Patent Thickets, Stock Returns, and Conditional CAPM

References

• Ai H, Kiku D (2013) Growth to value: Option exercise and the cross section of equity returns. J. Financial Econom. 107(2):325–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akcigit U, Celik MA, Greenwood J (2016) Buy, keep, or sell: Economic growth and the market for ideas. Econometrica 84(3):943–984.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alcácer J, Gittelman M, Sampat B 2009. Applicant and examiner citations in US patents: An overview and analysis. Res. Policy 38(2):415–427.Google Scholar
• Arts S, Cassiman B, Gomez JC (2018) Text matching to measure patent similarity. Strategic Management J. 39(1):62–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balvers RJ, Huang D (2007) Productivity-based asset pricing: Theory and evidence. J. Financial Econom. 86(2):405–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron J, Pohlmann T (2015) The effect of patent pools on patenting and innovation: Evidence from contemporary technology standards. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Bena J, Garlappi L (2020) Corporate innovation and returns. Rev. Corporate Finance Stud. 9(2):340–383.Google Scholar
• Berk JB, Green RC, Naik V (2004) Valuation and return dynamics of new ventures. Rev. Financial Stud. 17(1):1–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J (2004) Patent thickets: Strategic patenting of complex technologies. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2012) The private costs of patent litigation. J. Law Econom. Policy 9(1):59–96.Google Scholar
• Bustamante MC, Donangelo A (2017) Product market competition and industry returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 30(12):4216–4266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carhart MM (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Finance 52(1):57–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carolan MS (2016) Decentering Biotechnology: Assemblages Built and Assemblages Masked (Routledge).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlson M, Fisher A, Giammarino R (2004) Corporate investment and asset price dynamics: Implications for the cross-section of returns. J. Finance 59(6):2577–2603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlson M, Dockner EJ, Fisher A, Giammarino R (2014) Leaders, followers, and risk dynamics in industry equilibrium. J. Financial Quantitative Anal. 49(2):321–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan LK, Lakonishok J, Sougiannis T (2001) The stock market valuation of research and development expenditures. J. Finance 56(6):2431–2456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark DJ, Konrad KA (2008) Fragmented property rights and incentives for R&D. Management Sci. 54(5):969–981.Link, Google Scholar
• Clarkson G (2004) Objective identification of patent thickets: A network analytic approach. PhD thesis, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Cochrane JH (1991) Production-based asset pricing and the link between stock returns and economic fluctuations. J. Finance 46(1):209–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ (2009) Patents, thickets and the financing of early-stage firms: Evidence from the software industry. J. Econom. Management Strategy 18(3):729–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ (2011) Entry and patenting in the software industry. Management Sci. 57(5):915–933.Link, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ, Mueller E (2010) Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance. Industrial Corporate Change 19(3):899–925.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Diether K, Malloy C (2013) Misvaluing innovation. Rev. Financial Stud. 26(3):635–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Gurun UG, Kominers SD (2016) The growing problem of patent trolling. Science 352(6285):521–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Rassenfosse G, Jaffe AB (2018) Econometric evidence on the depreciation of innovations. Eur. Econom. Rev. 101:625–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deng Z, Lev B, Narin F (1999) Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Anal. J. 55(3):20–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financial Econom. 33(1):3–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, French KR (1997) Industry costs of equity. J. Financial Econom. 43(2):153–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, French KR (2015) A five-factor asset pricing model. J. Financial Econom. 116(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, MacBeth JD (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. J. Political Econom. 81(3):607–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferson WE (2006) Conditional performance evaluation chapter 10, Lee C-F, Lee AC, eds. Encyclopedia of Finance (Springer, Boston), 384–392.Google Scholar
• Ferson WE, Schadt RW (1996) Measuring fund strategy and performance in changing economic conditions. J. Finance 51(2):425–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frésard L, Hoberg G, Phillips G (2019) Vertical acquisitions, integration and the boundaries of the firm. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M (2010) Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND J. Econom. 41(3):472–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garleanu N, Panageas S, Yu J (2012) Technological growth and asset pricing. J. Finance 67(4):1265–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomes J, Kogan L, Zhang L (2003) Equilibrium cross section of returns. J. Political Econom. 111(4):693–732.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood J, Jovanovic B (1999) The information-technology revolution and the stock market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(2):116–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood J, Hercowitz Z, Krusell P (1997) Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87(3):342–362.Google Scholar
