〈日本知財学会誌〉Vol. 13 No. 3― 2017 : 4 14-Intellectual Property as a Marketing Tool
Kazunari Sugimitsu（Professor, Graduate School of Innovation Management, Kanazawa
Institute of Technology）【Abstract】 The purpose of this study is to contribute to the literature by expanding the frontier of the research area
about how to integrate Intellectual Property (IP) and marketing. This research will also help managers understand how
to incorporate IP tools into their marketing activities. In the marketing literature, IP has been introduced usually as law
which companies must comply with, rather than as a tool for accomplishing the purpose of marketing. Taking the form ofa literature review, this paper illustrates how IP contributes to (product) marketing, namely, market analysis,segmentation, targeting, marketing mix and Product Life-cycle, revealing that IP has multiple functions directly related
to market such as the function of deterring market entry, the function of exclusion from the market, the function of
disclosing corporate strategy and the function of building business partnership. The author shows the potential of IP as amarketers’ tool for maintaining market share, expanding market share and creating new market especially from a
medium and long-term perspective.
【Keywords】 Marketing tool

IP LandscapeIntellectual Property

linked to marketing because it enables an ideal condi-

1. Introduction

tion for it. Additionally, “differentiation” is one of themost important keywords in marketing strategy (e.g.,Peter Drucker said, “The aim of marketing is to

Smith, 1956), and it holds true in intellectual property

make selling superfluous,” as is often introduced in the(IP) field because IPRs, including patents as well as

textbook of marketing (i.e., qtd, in Kotler, 2000). It

even trademarks, can be obtained only when there ismeans that it is ideal for marketing to realize the situa-

differentiation from something already existing (Besention that “the product or service fits him and sells it-

and Raskind, 1991). In this context, both also have inself.” As soon as I knew these words for the first time,common.

it was the world’s first copier of Xerox using plain pa-

However, few books written about marketing deal

per that occurred to me. This is because, at the time ofwith IP (except as to trademarks) and vice versa. Ac-

1960s, I heard in the past that customers who wanted

coridng to Bird (2007), “[u]nfortunately, strategic

to use this machine had to visit Xerox’s head office.

management scholars have not sufficiently studied law

Patents enabled such a situation. In other words, be-

as a value-capturing resource.” It seems to me thatcause of Xerox’s patents, no company was able to pro-neither have marketing scholars. Aside from the con-duce similar copiers, which was a monopoly market oftext of compliance, in general, marketing and IP have

Xerox at that time (Blackstone, 1972).

been considerably separated from each other so far.

Focusing on this point, it seems that intellectual

As for the purpose or goal of marketing, thoughproperty right (IPR) including patent is inseparably-

there are various opinions and expressions (e.g., Gbad-

4

ISSN 1349-421X

© 2017IPAJ

All rights reserved.

Intellectual Property as a Marketing Tool

amosi et al., 2013) as is case with the definition of marketing, this paper is based on the premise that one of
the most important aims for an organization which provides goods or services is “to maintain market share,
to expand market share and to create new market.” As

Figure 1

Purpose｠of｠Marketing｠and｠IP
Purpose of Marketing and IP

MarketingIP
Expanding｠the｠market

Maintaining｠themarket｠share｠
complianceopposed to the past period of supply shortage, nowadays existence of competitors is presupposed. IP law,

Creating｠new｠market

however, enables companies to eliminate them fromthe market (Statman, 1981).
Companies, especially in the context of compliance,

public by the law, many scholars already have used it

are supposed to hesitate to enter the specified market

for their research about companies’ business strategy

where competitors who own IPR exist because IPRs(e.g. Katila et al., 2002). It would be a waste for compa-

are exclusive. As a matter of course, many studies

nies which really do business not to use such kind of

have already suggested this kind of IP’s influence on

precious information in order to maintain market sharemarket (e.g., Blackstone, 1972 ; Salop, 1979 ; Scherer,

and create new market. For example, patent data can2005). From a marketing perspective, I would like toassist the decision-making of top management forcall it “the function of deterring market entry.” How-

company strategies (Chiu, 2014).

ever, the degree of this function depends on the field of

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the lit-

technology (e.g., Schankerman, 1991). For example,

erature by expanding the frontier of this research area

one can obtain a patent as material itself, thus pharma-

about how to integrate IP and marketing. This researchceutical products are protected by only one or a few

will also help managers understand how to incorporate

patents. Therefore, this function is very powerful in

IP tools into their marketing activities.

this kind of industry. On the other hand, in electric appliance industry, products are related with numerous

2. Literature Review

patents, and hence, this function is relatively weak
(Lieberman et al., 1988).

