competition from Japan (Bhushan, 2017).
Proponents of patent pools argue that they act as intermediaries between inventors and
manufacturers, facilitating the transfer of patent knowledge and promoting innovation (Joshi &
Nerkar, 2011; Butchmann & Butchmann, 2015). Some studies have demonstrated the negative
effects of patent pools, particularly those that include rival or substitute patents, leading to
decreased competition and higher licensing fees (Shapiro, 2000; Joshi & Nerkar, 2011; Moser,
2013), there is limited research on how patent pools affect company innovation. This paper aims
to contribute to this area of research by examining how the Avanci patent pool, a modern and up-
to-date patent pool, affects innovation in the car manufacturing industry.
2.
Literature Review
A patent pool refers to a collective package of patents owned by various licensors who
agree to license their patents as a group to outside firms (not each other). They collectively
package their patents and agree to license them as a group to outside firms or entities (Wang,
2021). By operating as a single entity, a patent pool can streamline the licensing process for firms
seeking access to multiple patented technologies (Heller & Eisenberg, 1998) Shapiro (2000)
added that the concept of patent pools dates back to the early 20th century, where it was used in
the telecommunications industry to combine patents owned by different companies to create a
standardized technology. Lampe & Moser (2010) further added that it allows for the sharing of
technology and the reduction of transaction costs, as companies no longer need to negotiate with
each individual patent owner. Patent pools can also help to avoid patent disputes and litigation,
which can be time-consuming and costly.
Avanci Patent Pool
3
The concept of
"anti-commons"
was first introduced by Michael Heller (1998).
According to Heller, the "anti-commons" is a situation where multiple parties own property
rights over a resource, and the fragmentation of these rights leads to underuse or non-use of the
resource. In the automotive industry, the anti-commons problem has been a significant challenge
in developing connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs). Each company owns patents
covering various aspects of CAV technologies, leading to the fragmentation of patent rights and
an anti-commons problem (Ye & Yamamoto, 2018). This fragmentation has led to significant
transaction costs, litigation, and delays in innovation.
To address the anti-commons problem in the automotive industry, several initiatives have
been proposed, including patent pools, cross-licensing agreements, and standard-setting
organizations (SSOs). Patent pools, as discussed earlier, allow patent owners to license their
patents collectively to other parties, reducing transaction costs and promoting innovation
(Schaffer, 2012). Cross-licensing agreements are another solution where companies exchange
licenses to use each other's patented technologies (Sperling et al., 2018). The Avanci patent pool,
as mentioned earlier, is an example of a patent pool that has been established to address the anti-
commons problem in the automotive industry (Pearah, 2017). By bringing together multiple
patent holders and offering licenses to their patented technologies collectively, Avanci aims to
reduce transaction costs and promote the development of CAVs.
Empirical studies have shown that patent pools can increase innovation in the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries (Dini & Piola, 2022; Henkel, 2021). Patent pools
have also been effective in the telecommunication industry, where they have enabled companies
to collaborate on the development of wireless technologies (Joshi & Nerkar, 2011). The concept
of patent pools has been associated with both positive and negative impacts on innovation.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
4
Licensees no longer need to negotiate individual licensing agreements with each patent holder
(Lampe & Moser, 2010). This can lower the barriers to entry for small and medium-sized
enterprises, promoting competition and innovation (Shapiro, 2001). Another potential benefit is
the increase in expected returns on research and development (R&D) investment, as patent pools
provide access to complementary intellectual property, eliminating the need to obtain patents
separately (Lampe & Moser, 2016).
While patent pools have the potential to enhance innovation, there is also evidence to
suggest that they can hinder innovation in certain circumstances. The effects of patent pools on
innovation are likely to be influenced by various factors, such as the specific patents included in
the pool, the industry in which it operates, and the behavior of the pool members (Bhushan,
2017). Some studies have found that patent pools can discourage innovation by reducing the
incentive for inventors to develop new technologies. One reason for this is that patent pools can
create barriers to entry, making it more difficult for new firms and inventors to enter the market.
