What Is the Price of Spanning Domain Boundaries? Distant Recombination and the Market Valuations of Firm Inventions

References

• Abrams DS, Akcigit U, Grennan J (2013) Patent value and citations: Creative destruction or strategic disruption? NBER Working Paper No. 19647, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Lampert CM (2001) Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management J. 22(6–7):521–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Lampert CM, Novelli E (2013) The second face of appropriability: Generative appropriability and its determinants. Acad. Management Rev. 38(2):248–269.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
• Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84(3):488–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Silverman BS (2004) R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management J. 25(8–9):929–958.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Cohen W, Lee H, Sebastian D (2023) Invention value, inventive capability and the large firm advantage. Res. Policy 52(1):104650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrot JN (2017) Investor horizon and the life cycle of innovative firms: Evidence from venture capital. Management Sci. 63(9):3021–3043.Link, Google Scholar
• Baruffaldi SH, Simeth M (2020) Patents and knowledge diffusion: The effect of early disclosure. Res. Policy 49(4):103927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ (2007) The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):703–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ (2008) Financial market reactions following technological discontinuities: A non-event study in two industries. Industry Corporate Change 17(1):109–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ (2010) Securities analysts and incumbent response to radical technological change: Evidence from digital photography and internet telephony. Organ. Sci. 21(1):42–62.Link, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Beunza D (2025) The influence of analysts on innovation: An evolutionary view of evaluative frames. Acad. Management Rev. 50(2):318–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Zenger T (2016) The lemons problem in markets for strategy. Strategy Sci. 1(2):71–89.Link, Google Scholar
• Bessen J (2008) The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 37(5):932–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF, Trajtenberg M (1995) General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth’? J. Econom. 65(1):83–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brusoni S, Prencipe A, Pavitt K (2001) Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(4):597–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (2001) Do institutional investors prefer near-term earnings over long-run value? Contemporary Accounting Res. 18(2):207–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushway S, Johnson BD, Slocum LA (2007) Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. J. Quant. Criminology 23(2):151–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caner T, Cohen SK, Pil F (2017) Firm heterogeneity in complex problem solving: A knowledge‐based look at invention. Strategic Management J. 38(9):1791–1811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Bruggeman J (2009) Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage and the uneven growth of technology domains. Soc. Forces 88(2):607–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Correia S (2016) Linear models with high-dimensional fixed effects: An efficient and feasible estimator. Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
• Corredoira RA, Goldfarb BD, Shi Y (2018) Federal funding and the rate and direction of inventive activity. Res. Policy 47(9):1777–1800.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davies R, Haldane AG, Nielsen M, Pezzini S (2014) Measuring the costs of short-termism. J. Financial Stability 12:16–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 29(1):52–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and direction of technical change. Res. Policy 11(3):147–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP, Kaul A (2018) Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. Acad. Management J. 61(1):67–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferguson JP, Carnabuci G (2017) Risky recombinations: Institutional gatekeeping in the innovation process. Organ. Sci. 28(1):133–151.Link, Google Scholar
• Fischer T, Leidinger J (2014) Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Res. Policy 43(3):519–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald T, Balsmeier B, Fleming L, Manso G (2021) Innovation search strategy and predictable returns. Management Sci. 67(2):1109–1137.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Sorenson O (2004) Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management J. 25(8–9):909–928.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Greene H, Li G, Marx M, Yao D (2019) Government-funded research increasingly fuels innovation. Science (1979) 364(6446):1139–1141.Google Scholar
• Funk RJ, Owen-Smith J (2017) A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Sci. 63(3):791–817.Link, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giarratana MS (2013) General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Res. Policy 42(2):315–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Harhoff D, Verspagen B (2008) The value of European patents. Eur. Management Rev. 5(2):69–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Heaton S, Novelli E, Teece DJ (2021) Profiting from enabling technologies? Strategy Sci. 6(1):75–90.Link, Google Scholar