In the marketing literature, not a few previous stud-

Additionally, as is well known, when copycat prod-

ies and books deal with Trademark Act for Brands (e.g.,

ucts are placed on the market, companies are able toKeller, 2012). However, most of them do not devote

use IPRs to remove them from the market with thesome space to other IP laws (especially patent law),state power’s help, which is given the name of “thethey tend to, if any, refer to IP laws in the context offunction of exclusion from the market” from a market-“compliance” (e.g., Halt et al., 2014).

ing standpoint.

A number of papers exist which deal with theAccordingly, companies which have IPRs may estab-

relation between marketing activities and patented

lish a relatively-strong market position. On the otherdrugs, but almost all of them are about marketing

hand, those which do not may have to be in a relative-

activities “after” the patent expiration (e.g., Statman etly-weak position. In other words, companies whichal., 1981 ; Caves et al., 1991 ; Frank et al., 1997 ;have innovative products are able to “maintain market

Agrawal et al., 1997 ; Aronsson et al., 2001 ; Chandon

share” by using the functions of IPRs. Therefore, it

et al., 2004 ; Ellison et al., 2007 ; Ching, 2010).

may be said that IPRs can contribute to accomplish the
purpose of marketing as shown in Figure 1.
Moreover, as information of IPRs is available for the

In a word, IP has been introduced usually as law
which companies must comply with (e.g., Wade, 1965 ;Maronick, 1988), rather than as a marketer’s tool for5

〈日本知財学会誌〉 Vol.13 No.3― 2017

accomplishing the purpose of marketing.

Figure 2

Image of relation between Marketing andIP

Image of relation between Marketing and IP

As for “technology marketing” concept which isusually used in the context of “management oftechnology” or “technology management,” though it
seems that its established definition does not exist, it

Most other papers

This paper

Business Strategy

Business Strategy

is called a kind of “new” marketing concept for theMarketingManagement

sake of “engineers and Research & Development(R&D) department” dealing with technology as a kindof “product” and tends to attempt to push technology

MarketingManagement

IP
Management

itself (i.e., Tschirky et al., 2000), which I am not con-IP
as a tool

cerned with because the “conventional” marketing
concept for the sake of “marketers and marketing

significant study on the relation between marketing

department”(not for engineers and R&D) is presup-

and IP, which introduces a framework that helps to as-

posed in this paper. According to Verganti (2013),

similate IP management activities with the practices ofApple, when developing “iPod,” focused on designingmarketing and strategy. This research is, however, dif-the user interface and made “design-driven” innova-

ferent from this paper in that IP should be regarded astion happen, utilizing other firms’ various existing

a “tool” for marketing department shown in Figure 2.

technologies (e.g., Sony, Toshiba etc.).

There have been relatively many articles about “pat-Thus, it appears that Apple does not pursue “Tech-ent information” which propose that it can be useful for

nology Marketing” concept. It might not be a techno-

analyzing the internal and external environment (e.g.,logy-oriented company but rather a technology-related

Mogee, 1991). Unfortunately, they have been written

company. This paper deals with technology-related

mainly for IP experts or engineers in R&D departmentcompanies.

(see i.e., Lee et al., 2009), thus it is possible that they

In precedent studies regarding IP/IP strategy (manyof them are written by IP specialists such as patentdraw little attention of marketers or marketing scholars.

attorneys), there is little agreement on the relation be-

Recently, it seems to me that the concern with “IP

tween marketing and IP, despite of the existence of themarketing” or “IP commercialization” which deals withsuggestion that the successful commercialization of an

IP as a kind of product has been growing gradually

innovation almost always requires marketing in addi-(e.g., Mitkova, 2005 ; Lin et al., 2013). This concept

tion to IP (Teece, 1986). This is possibly because IP

usually emphasizes that companies can obtain “mone-experts usually specialize in law and/or technology thattary” profit from IP as one of corporate “assets” by as-

should be required for practicing. For example, Sugim-

signing and/or licensing them, which is different fromitsu (2005) found that 90% of human resources in IP

the position this paper stands on, because this paper

field in Japanese companies had a scientific backfocuses on the aspect of IP as a tool for (product) mar-ground.

keting. Therefore, as the purpose of this paper is con-

De Wilton (2011) explains the aspect of IP (espe-

cerned, it is not necessary to discuss it.

cially patents) as “commercial tool” for such as “protect

On the other hand, some researchers (e.g., Gupta etmarket share” and “enhance product/quality image”

al., 1986) have stated that marketing and R&D should

etc. To the author’s knowledge, however, the first arti-

be “integrated” or “aligned.” This paper is to show thecle to focus on the nexus of marketing and IP is Conley

conceptual kin of this in between marketing and IP.