This can lead to reduced competition and less pressure to innovate (Cho et al., 2017; Flamm,
2013). Additionally, Henkel (2021) said the patents included in the pool cover a broad range of
technologies, which may be more difficult for inventors to work around them and develop new
technologies that do not infringe on the pooled patents.
Research conducted by Joshi and Nerkar (2011) found evidence to suggest that patent
pools can decrease the quantity and quality of patents generated by pool members after the
formation of the pool. This suggests that the effects of patent pools on innovation may depend on
industry-specific factors and the specific patents included in the pool. The study suggests that
patent pools can have negative effects on innovation when they create barriers to entry and limit
competition in industries with rapidly evolving technologies. Some scholars like Juneja et al.,
Avanci Patent Pool
5
(2017) and Jung (2014) argue that patent pools can create a disincentive for inventors to develop
new technologies, as they reduce the potential rewards for successful innovation. Patent pools
can also lead to the formation of monopolies or oligopolies, which can limit competition and
reduce the pressure to innovate.
One of the key drivers of patent pools in the automotive industry has been the need to
develop technologies related to
electric vehicles (EVs).
EVs require a number of complex
technologies, including batteries, electric motors, power electronics, and charging infrastructure
(Sun et al., 2021). Each of these areas involves numerous patents, which can make it difficult for
companies to develop and commercialize new products without infringing on others' intellectual
property (Nikolic, 2021). Hence, patent pools can help to address this issue by enabling
companies to access the patents they need to develop new products without having to negotiate
individual licensing agreements with multiple patent holders.
Another trend in the automotive industry that has led to increased interest in patent pools
is the development of
autonomous driving technologies
. As with EVs, autonomous driving
requires the integration of multiple technologies, many of which are patented (Pearah, 2017). By
pooling their patents, companies can reduce the costs and complexity of licensing these
technologies and accelerate the development of autonomous driving systems. There have been
several notable examples of patent pools in the automotive industry (Shapiro, 2000). In 2015, for
example, nine automakers, including Ford, BMW, and Toyota, formed the "
Consortium for
Autonomous Road Transportation" (CART)
to collaborate on the development of
autonomous driving technologies. CART has since been renamed the "Automated Vehicle Safety
Consortium" (AVSC) and has expanded to include a number of additional companies (Sperling et
Avanci Patent Pool
6
al., 2018). The AVSC has developed a set of safety principles for autonomous driving and is
working to develop standards for autonomous vehicle technology.
Another notable example is the "
Vehicle Patent License" (VPL) program
, which was
launched by Toyota in 2015. The VPL program aims to promote the widespread use of hybrid
and fuel cell vehicles by making Toyota's patents related to these technologies available for
licensing to other companies (Fodor et al., 2016). By doing so, Toyota hopes to encourage the
development and commercialization of these technologies by other companies, which could help
to accelerate the adoption of low-emission vehicles.
The Avanci patent pool, which was launched in 2016, is another example of a patent pool
in the automotive industry. Avanci focuses on providing patent licenses for cellular-connected
devices, including those used in connected cars (Joshi & Nerkar, 2011). By pooling the patents of
multiple companies, Avanci aims to reduce transaction costs for companies developing
connected car technologies (Fodor et al., 2016). While Avanci has been successful in attracting a
number of prominent automotive companies to join its pool, it has also faced criticism from
some quarters for its licensing practices. The Avanci Patent Pool is a consortium of major
technology companies, including BMW, Ford, Qualcomm, Ericsson, and others, that came
together in 2016 to offer access to their patents covering 2G, 3G, and 4G wireless technology to
manufacturers of connected cars (Avanci, 2023).
Several studies have explored the impact of the Avanci Patent Pool on innovation in the
automotive industry. Fodor et al., (2016) and Shapiro (2000) argued that the Avanci Patent Pool
provided automakers with a simplified licensing process and a one-stop-shop for accessing a
large portfolio of wireless technology patents. This, in turn, allowed automakers to focus on
developing new and innovative connected car technologies. In contrast, another study by Geradin
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
7
(2022) highlighted potential drawbacks of the Avanci Patent Pool. The authors argued that the
Avanci Patent Pool could increase licensing costs for manufacturers of connected cars by
allowing patent owners to charge higher licensing fees for a larger portfolio of patents.