• George G, Kotha R, Zheng Y (2008) Entry into insular domains: A longitudinal study of knowledge structuration and innovation in biotechnology firms. J. Management Stud. 45(8):1448–1474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaeser S, Michels J, Verrecchia RE (2020) Discretionary disclosure and manager horizon: Evidence from patenting. Rev. Accounting Stud. 25(2):597–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb B (2005) Diffusion of general-purpose technologies: Understanding patterns in the electrification of US Manufacturing 1880-1930. Industry Corporate Change 14(5):745–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruber M, Harhoff D, Hoisl K (2013) Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: Scientists vs. engineers. Management Sci. 59(4):837–851.Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Management J. 49(4):693–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, MacGarvie M (2010) The private value of software patents. Res. Policy 39(7):994–1009.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper No. W8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Pólos L, Carroll GR (2012) Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Hoisl K (2007) Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity—Patent value and the German Employees’ Inventions Act. Res. Policy 36(8):1143–1162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Scherer FM, Vopel K (2003) Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 32(8):1343–1363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM, Vopel K (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econom. Statist. 81(3):511–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE (1994) Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Sci. 40(12):1720–1747.Link, Google Scholar
• Hirshleifer D, Hsu PH, Li D (2018) Innovative originality, profitability, and stock returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(7):2553–2605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(5):984–1001.Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):577–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Sci. 52(11):1661–1674.Link, Google Scholar
• Jung HJ, Lee JJ (2016) The quest for originality: A new typology of knowledge search and breakthrough inventions. Acad. Management J. 59(5):1725–1753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang S (2023) Objects may be closer than they appear: The impact of public scientific map on organizational search. Acad. Management Proc. 2023(1):10312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Vakili K (2015) The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(10):1435–1457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karim S, Kaul A (2015) Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking intraorganizational knowledge synergy through structural change. Organ. Sci. 26(2):439–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Management J. 45(6):1183–1194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keijl S, Gilsing VA, Knoben J, Duysters G (2016) The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology. Res. Policy 45(5):1061–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klevorick AK, Levin RC, Nelson RR, Winter SG (1995) On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Res. Policy 24(2):185–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kneeland MK, Schilling MA, Aharonson BS (2020) Exploring uncharted territory: Knowledge search processes in the origination of outlier innovation. Organ. Sci. 31(3):535–557.Link, 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
• Kotha R, Zheng Y, George G (2011) Entry into new niches: The effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management J. 32(9):1011–1024.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krieger JL, Schnitzer M, Watzinger M (2024) Standing on the shoulders of science. Strategic Management J. 45(9):1670–1695.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Kuhn J, Younge K, Marco A (2020) Patent citations reexamined. RAND J. Econom. 51(1):109–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114(495):441–465.Google Scholar
• Laursen K (2012) Keep searching and you’ll find: What do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation? Industry Corporate Change 21(5):1181–1220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laverty KJ (1996) Economic “short-termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Acad. Management Rev. 21(3):825–860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Kang J, Rosenkopf L (2011) Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1517–1538.Link, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):109–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leahey E, Beckman CM, Stanko TL (2017) Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(1):105–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leiponen A, Helfat CE (2010) Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management J. 31(2):224–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leung SF, Yu S (1996) On the choice between sample selection and two-part models. J. Econom. 72(1–2):197–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipsey RG, Bekar C, Carlaw K (1998) What requires explanation. Helpman E, ed. General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 15–54.Google Scholar
• Liu K (2014) Human capital, social collaboration, and patent renewal within U.S. pharmaceutical firms. J. Management 40(2):616–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lo JYC, Kennedy MT (2015) Approval in nanotechnology patents: Micro and macro factors that affect reactions to category blending. Organ. Sci. 26(1):119–139.Link, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Marco AC, Carley M, Jackson S, Myers A (2015) The USPTO historical patent data files two centuries of innovation. Working Paper No. 2015-1, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Marx M, Fuegi A (2020) Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles. Strategic Management J. 41(9):1572–1594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller DJ, Fern MJ, Cardinal LB (2007) The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Acad. Management J. 50(2):307–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nary P, Kaul A (2023) Private equity as an intermediary in the market for corporate assets. Acad. Management Rev. 48(4):719–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Nemet GF, Johnson E (2012) Do important inventions benefit from knowledge originating in other technological domains? Res. Policy 41(1):190–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nerkar A (2003) Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Sci. 49(2):211–229.Link, Google Scholar