et al. (2008). Moreover, Conley et al. (2013) is the most
6

Judging from above, though there are several papers

Intellectual Property as a Marketing Tool

which deal with patents related to subordinate mar-ment opportunities is SWOT analysis (e.g. Piercy etketing concepts such as 4Ps as I discuss later, little at-al., 1989).

tention has been given by both marketers and market-

IP, especially patent information, is highly useful foring scholars to the aspect of IP as a marketers’ tool forthis analysis as several researchers (i.e., Dou and Bai,

marketing process in order to maintain market share,2007) already have noted. This is because patent infor-

to expand market share and to create new market.

mation is forcibly opened to the public after several

3. IP as a marketing tool

(normally 18) months of its application and indicates
corporate information including R&D strategies aswell as business strategies on potential markets to en-

It will be discussed as bellow how IP, including infor-

ter in the near future. I call this property of patent in-mation of it, contributes to marketing, using the typicalformation “the function of disclosing corporate strate-

and traditional marketing process, such as market anal-gy.” Free databases provided by each government canysis, market segmentation, targeting, positioning andbe used, however a variety of commercial databases

marketing mix etc.

are also available (i.e., Thomson Innovation). Patent in-

I will not take up trademarks as assets unless other-formation retrieved from such databases is usually pro-wise noted because they have already been usually in-cessed into so-called “Patent Map” which visualizes

troduced along with “brand” management (e.g., Keller,

the data (e.g., Lee et al., 2009).

2012). This paper focuses on the aspect of IP, not as an

For example, as illustrated above in Figure 31, pat-“asset” but as a “tool.” Conley et al. (2013), however,ents are grouped into map “contours” to indicate areas

suggests that copyrights can also be used for market-

of high and low patenting activity organized into com-

ing in the field of entertainment companies (e.g, The

mon themes. “Mountain peaks” represent a concentra-

Wald Disney Company). I limit the discussion to con-tion of patents. The more similar technologies are, thevenrtional “product marketing” in this paper because

nearer the peaks are located. Therefore, you can easily

this kind of marketing must be different from the otherfind fields where there are many competitors or yourkind.

company has a strong position.
In this way, Patent Map is very useful especially for3.1. Market Analysis

technology-based companies to identify strength andFirst of all, most of all the business environment

weakness of them. Although it could have been used

analyses are based on the presupposition that themainly by IP department and R&D department (e.g.,

environments are given which cannot be easily

Ernst, 2003) for their own planning until recently, achanged like pre-existing laws. However, as any

relatively new concept, “IP landscape,” has becomecompanies can research and develop new inventions

widely used for decision-making of company strategies

on their own purpose, they can also obtain IPRs as far

including marketing strategies. The term “IP land-as their deliverables are really new. Then, the IPRs canscape” has a no clear-cut definiton at this time, but it

perform as “the function of deterring market entry.”

has a commonality in that it is not only for conventional

Therefore, it means that IP can change the businessfreedom-to-operate (FTO), but also for “marketing,environment intentionally, which is extremely impor-research and development, and legal teams to coordi-tant aspect of IP and should be considered in mind

nate strategies that align with the overall goals of thewhen conducting market analyses.

business (Keiser et al., 2014).”

The method of market analysis includes various

In the Porter’s 5 forces analysis (Porter, 1991),

tools, but a representative one to evaluate environ-patent information can also be used especially for7

〈日本知財学会誌〉 Vol.13 No.3― 2017

Figure 3

Landscape Map“Threat of new entrants” and “Threat of substitute ofready shown in Figure 3.

produces” (e.g., Okuda et al., 2011).

3.2.3. Positioning

3.2. Market Segmentation, Targeting and

As already stated, “differentiation” is also one of the

In this process, “differentiation” is the key concept.
Positioning
3.2.1. Market segmentation

most important key words of IP field. IP is very usefuland powerful tool for differentiating because IP has not

Most patent applications are filed by commercial en-

only “the function of deterring market entry” but also

terprises. One can do a text search of patents (i.e., us-“the function of exclusion from the market” to main-

ing the word of the function or effect of the device) andtain market share.

all of them have classification symbol of subject mat-For example, given that a company which has pat-ters indexed by the government (e.g., USPTO in theents regarding unique “technology” and its benefit for

United States), which means that they show such com-

customers is very attractive, the company may gain

panies’ technological field of activity.

and maintain a competitive advantage during the term

For example, in the U.S., “435” means “Chemistry :of patents. This holds true of both B2C and B2B.

molecular biology and microbiology.” Thus, companies
which produce “electronic microscope” will be able to3.3. Marketing Mixclassify the prospective corporate customers according

Although there are new concepts about marketing

to a common technology feature by using this classifi-mix (i.e., 4Cs, new 4Ps), I use McCarthy’s 4Ps in thiscation. It will, therefore, be useful mainly for B2B busi-

paper as the first step in this kind of study.

ness in this process.