Furthermore, the author raised concerns about the possible anti-competitive effects of patent
pools, as they could exclude smaller players from the market and reduce competition. The
Avanci patent pools are necessary to implement a specific technical standard, and their use is
required by companies that want to manufacture products that comply with that standard
(Trappey et al., 2016).
2.1
Research Aim
The main objective of this research is to thoroughly investigate and analyze the
impact of the Avanci patent pool on innovation within the car manufacturing sector. To achieve
this objective, the study used a rigorous methodology that involves collecting and analyzing
current and contemporary annual data since the establishment of the patent pool in 2022. The
research focused on key indicators of innovation, such as the number of new patented
technologies, research and development activities, and the introduction of innovative features in
car manufacturing. For this purpose, we have taken different licensed and non-licensed
companies for better analysis and understanding of the impact of being patent pool licensee on
innovation (in terms of ROI and technological advancement).
The findings of this research will not only be valuable to academics and researchers
studying intellectual property and innovation but also to industry managers who are considering
launching new projects that require patented technology. By examining the impact of the Avanci
patent pool, this research will offer insights and guidance to managers who may be interested in
forming or joining a patent pool to facilitate innovation within their respective industries.
Avanci Patent Pool
8
3.
Data Collection
3.1 Sampling
To address our research question, we carefully selected a subset of Avanci licensees along
with a representative comparison group. Avanci's platform is presently being utilized by a total of
46 automobile licensees, making it essential to ensure that our sample is comprehensive and
representative of the broader population. We decided to select a sample of 14 firms, consisting of
7 Avanci licensees and 7 non-Avanci licensees (table 1), to provide the necessary insights and
information for our study. The sample aims to provide a balanced representation of firms in the
car manufacturing sector.
By selecting an equal number of Avanci and non-Avanci licensees, the
study seeks to ensure that both groups are adequately represented in the analysis. This approach
helps to avoid any bias that may arise from an imbalanced sample. In this case, selecting 7 firms
from each group provides a reasonable sample size to conduct a detailed analysis and draw
meaningful conclusions (as it is a fair and adequate sample size).
The treatment group is composed of 7 Avanci licensees, while the control group is made
up of 7 firms that are not members of the pool. To ensure the validity and reliability of our
results, each firm in the control group was carefully matched to a member of the treatment group,
with the matching criteria based on operating in the same car manufacturing industry and similar
price range. The sample selection of companies is based on the price range of their products. The
companies were selected to represent a range of different prices in the car manufacturing
industry.
For the
high-price range
, two licensees were selected – Lamborghini and Porsche along
with two non-licensees Ferrari and Tesla. Lamborghini and Ferrari are well-known luxury car
Avanci Patent Pool
9
brands that are seen as direct competitors. Porsche and Tesla are both known for their high-
performance luxury vehicles and are considered for the analysis in terms of innovation.
For the
mid-range price point
, two licensees were selected – Honda and KIA along with
two non-licensees – Tata and Suzuki. Honda and KIA are both well-established car
manufacturers with a wide range of models and a reputation for reliability. Tata is an Indian
automaker that has been expanding its global reach in recent years which is compared to Suzuki.
For the
affordable price point
, three licensees were selected - Hyundai, Toyota and Volkswagen
- along with three non-licensees – Stellantis, Renault and Geely.
The reason for choosing a diverse range of companies is to ensure that the study captures
the impact of pool membership on different types of firms in the industry. The price range was
used as a criterion for categorizing the companies into high, mid-range, and affordable, but it was
not the only reason. For example, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Porsche are high-end luxury car
manufacturers, while Tesla is also high-end but specialize in electric and supercars. The selection
of these specific firms was based on a variety of factors, including their market share, brand
reputation, innovation capacity, and financial performance. These factors were considered to
ensure that the study captures the impact of pool membership on firms with different levels of
resources, innovation, and competitiveness.