• Hall BH (2005) A note on the bias in herfindahl-type measures based on count data. Working Paper.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Graevenitz GV, Helmers C (2021) Technology entry in the presence of patent thickets. Oxford Econom. Papers 73(2): 903–926.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50(4):1029–1054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM, Vopel K (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 81(3):511–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirshleifer D, Hsu P-H, Li D (2013) Innovative efficiency and stock returns. J. Financial Econom. 107(3):632–654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirshleifer D, Hsu P-H, Li D (2018) Innovative originality, profitability, and stock returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(7):2553–2605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoberg G, Phillips G (2016) Text-based network industries and endogenous product differentiation. J. Political Econom. 124(5):1423–1465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoberg G, Phillips G, Prabhala N (2014) Product market threats, payouts, and financial flexibility. J. Finance 69(1):293–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hobijn B, Jovanovic B (2001) The information-technology revolution and the stock market: Evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(5):1203–1220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hou K, Robinson DT (2006) Industry concentration and average stock returns. J. Finance 61(4):1927–1956.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hou K, Xue C, Zhang L (2015) Digesting anomalies: An investment approach. Rev. Financial Stud. 28(3):650–705.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu P-H (2009) Technological innovations and aggregate risk premiums. J. Financial Econom. 94(2):264–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang KG, Murray FE (2009) Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Acad. Management J. 52(6):1193–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kan R, Robotti C, Shanken J (2013) Pricing model performance and the two-pass cross-sectional regression methodology. J. Finance 68(6):2617–2649.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2017) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kothari S, Laguerre TE, Leone AJ (2002) Capitalization vs. expensing: Evidence on the uncertainty of future earnings from capital expenditures vs. R&D outlays. Rev. Accounting Stud. 7(4):355–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laitner J, Stolyarov D (2003) Technological change and the stock market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(4):1240–1267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2001) Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):129–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2005) Probabilistic patents. J. Econom. Perspective 19(2):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lev B, Sarath B, Sougiannis T (2005) R&D reporting biases and their consequences. Contemporary Accounting Res. 22(4):977–1026.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin X (2012) Endogenous technological progress and the cross-section of stock returns. J. Financial Econom. 103(2):411–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin X, Palazzo B, Yang F (2019) The risks of old capital age: Asset pricing implications of technology adoption. J. Monetary Econom. 115:145–161.Google Scholar
• Makri M, Hitt MA, Lane PJ (2010) Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management J. 31(6):602–628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matolcsy ZP, Wyatt A (2008) The association between technological conditions and the market value of equity. Accounting Rev. 83(2):479–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moser P, Ohmstedt J, Rhode P (2011) Patents, citations, and inventive output-evidence from hybrid corn. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS (1998) Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Res. Policy 27(5):507–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63(4):648–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RRW, Sidney G (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Noel M, Schankerman M (2013) Strategic patenting and software innovation. J. Industry Econom. 61(3):481–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papanikolaou D (2011) Investment shocks and asset prices. J. Political Econom. 119(4):639–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pástor L, Veronesi P (2009) Technological revolutions and stock prices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(4):1451–1483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers W (1993) Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Tech. Bull. 13:19–23.Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management J. 25(3):201–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schumpeter JA (1934) The Theory of Economic Development (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Shanken J (1992) On the estimation of beta-pricing models. Rev. Financial Stud. 5(1):1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (1985) Patent licensing and R&D rivalry. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(2):25–30.Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 119–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shumway T (1997) The delisting bias in CRSP data. J. Finance 52(1):327–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh J, Fleming L (2010) Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Sci. 56(1):41–56.Link, Google Scholar
• Sougiannis T (1994) The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D. Accounting Rev. 69(1):44–68.Google Scholar
• Stoffman N, Woeppel M, Yavuz MD (2019) Small innovators: No risk, no return. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Thompson P (2006) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: Evidence from inventor- and examiner-added citations. Rev. Econom. Statist. 88(2):383–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econom. 21(1):172–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2011) How to measure patent thickets: A novel approach. Econom. Lett. 111(1):6–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2013) Incidence and growth of patent thickets: The impact of technological opportunities and complexity. J. Industry Econom. 61(3):521–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watzinger M, Fackler TA, Nagler M, Schnitzer M (2017) How antitrust enforcement can spur innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Webster E, Jensen PH (2011) Do patents matter for commercialization? J. Law Econom. 54(2):431–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML (1998) Recombinant growth. Quart. J. Econom. 113(2):331–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang L (2005) The value premium. J. Finance 60(1):67–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ziedonis RH (2004) Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Sci. 50(6):804–820.Link, Google Scholar