3.3.1. Product3.2.2. Targeting

Today, most companies hope to avoid price competi-

In this process, one can use patent information intion if possible. Therefore, most marketers make aorder to identify potential competitors as well as thepoint of taking “differentiation” into consideration indegree of strength of them both “quantitatively” andthe product strategy in view of “present” market.

“objectively.” Simultaneously, patent information can

However, assuming that the differentiation can be imi-

be used to know the strength of own companies, as al-tated easily and it is not protected by IPR, the company

8

Intellectual Property as a Marketing Toolcan be “later” involved in price competition with fol-

plained that the brand generally has functions of differ-

lowers without realizing it from medium and long-term

entiation and quality assurance, interestingly, in thestandpoint. Sasaki et al. (2001) proposed a model tofield of IP, almost the same explanation is widely ac-

explain the co-evolution of patent strategies and prod-

cepted for trademarks (e.g., Landes et al., 1987) :uct strategies, but did not mention this standpoint. The

Trademark Act exists precisely for protecting such

number of marketers who emphasize the merit of thisfunctions. In this sense, as many IP specialists andaspect is unclear at this time, but it seems that theymarketers already understand, brands are inextricably

should be vividly aware of IP as one of the best tools to

associated with trademarks.

maintain the differentiation from a medium and long-

There is a problem of the imitation product as amenace to damage brand equity recently. When imita-

term perspective.
Now, I take a look at some differentiation variables.

tion products are left in the market and the accident

First, as for the product differentiation, one can obtainhappened because of their inferior quality, it may dam-

patent for technology or design. Second, as about theage the brand equity.

service differentiation, for example, there are some fa-

For example, though the original manufacturers ismous patents, including Amazon’s 1-Click patent (Pat-not resoponsible for the imitated battery that exploded

ent Number US5,960,411, source : USPTO) which isand caused damages, it is said that the social criticism

related with service.

about the “omission of countermeasures” may happen

According to Kotler and Katajaya et al. (2010), emo-

according to Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

tional or experiential aspect has more important role ofin Japan (2009)2. Therefore it is necessary to remove

marketing. The number of nations is increasing which

imitation products from the market to maintain brandprotect distinctive “smell” and “sound” by trademark.

equity. In such a case it goes without saying that a

Similarly, though it may be a kind of “image differen-

trademark becomes an essential tool.

tiation,” shop lay-out, like Apple’s registered trade-

Conversely, in order to expand market, a company

mark (TM Registration Number 4277914, source :which has a patent can license it as its option to collab-

USPTO), becomes also protected by IPR, as shownorate with other companies rather than monopolize the

Figure 4.

market. Standardization of technology is a good exam-

Furthermore, a brand theory takes an important roleple. To expand the product market, companies can use

in the field of marketing in late years. Though, it is ex-technology standardization instead of competing with

Figure 4Apple Shop’s lay-out

9

〈日本知財学会誌〉 Vol.13 No.3― 2017

others. For example, DVD diffused widely in the global

and system for anticipatory package shipping” (Patentmarket as a result of the implementation of DVD stan-

Number US8,615,473, source : USPTO). In this case,dards (Tatsumoto et al., 2011). However, only the com-the distribution which uses patented manner must be

panies that have patent can take control of whether tocontrolled by its owner.

use (including standardize) the technology because no3.3.4. Promotion

companies can use it without permission of the owner.

Cutomers tend to prefer to buy the patented prod-

In other words, patents enable a cooperative businessucts (e.g., Gilbert et al., 1990). Thus, news release

relationship between companies (e.g., Strojwas et al.,about the fact that a company has newly obtained a pat-2003). This aspect of IP should be called “the function

ent can be seen frequently3. It can be viewed that com-of building business partnership.”panies use the fact of obtaining a patent right as one of

3.3.2. Pricethe differentiation elements for customers. However,As a matter of course, companies that sell a productwhich customers need can charge high price if there

how much does the fact improve the perception qualityof the product ?

are no other similar products in the market. In fact, ac-

In addition, patent marking can be used for a market-

cording to Blackstone (1972), Xerox did in the past.

ing tool to attract consumers (Grant, 2004). There are

Nowadays, assuming the case that a company excludes

a great many examples to use the fact of obtaining aother competitors from the market by using patents,“patent” related with a certain product for its labels or

like in pharmaceutical industry (e.g., Wheaton, 1985),

commercials. Many papers deal with this point in thethis kind of company can keep a market from othercontext of compliance for that false patent marking iscompanies entering due to “the function of deterringprohibited by the law (e.g., Moore et al., 1994 ; Grant,

market entry.”