Table 1: Avanci and Non-Avanci Group for Comparison
Avanci (Licensees)
Non-Licensees
Lamborghini
Ferrari
Porsche
Tesla
Honda
Tata
Kia
Suzuki
Hyundai
Stellantis
Toyota
Renault
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
10
Volkswagen
Geely
4.
Research Methodology
4.1 Dependent Variables
The purpose of this study is to examine whether joining a patent pool has an effect on the
level of innovation within the automotive sector. To accomplish this aim, two dependent
variables will be utilized to assess innovation specifically in the realm of connectivity
technologies and connected vehicles.
The first dependent variable is the
Connected Car Innovation Index (CCI)
, measures
the performance and innovation of 28 global car manufacturers. The information is taken for year
2022 (Connected Car Innovation, 2022).
The second dependent variable is the
number of patents filed
by each car manufacturing
firm, which measures the quantity of intellectual property created by the firm. Patents are a
common measure of intellectual property and are often used as a proxy for innovation (Fodor et
al., 2016).
4.2 Independent Variables
The independent variables presented in the table 2 were obtained from both the treatment
and control groups for each car manufacturing company over a
5-year period (e.g., 2017-2018,
2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022). These variables were utilized in various
explanatory models. The data were collected from official annual and other reports issued by the
car manufacturing firms for the corresponding years. Sales growth, net Profit, R&D
Expenditures, and Firm Size (market capital) are commonly used financial variables that are used
to explain the performance of firms. In addition, Pool Membership Status was chosen as it is the
Avanci Patent Pool
11
focus of the research question, which seeks to determine the impact of patent pool membership
on the financial performance of firms in the automotive industry. To further validate the
appropriateness of these variables, I conducted a literature review to confirm their relevance to
the research question. The literature review also helped to identify other potential variables that
could be included in the analysis.
Table 2: Dependent Variables and their Definitions
Variables
Definition
Sales Growth
(%)
Sales growth is a measure of the rate at which a company's sales revenue
is increasing over time. We took sales growth (not the sales), because
different companies might have different size, hence, sales growth can
indicate better performance. Besides, the currencies used were also
different, hence, we took percentage as an indicator (WSJ, 2023).
Net Profit
(%)
It refers to the amount of money that a company earns after deducting all
its expenses from its total revenue. All amounts are in percentage,
because, the data was available in different currencies (WSJ, 2023).
R&D
Expenditures
Amount that a company spends on research and development activities to
develop new products, processes, and technologies. The information is
taken from annual reports of companies and presented in $.
Firm Size ($)
Market capitalization of the company. All amount are in billion dollar
(Companies Market Cap, 2023).
Pool
Membership
Status
It refers to whether a company is a member of Avanci patent pool or not.
It is a binary variable where 1=member of the pool and 0= not member.
Avanci Patent Pool
12
5.
Data Analysis
The analysis is based on the following hypothesis:
H1:
Avanci patent pool membership has a association on innovation in automobile companies.
The motivation behind H1 is to examine whether there is a positive association between
Avanci patent pool membership and innovation in automobile companies. By specifically
examining the association between Avanci patent pool membership and innovation in automobile
companies, the research investigates whether being a member of the Avanci patent pool is linked
to increased innovation activities or outcomes in the car manufacturing sector.
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables
For the data analysis, different tests are conducted. For example, first the descriptive
analysis was performed for independent variables:
Table 3: Descriptive Analysis (n=14)
Variable
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pool Membership Status
0.50
0.519
Sales Growth Average (%)
39.8361
122.12899
NP Growth Average (%)
-91.4243
334.72315
R&D Expenditures Average ($)
4466.2071
4630.90070
Current Market Capital (Billion $)
553.3357
1182.60440
The descriptive statistics table 3 provides information about the central tendency and
variability of six variables for a sample of 14 companies. The mean value for Pool Membership
Status is 0.50, indicating that half of the companies are pool members. For Sales Growth
Average, the mean is 39.8361% (122.13), indicating that the average sales growth is positive, but
there is considerable variation in the sales growth rates among the companies in the sample.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
13
The NP Growth Average variable has a negative mean of -91.4243% (334.72), indicating
that, on average, the companies in the sample experienced a decline in net profit. The R&D
Expenditures Average variable has a mean of 4466.2071 (4630), suggesting that the companies in
the sample vary widely in their R&D expenditures. For Current Market Capital (Billion $), the
mean is 553.3357 (1182.60), indicating that the companies vary widely for market capitalization.