• Patel P, Pavitt K (1997) The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Res. Policy 26(2):141–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pezzoni M, Veugelers R, Visentin F (2022) How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions. Res. Policy 51(3):104454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L (2006) Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management J. 27(4):369–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polidoro F Jr, Yang W (2021) Corporate investment relationships and the search for innovations: An examination of startups’ search shift toward incumbents. Organ. Sci. 32(4):909–939.Link, Google Scholar
• Pontikes EG (2012) Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):81–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Posen HE, Keil T, Kim S, Meissner FD (2018) Renewing research on problemistic search—A review and research agenda. Acad. Management Ann. 12(1):208–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roach M, Cohen WM (2013) Lens or prism? Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows from public research. Management Sci. 59(2):504–525.Link, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management J. 22(4):287–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowberry S (2024) Digitizing the USPTO Patent Backfile, 1951-2001. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 39(1):335–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampson RC, Shi Y (2023) Are US firms becoming more short‐term oriented? Evidence of shifting firm time horizons from implied discount rates, 1980–2013. Strategic Management J. 44(1):231–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Green E (2011) Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences. Res. Policy 40(10):1321–1331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharfman MP, Dean JW (1991) Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment: A multidimensional approach. J. Management 17(4):681–700.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaver JM (1998) Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Sci. 44(4):571–585.Link, 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
• Somaya D (2003) Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management J. 24(1):17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivastava MK, Gnyawali DR (2011) When do relational resources matter? Leveraging portfolio technological resources for breakthrough innovation. Acad. Management J. 54(4):797–810.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stagni RM, Fosfuri A, Santaló J (2021) A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush: Technology search strategies and competition due to import penetration. Strategic Management J. 42(8):1516–1544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephan P, Veugelers R, Wang J (2017) Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature 544(7651):411–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Podolny JM (1996) Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management J. 17(S1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan D, Roberts PW (2010) Categorical coherence, classification volatility and examiner-added citations. Res. Policy 39(1):89–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teodoridis F, Bikard M, Vakili K (2019) Creativity at the knowledge frontier: The impact of specialization in fast-and slow-paced domains. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(4):894–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Theeke M, Polidoro F Jr, Fredrickson JW (2018) Path-dependent routines in the evaluation of novelty: The effects of innovators’ new knowledge use on brokerage firms’ coverage. Admin. Sci. Quart. 63(4):910–942.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
• Trajtenberg M, Henderson R, Jaffe A (1997) University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 5(1):19–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• USPTO (2012) Overview of the U.S. patent classification system. Accessed March 25, 2026, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/resources/classification/overview.pdf.Google Scholar
• USPTO (2016) Examiner’s handbook chapter four: Determination of a class for original classification or assignment for examination. Accessed March 25, 2026, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/examiners-handbook-chapter-four-determination-class.Google Scholar
• USPTO (2019) Patent classification. Accessed March 25, 2026, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/classification-standards-and-development.Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science (1979) 342(6157):468–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vakili K, Kaplan S (2021) Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration. Strategic Management J. 42(6):1159–1183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Noorden R (2015) Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525(7569):306–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang C, Rodan S, Fruin M, Xu X (2014) Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Acad. Management J. 57(2):484–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whalen R (2018) Boundary spanning innovation and the patent system: Interdisciplinary challenges for a specialized examination system. Res. Policy 47(7):1334–1343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolfolds SE, Siegel J (2019) Misaccounting for endogeneity: The peril of relying on the Heckman two‐step method without a valid instrument. Strategic Management J. 40(3):432–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang J, Chesbrough H, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P (2022) How to appropriate value from general-purpose technology by applying open innovation. California Management Rev. 64(3):24–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yayavaram S, Ahuja G (2008) Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2):333–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yayavaram S, Chen WR (2015) Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity. Strategic Management J. 36(3):377–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhong W, Ma Z, Tong TW, Zhang Y, Xie L (2021) Customer concentration, executive attention, and firm search behavior. Acad. Management J. 64(5):1625–1647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2000) Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(3):591–619.Crossref, Google Scholar