2004 ; Arneson, 2010 ; O’Neill, 2010).

3.3.3. Place

As for distribution, IP which can be used as a tool isa trademark. For example, in the case of an exclusive

However, little is known about the effect of patentrelated advertisement. It seems to me that it will bedifferent in between B2B and B2C.

distributer agreement or a franchise agreement, thecontract must be based on the company’s trademark

3.4. Product Life-Cycle

right. In particular, in the case of a sales agent contract,

As stated before, there are relatively many prece-

whether selling goods accompanied by the store’s orig-

dent studies which show the importance of marketing

inal brand is permitted or not relates to the brand man-strategy against the entry of the generic drugs “after”

agement policy.

expiration of patent. However, threre seems to be little

On the other hand, it is thought that companies
holding product patents cannot control its distribution

studies about the relation between IPR and entire
product life-cycle (PLC) concept.

of their product after selling. This is because patent

Sasaki et al. (2000) discussed a “patent” strategy

rights relating to a product are thought to be “exhaust-

depending on PLC model. However, in addition to pat-ed” when the product was once sold in order for patentents, there are other IPRs such as a trademark which

owners not to collect profit doubly. This theory is

can exist without expiration (e.g., Statman, 1981 ; Par-

widely accepted around the world (e.g., Rinehart,chomovsky et al., 2002). Statman (1981) states that [t]2010).

he patent period gives the manufacturer not only the

However, some companies try to obtain patents di-ability to enjoy monopoly profits also the opportunity

rectly related to distribution instead of product itself.

to establish a trademark in an environment free ofFor example, Amazon has obtained patent of “Method

competitive brands. Based on this idea, Conley et al.

10Intellectual Property as a Marketing Tool

(2013) propose a framework called “Value Articulation”

Also, Trademark law protects “existing customers”

using several cases though there is no link with themore directly by avoiding confusion in the market (e.g.,stages of PLC. These studies indicate the possible pre-Miaoulis et al., 1978). Therefore, even if IPRs cause asense of an ideal “marketing” strategy by using various

monopoly for a while, a marketing concept can go with

IPRs in accordance with each stage of PLC. The well-an IP concept.

known Gore-Tex, for example, was released as water-

In addition, if companies have IPRs, they can decide

proofing fiber in 1976, and it is thought that at least

to license other companies in order to enhance thefundamental patent already expired, but, as Kotler andmarket together or decide not to license in order toPfoertsch (2010) argued, Gore-Tex has still a competi-

maintain it. Should this critical and strategic decision

tive advantage in the market. One plausible explana-closely related to the market leave up to anyone buttion for this situation is as follows. First, in the intro-

marketers ?

duction stage, they might utilize functions of their

Moreover, almost all of the marketers are supposed

patent such as the function of deterring market entry/

to try to “differentiate” their products from others’ inthe function of exclusion from the market in order tothe “present” market, but it is questionable whether

build brand awareness by way of maintaining the differ-they are unaccountable for “upcoming” market. Those

entiation. Second, in the growth stage (especially after

who are in charge of product planning need to take thethe expiration of their fundamental patent), they might

initiative to manage IP because most IPRs should beswitch from the patent right to the eternal trademark

obtained or managed as soon as possible due to lack ofright to utilize for maintaining or even enhancing thenovelty or first-to-file principle（e.g., Besen et al.,brand loyalty, but there is no conclusive proof at this1991）. If they had properly obtained and managed IPRs

time. On the other hand, Scott Morton (2000) argues

when they planned a new product, they could havethat brand advertising is not a barrier to entry bypossibly protected their market from followers andgeneric firms in the US pharmaceutical market.

could have avoided unnecessary near-future price

Therefore, future research would clarify whether ancompetition.

ideal marketing strategy (probably depending on

Thus, as far as marketers are in charge of “market”-

individual industries) by way of using various IPRs in

related matters, it should be more important than everaccordance with the PLC stages exists.

for them to understand and utilize the functions of IP,
instead of leaving it to the discretion of IP specialists

3.5. Consistency with Marketing Concept

Can a recent marketing concept that gives special
emphasis to “customers” go with an IP concept thatgives “companies” special weapons to control themarket ?

or IP department, in order to maintain market shareand create new market especially from a medium andlong-term perspective.