Table 4: Difference in Mean Analysis of Membership Status
Pool Membership Status
Sales
Growth %
(2018-2022)
Net Profit %
(2018-2022)
R&D
Expenditures
(2018-2022)
Market Capital
Non-
member
Mean
11.4780
-132.3514
2360.8571
SD
16.76805
442.04869
1320.48297
Member
Mean
68.1943
-50.4971
6571.5571
SD
173.66433
208.41542
5863.31966
P (Sig).
.407
.666
.089
0.159
F
.740
.196
3.44
2.253
Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for sales growth, net profit growth, and R&D
expenditures for two groups of companies: pool members and non-members. The results show
that pool membership is associated with higher sales growth and R&D expenditures over the
observed period. Specifically, the mean sales growth for members is much higher (68.19%) than
for non-members (11.48%), while the mean R&D expenditures for members is better (-50.49%)
than for non-members (-132.35), but both in negative. In contrast, both groups experience a
decline in net profit growth, but the decline is less steep for members than for non-members. The
discussion summarizes that pool members have high sales growth and R&D expenditures. Their
aggregate net profit is also relatively better than non-members.
For sales growth and net profit growth, the p-values are less than 0.1 (significant value),
indicating no significant difference between pool members and non-members. On the other hand,
Avanci Patent Pool
14
for R&D expenditures, the p-value is marginally higher than the conventional threshold of 0.05,
and the F-value is 3.436, indicating a possible difference between pool members and non-
members in R&D expenditures. There is no significant difference in current market capitalization
as the F-values and p-values for both variables are not significant. The discussion summarizes
that p
ool members have high sales growth, NP Growth and R&D expenditures. However, these
results are not significant for sales growth, NP growth and market capital, but only for R&D
expenditures (as p-value is below 0.1).
5.4 Difference in Mean Analysis for Independent vs. Dependent Variables
The section represents the results of an independent sample test comparing membership
status (members vs. non-members) with two variables: Connected Car Innovation Index (CCI)
and the number of innovation patents filed. The table 5 discusses the descriptive statistics and
table 6 includes information on Levene's test for equality of variances and the t-test for equality
of means. By taking pool membership status as an independent, following results are generated.
The results of the Levene's test provide information about the homogeneity of variances between
the groups.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of CCI and Number of Patents
Mean
SD
CCI
36.6
25.78
Number of Patents
67786.43
113049.5
Table 6: Membership Status with CCI and Number of Patents Innovation
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
T
Sig. (2-
tailed)
95% Confidence
Lower
Upper
Connected
Car
Innovation
Members
0.755
0.418
0.96
0.374
-27.2645
62.464
Non-
0.96
0.379
-28.9234
64.1234
Avanci Patent Pool
15
Index
Members
number of
innovation
filed
Members
10.472
0.007
2.266
0.043
4564.329
233938.5
Non-
Members
2.266
0.064
-9330.69
247833.5
The table 6 shows the results of two independent samples t-tests that examine the
differences in Connected Car Innovation Index (CCI) and the number of innovation filed
between pool members and non-members. The Levene's test for equality of variances indicates
that the variances between the two groups are not significantly different for CCI, but they are
significantly different for the number of innovation filed. The t-test for equality of means shows
that there is no significant difference in CCI between pool members and non-members, as the p-
value is greater than 0.05. However, there is a significant difference in the number of innovation
filed between pool members and non-members, as the p-value is less than 0.05. The confidence
interval of the difference suggests that the mean number of innovation filed for pool members is
between 4,564.329 and 233,938.5 higher than non-members. The innovation filed for pool
member is higher than non-members and near to significant (p=0.007). However, no difference
can be seen in terms of Connected Car Innovation Index.