4. Conclusion

In this regard, Statman (1981) argues that IP right“is beneficial for consumers since consumer welfare is

Admittedly, I limit almost all of the discussion forgenerally enhanced by the availability of new products“product ” marketing, but there is room for argumentin the marketplace.” IPRs except trademarks are given

about the applicable scope of this study (for such as

in order to encourage innovations and thus“future“service” marketing).

customers” will enjoy the benefit in the form ofFrom what has been discussed above, however, as

obtaining upcoming new products from a long-term

many studies by IP experts have already shown, IP has

perspective.

multiple functions directly related to market such as
11

〈日本知財学会誌〉 Vol.13 No.3― 2017

Table 1Glossary of IP Functions for Marketing

Glossary of IP Functions for Marketing

Function of Disclosing

IP, especially patent, information

Corporate Strategy

indicates corporate information
including R&D strategies as well ase.g. Patent Map

business strategies on potential markets
to enter in the near future.

Function of Deterring

Companies, especially in the context ofe.g. Xerox’s world

Market Entry

compliance, are supposed to hesitate toﬁrst copier using

enter the speciﬁed market whereplain paper

competitors which own IPR exist.

Function of Exclusion

When copycat products are placed one.g. Pirated CD,from the Market

the market, companies are able to use

DVD

IPRs to remove them from the existing
market with the state power’s help

Function of Building

Only the companies that have patent cane.g. International

Business Partnershiptake control of building businessStandardization

partnership related to the patented
technology.

Figure 5MarketingandRelatedMarketingandRelatedIP IP
Mainly Related IP• Market Analysis• Segmentation

Patent Information• Targeting• Positioning• Product• Promotion

managers understand how to incorporate IP tools into
their marketing activities.

Acknowledgment
Patent(&Trademark)• Price• Placeto integrate IP and marketing. This research also helps

Trademark(& Patent)

the function of disclosing corporate strategy, the function of deterring market entry, the function of exclu-

My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Philip Kotler who
took a keen interest of my idea and offered encouragement
to submit this paper. I would like to thank Prof. James
Conley who provided his papers closely related to this paper. I wish to thank Dr. Tomoko Kawakami for useful discussions. I also wish to thank Dr.Hiroshi Tanaka for his
suggestion on the table and figures. The responsibility of
any errors is of course mine.

sion from the market and the function of building business partnership, as shown in Table 1.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that IP(including information of it) are one of the mostpotential tools especially for product marketing as
shown in Figure 5.
Moreover, this study contributes to the literature by
expanding the frontier of this research area about how
12NOTE
1 “Patent Landscape Analysis,”IP Pragmatics Limited, 1
Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR, UK,
http://www.ip-pragmatics.com/downloads/pdf/ip_Gener
al-Patent_Landscaping.pdf (accessed : June 16. 2015)
2 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2009),“The effect of impact of counter measures against counterfeit
products [Mohouhin Kaizokuban ni taisuru kouka ni tsuite(Japanese)],”(accessed : June 16. 2015), http://www.
meti.go.jp/policy/ipr/pdf/200904houkokusho/keieikoken
dohokokusho_gaiyo.pdf.

Intellectual Property as a Marketing Tool3

For example,“BioTime Announces Issuance of 14 Patents in the Fields of Regenerative Medicine, and Cancer
Diagnosis and Therapy,”(accessed June 16. 2015),
http://investor.biotimeinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83805&
p=irol-newsArticle&id=1947090

REFERENCES
Agrawal, Madhu and Nimish Thakkar (1997), Surviving patent
expiration : Strategies for marketing pharmaceutical products, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6, 305-314.
Arneson, Laura N. (2010),“Defining unpatented article : Whylabeling products with expired patent numbers should not be
false marking,”Minnesota Low Review, 95, 650.
Aronsson, Thomas, Mats A. Bergman, and Niklas Rudholm(2001),“The impact of generic drug competition on brandname market shares : Evidence from micro data,”Review ofIndustrial Organization, 19.4, 423-433.
Besen, Stanley M. and Leo J. Raskind (1991),“An introduction
to the law and economics of intellectual property,”The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5.1, 3-27.
Bird, Robert C. (2007), “Law as a source of competitive
advantage,”Available at SSRN 964329.
Blackstone, Erwin A. (1972),“Copying-machine industry :   Innovations, patents, and pricing,”The Antitrust Law & Economics Review, 6, 105.
Caves, Richard E., M. D. Whinston, M. A. Hurwitz, A. Pakes, and
P. Temin, (1991),“Patent expiration, entry, and competitionin the US pharmaceutical industry,”Brookings papers on
economic activity, Microeconomics, 1-66.
Chandon, Pierre (2004),“Innovative marketing strategies after
patent expiry : The case of GSK’s antibiotic Clamoxyl inFrance,”International Journal of Medical Marketing, 4.1, 6573.
Ching, Andrew T. (2010),“A dynamic oligopoly structural model for the prescription drug market after patenr expiration,”International Economic Review, 51.4, 1175-1207.
Chiu, Tzu-Fu (2014),“A proposed IPC-based clustering method for exploiting expert knowledge and its application to
strategic planning,”Journal of Information Science, February :  40.1, 50-66.
Conley, James G., J. D. Berry, L. DeWitt, and M. Dziersk (2008),“Inventing brands : Opportunities at the nexus of semiotics
and intellectual property,” Design Management Review,
19.2, 58-66.
Conley, James G., Peter M.Bican, and Holger Ernst (2013),“Value articulation : A framework for the strategic management of intellectual property,”California Management Review, 55.4, 102-120.
De Wilton, Angela (2011),“Patent value : A business perspective for technology startups,”Technology Innovation Management Review, 1.3, 5-11.
Dou, Henri and Ying Bai (2007),“A rapid analysis of Avian Influenza patents in the Esp@ cenet® database–R&D strategies and country comparisons,”World Patent Information,
29.1, 26-32.
Ellison, Glenn and Sara Fisher Ellison (2007),“Strategic entry
deterrence and the behavior of pharmaceutical incumbents
prior to patent expiration,“ No. w13069, National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Ernst, Holger (2003) “Patent information for strategic
technology management,”World Patent Information, 25.3,
233-242.
Frank, Richard G., and David S. Salkever (1997),“Generic entry
and the pricing of pharmaceuticals,”Journal of Economics &Management Strategy, 6.1, 75-90.
Gbadamosi, Ayantunji, Ian K. Bathgate, and Sonny Nwankwo(2013), Principles of Marketing : A Value-Based Approach(pp. 1-20), Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilbert, Richard, and Carl Shapiro (1990),“Optimal patent
length and breadth,”The RAND Journal of Economics, 21.2,
106-112.
Grant, Bonnie (2004),“Deficiencies and proposed recommendations to the false marking statute : Controlling use of theterm patent pending,”Journal of Intellectual Property Law,
12.1, 283-307.
Gupta, Ashok K., S. P. Raj, and David Wilemon (1986),“A model for studying R&D. Marketing interface in the product innovation process,”The Journal of Marketing, 50.2, 7-17.
Halt, Gerald B. Jr., Robert Fesnak, John C. Donch, and Amber R.
Stiles (2014), Intellectual Property in Consumer Electronics,
Software and Technology Startups, Springer.
Katila, Riitta and Gautam Ahuja (2002),“Something old, something new : A longitudinal study of search behavior and new
product introduction,”Academy of Management Journal,
45.6, 1183-1194.
Keiser, Nishla H. and Eric P. Raciti (2014), IP landscaping—
Creating a conceptual fabric of information, Intellectual Property Today, June 2014.
Keller, Kevin Lane (2012), Strategic Brand Management, 4th
Edition, Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, Philip (2000), Marketing Management : The Millennium
Edition, International Edition, Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, Philip, Hermawan Kartajaya, and Iwan Setiawan (2010),
Marketing 3.0 : From Products to Customers to the Human
Spirit, John Wiley & Sons.
Kotler, Philip and Waldemar Pfoertsch (2010), Ingredient
Branding : Making the Invisible Visible, Berlin : Springer Science & Business Media.
Landes, W. M. and R. A. Posner (1987),“Trademark law : An
economic perspective,”Journal of Law and Economics, 30.2,
265-309.
Lee, Sungjoo, Byungun Yoon, and Yongtae Park (2009),“An
approach to discovering new technology opportunities :  Keyword-based patent map approach,”Technovation, 29.6,
481-497.
Lieberman, Marvin B. and David B. Montgomery (1988),“Firstmover advantages,”Strategic Management Journal, 9.1, 4158.
Lin, Jie-Heng, Ming-Yeu Wang, and Hsien-Chen Lo (2013),“The complementary assets and appropriability affect patentcommercialization on the moderate effect of marketing sensing capability : The case of bio-patents in Taiwan,”in Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET),2013 Proceedings of PICMET’
13, IEEE, 871-879.
Maronick, Thomas J. (1988), “European patent laws anddecisions : Implications for multinational marketing strategy,”International Marketing Review, 5. 2, 31-40.
Miaoulis, George and Nancy d’
Amato (1978),“Consumer confusion & trademark infringement,“ The Journal of Marketing,42, 48-55.
Mitkova, Liliana (2005),“Marketing : A key element in patent
management,“ International Journal of Technology Transfer
and Commercialisation, 4.4, 487-499.
Mogee, Mary Ellen (1991),“Using patent data for technology
analysis and planning,”Research-Technology Management,
34.4, 43-49.
Moore, Preston and Jackie Nakamura (1994),“The UnitedStates patent marking and notice statute,”22, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 85-95.
Okuda, Yoshifumi and Yoshitoshi Tanaka (2011),“How are defensive patents defined and utilized as business strategic
tools? : Questionnaire survey to Japanese enterprises having many defensive patents,”in Technology Management in
the Energy Smart World (PICMET), Proceedings of PICMET’
11, 1-8.
O’
Neill, Michael R. (2010),“False patent marking claims : The
13