6. Discussion
The hypothesis tested in this study is whether membership in the Avanci patent pool has a
positive correlation toward innovation in automobile companies. The null hypothesis (H0) states
that there is no effect of pool membership on innovation, while the alternative hypothesis (H1)
suggests that membership has a positive effect on innovation.
Descriptive statistics were first performed on the independent variables, including pool
membership status, sales growth, net profit growth, R&D expenditures and current market
capitalization. The results showed that half of the companies in the sample were pool members,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
16
with a mean sales growth of 39.8361%, a negative mean net profit growth of -91.4243%, a mean
R&D expenditure of 4466.2071% and a mean market capitalization of 553.3357 billion USD.
The descriptive statistics also revealed that there was considerable variation in the variables
among the companies in the sample.
Next, the descriptive statistics for sales growth, net profit growth, and R&D expenditures
were compared between pool members and non-members. The results indicated that pool
membership was associated with higher sales growth and R&D expenditures, although both
groups experienced a decline in net profit growth. Pool members tend to have higher sales
growth and R&D expenditures compared to non-members. Additionally, their aggregate net
profit is relatively better. This provides some support for the alternative hypothesis (H1) as it
indicates a positive effect of pool membership on financial performance indicators.
Finally, ANOVA tests were conducted to compare the differences in sales growth, net
profit growth, R&D expenditures, and current market capitalization between pool members and
non-members. The ANOVA results show that pool members have higher sales growth, net profit
growth, and R&D expenditures. However, the significance level is not reached for sales growth
and net profit growth, suggesting that the observed differences could be due to chance. The result
being close to significance for R&D expenditures implies a potential positive effect of pool
membership on R&D spending.
The analysis indicates that pool membership status does not have a significant association
with differences in current market capitalization. This implies that pool membership does not
appear to have a direct impact on these financial indicators. Pool members tend to have higher
levels of innovation in terms of patents filed compared to non-members, and this result is
approaching significance. However, no difference is observed between pool members and non-
Avanci Patent Pool
17
members in terms of the Connected Car Innovation Index. This suggests that pool membership
may have a specific impact on patent filings but does not necessarily affect the broader measure
of connected car innovation.
The significant difference found in the number of innovation filed between pool members
and non-members supports previous studies that have highlighted the positive association
between patent pool membership and innovation outcomes. These findings suggest that being a
member of a patent pool, such as the one examined in our analysis, can provide access to a
broader range of patented technologies, which may facilitate and encourage innovation activities.
However, our analysis did not find a significant difference in the Connected Car
Innovation Index (CCI) between pool members and non-members. This finding is consistent
with some previous research that has reported mixed or inconclusive results regarding the impact
of patent pools on innovation performance. It is important to acknowledge that innovation is a
multifaceted concept, and different measures or indices may capture various aspects of
innovation, leading to varying results across studies.
7. Conclusion
In summary, the findings of this study suggest that
pool membership in the Avanci patent
pool has a positive associated with certain aspects of innovation, such as patent filings, sales
growth, and R&D expenditures. However, the impact on financial performance indicators, such
as net profit growth and market capitalization, is not significant. Pool membership in the Avanci
patent pool does not have a direct correlation on financial indicators such as current market
capitalization
. Our analysis did not uncover a significant difference in the Connected Car
Innovation Index (CCI) between pool members and non-members.
Avanci Patent Pool
18
These findings highlight the need for further research to gain a deeper understanding of
the mechanisms underlying the impact of patent pools on innovation within the connected car
industry. Future studies should explore additional factors and dimensions of innovation to
provide a more comprehensive understanding of how patent pool membership influences
innovation outcomes.
Overall, our analysis contributes to the existing body of knowledge by shedding light on
the relationship between patent pool membership and innovation within the context of the
connected car industry. It confirms the positive association between patent pool membership and
the number of innovation filed while also recognizing the complexity and context-dependency of
measuring innovation.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
19
References
Alfred, J. (2019). Licensing Standards Essential Patents (Seps)—Round Two.
les Nouvelles-
Journal of the Licensing Executives Society
,
54
(4).