〈日本知財学会誌〉 Vol.13 No.3― 2017
new threat to business,”Intellectual Property & Technology
Law Journal, 22.8, 22-33.
Parchomovsky, Gideon and Peter Siegelman (2002),“Towards
an integrated theory of intellectual property,”Virginia Law
Review, 88.7, 1455-1528.
Piercy, Nigel and William Giles (1989),“Making SWOT analysis
work,”Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 7.5/6, 5-7.
Porter, Michael E. (1991),“Towards a dynamic theory of strategy,”Strategic Management Journal, 12.S2, 95-117.
Rinehart, Amelia (2010),“Contracting patents : A modern patent exhaustion doctrine,”Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 23.2, 484-535.
Salop, Steven C. (1979),“Strategic entry deterrence,”The
American Economic Review, 69.2, 335-338.
Sasaki, Tatsuya, A. Nagata, R.Toyama, T. Hirata, and K.
Hasegawa (2000),“Coevolution theory of patent strategy
and Product strategy [Tokkyo Senryaku to Seihin Senryaku
no Kyoushinka-modelu(Japanese)],”The Japan Society for
Science Policy and Research Management, 15, 40-43.
Sasaki, Tatsuya, A. Nagata, R. Toyama, T. Hirata, and K.
Hasegawa (2001),“Coevolution of patent strategy and product strategy,”in Management of Engineering and Technology, PICMET’
01, Portland International Conference on Vol. 1.
Schankerman, Mark (1991),“How valuable is patent protection? :  Estimates by technology field using patent renewal
data,”No. w3780, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Scherer, F. M. (2005),“The role of patents in two US monopolization cases,”International Journal of the Economics ofBusiness, 12.3, 297-305.
Scott Morton, Fiona M. (2000)“Barriers to entry, brand advertising, and generic entry in the US pharmaceutical industry,”
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18.7, 10851104.
Smith, Wendell R. (1956),“Product differentiation and market
segmentation as alternative marketing strategies,”The

14

Journal of Marketing, 21.1, 3-8.
Statman, Meir (1981),“The effect of patent expiration on themarket position of drugs,”Managerial and Decision Economics, 2.2, 61-66.
Statman, Meir and Tyzoon T. Tyebjeen (1981),“Trademarks,
patents, and innovation in the ethical drug industry,”The
Journal of Marketing, 45, 71-81.
Strojwas, Marcin, Jean Tirole, and Josh Lerner (2003),“Cooperative marketing agreements between competitors :  Evidence from patent pools,”Harvard NOM Working Paper, No.
03-25.
Sugimitsu, Kazunari (2005),“Present situation of human resources in intellectual property field revealed by skill data,”
Journal of Information Processing and Management, 48.9,
565-569.
Tatsumoto, Hirofumi., Koichi Ogawa, and Junjiro Shintaku(2011),“Strategic standardization,”Annals of Business Administrative Science 10, 13-26.
Teece, D. J. (1986),“Profiting from technological innovation :  
Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy,”Research Policy, 15.6, 285-305.
Tschirky, H., J. P. Escher, D. Tokdemir, & C. Belz (2000),“Technology marketing : A new core competence of technology-intensive enterprises,”International Journal of Technology Management, 20.3, 459-474.
Verganti, Roberto (2013), Design Driven Innovation : Changing
the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What
Things Mean, Harvard Business Press.
Wade, Worth (1965),“Legal and patent problems in import-export marketing of chemical products,”Journal of Chemical
Documentation, 5.2, 78-82.
Wheaton, James J. (1986),“Generic competition and pharmaceutical innovation : The Drug Price Competition and Patent
Term Restoration Act of 1984,”The Catholic University Law
Review, 35.2, 433-487.