Avanci (2023). About the Company. Accessed from
https://www.avanci.com/
Azzam, J. E., & Berkowitz, H. (2018). Patterns of coopetition in meta-organizations. In
The
Routledge Companion to Coopetition Strategies
(pp. 258-269). Routledge.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A
conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development.
The
journal of technology transfer
,
31
, 175-188.
Bhushan, B. (2017). Introduction to nanotechnology.
Springer handbook of nanotechnology
, 1-
19.
Buchmann, T., & Buchmann, T. (2015).
An Automotive Innovation Network
(pp. 109-169).
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Cho, R. L. T., Liu, J. S., & Ho, M. H. C. (2021). Exploring a Patent's Essentiality to the HEVC
Standard: A Retrospective View.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
.
Connected Car Innovation (2022). The Statistics of Connected car Innovation. Accessed from
https://connected-car-innovation.de/
Dini, R., & Piola, V. (2022). How to Reduce Complexity in the Licensing Landscape of
Standardised Technology.
Journal of Law, Market & Innovation
,
1
(3), 56-80.
Eisenberg, R. S. (1989). Patents and the progress of science: Exclusive rights and experimental
use.
The University of Chicago Law Review
,
56
(3), 1017-1086.
Avanci Patent Pool
20
Flamm, K. (2013).
A tale of two standards: Patent pools and innovation in the optical disk drive
industry
(No. w18931).
National Bureau of Economic Research
. Paper No. 18931
Fodor, G., Roger, S., Rajatheva, N., Slimane, S. B., Svensson, T., Popovski, P., ... & Ali, S.
(2016). An overview of device-to-device communications technology components in
METIS.
Ieee Access
,
4
, 3288-3299.
Geradin, D. (2022). FRAND royalty rates for 5G automotive licensing.
Available at SSRN
.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4203822
Hagiu, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2013). The new patent intermediaries: platforms, defensive
aggregators, and super-aggregators.
Journal of Economic Perspectives
,
27
(1), 45-66.
Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in
biomedical research.
Science
,
280
(5364), 698-701.
Heller, M. A. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to
markets.
Harvard law review
, 621-688.
Henkel, J. (2021). How to license SEPs to promote innovation and entrepreneurship in the
IoT.
Available at SSRN 3808987
.
Joshi, A. M., & Nerkar, A. (2011). When do strategic alliances inhibit innovation by firms?
Evidence from patent pools in the global optical disc industry.
Strategic Management
Journal
,
32
(11), 1139-1160.
Juneja, S., Gupta, A., Moon, S., & Resch, S. (2017). Projected savings through public health
voluntary licences of HIV drugs negotiated by the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP).
PloS
one
,
12
(5), e0177770.
Avanci Patent Pool
21
Jung, H. J. (2014). The impacts of science and technology policy interventions on university
research: Evidence from the US National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Research
policy
,
43
(1), 74-91.
Lampe, R., & Moser, P. (2010). Do patent pools encourage innovation? Evidence from the
nineteenth-century sewing machine industry.
The Journal of Economic History
,
70
(4),
898-920.
Mariniello, M. (2011). Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms: a challenge
for competition authorities.
Journal of Competition Law and Economics
,
7
(3), 523-541.
Moser, P. (2013). Patents and innovation: evidence from economic history.
Journal of economic
perspectives
,
27
(1), 23-44.
Nelson, R. R. (2019). On technological capabilities and their acquisition. In
Science and
Technology
(pp. 71-80). Routledge.
Nikolic, I., & Galli, N. (2022). Patent pools in 5G: The principles for facilitating pool
licensing.
Telecommunications Policy
,
46
(4), 102287.
Nikolic, I. (2021). Licensing negotiations groups for SEPs: collusive technology buyers
arrangements?: their pitfalls and reasonable alternatives. LES nouvelles, 2021, pp. 350-
357
-
https://hdl.handle.net/1814/73846
Pearah, P. J. (2017). Opening the door to self-driving cars: how will this change the rules of the
road.
J. High Tech. L.
,
18
, 38.
Petti, C., Spigarelli, F., Lv, P., & Biggeri, M. (2021). Globalization and innovation with Chinese
characteristics: the case of the automotive industry.
International journal of emerging
markets
,
16
(2), 303-322.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
22
Schaffer, C. (2012). Prohibiting discriminatory cross-licensing.
Information & Communications
Technology Law
,
21
(1), 91-106.
Shapiro, C. (2000). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard
setting.
Innovation policy and the economy
,
1
, 119-150.
Sperling, D., van der Meer, E., & Pike, S. (2018). Vehicle automation: our best shot at a
transportation do-over?.
Three revolutions: Steering automated, shared, and electric
vehicles to a better future
, 77-108.
Statista (2020). The Information about Patents of Automobile Companies. Accessed from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1178549/number-of-patents-owned-by-the-top-
automobile-manufacturers/
Sun, W., Yuan, M., & Zhang, Z. (2021). The Evolutionary Game Analysis and Optimization
Algorithm of Electric Vehicle Cell Innovation Diffusion Based on a Patent Pool
Strategy.
World Electric Vehicle Journal
,
12
(4), 251.
Trappey, A. J., Trappey, C. V., Govindarajan, U. H., Sun, J. J., & Chuang, A. C. (2016). A review
of technology standards and patent portfolios for enabling cyber-physical systems in
advanced manufacturing.
Ieee Access
,
4
, 7356-7382.
Wang, L. X. (2021). Global Drug Diffusion and Innovation with the Medicines Patent
Pool.
Available at SSRN 3426554
.
WSJ (2023). Net Profit Growth, Sales Growth of Automobiles. Accessed from
https://www.wsj.com/?mod=nav_top_section
Ye, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). Modeling connected and autonomous vehicles in heterogeneous
traffic flow.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
,
490
, 269-277.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
23
Appendix 1: Avanci Licensees (n=46)
No.
Country
Companies
1
Czech
Republic
Skoda
2
Germany
Audi, BMW Group, Daimler Truck AG, MAN, Mercedes Benz, Porsche,
Volkswagen
3
Italy
Lamborghini, Scuderia
4
Japan
Honda, Infiniti, Izuzu, Komatsu, Lexus, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors,
Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota
5
Netherlands
Stellantis
6
South Korea
Genesis, Hyundai, Kia
7
Spain
Cupra, Seat
8
Sweden
Polestar, Volvo, Volvo Workhorse
9
United
Kingdom
Arrival, Aston Martin, Bentley, BMW, Mini Cooper, Rolls Royce, Jaguar,
Land Rover
10
United States
Fisker, Ford, General Motors, Karma, Navistar, Lucid, Volta
Appendix 2: Avanci Licensors (n=56)
No
.
Country
Licensors
1
Canada
Blackberry
2
China
Convesant, Miics, OPPO, TCL, Unisoc, ZTE
3
Finland
NEC
4
France
Orange
5
Germany
Docomo, Fraunhofer, Siemens
6
Italy
TIM
7
Japan
Fujitsu, IP Bridge, Jvckenwood, KDDI, Kyocera, Mistubishi Electric,
NEC, Nokia, NTT, Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, SSVEL
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Avanci Patent Pool
24
8
Netherlands
KPN, Philips, TNO
9
South Korea
Hargang IP, KPN, LG Electronics, Pantech, SK Telecom, Wilus
10
Sweden
Ericsson
11
Taiwan
Acer, ASUS, Mediatek
12
United Kingdom
BT Group, Vodafone
13
United States
Ariscale, Celerity, China Mobile, DT Mobile, Equo IP, HP Enterprise,
Intellectual Discovery, InterDigital, Longhorn IP, Panasonic, Panoptis,
Qualcomm, Samsung, Sun Patent Trust, T Mobile, Unwired Planet, Sol IP
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help