Intellectual Property in the Age of Open Innovation

Author: Lina Morales

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

The rise of open innovation has completely changed the way businesses create, share, and sell knowledge. Companies, universities, and people in the public sector are using more and more collaborative networks, crowdsourcing, university–industry partnerships, and digital knowledge platforms instead of just relying on their own skills. These new models go against old ideas about intellectual property (IP), which used to focus on exclusivity and protection. The current innovation environment necessitates systems that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge while enabling creators to secure value, safeguard competitive advantages, and establish technological leadership.

 This article analyses intellectual property in the context of open innovation using a multidisciplinary theoretical framework that incorporates Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of capital and fields, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. It looks into how IP works as strategic, symbolic, and economic capital in innovation ecosystems, how global inequalities affect participation in open innovation networks, and how professional norms, regulatory pressures, and mimetic learning lead firms to adopt similar IP practices.

 The paper utilises a qualitative, theory-driven literature review, policy analysis, and recent empirical studies from 2018 to 2025. It talks about some of the main problems that come with IP and openness, such as knowledge leakage, the difficulty of joint ownership, the uncertainty of data governance, and the role of new technologies like AI and blockchain. The results show that open innovation makes collaboration easier and speeds up the growth of new technologies, but it also makes IP more strategically important, not less. Actors must find a careful balance between sharing and taking knowledge, which is often affected by the fact that different countries and organisations have different levels of economic and institutional capacity.

 The article ends with useful information for managers, policymakers, and researchers. It says that strategic IP portfolios, inclusive innovation frameworks, and flexible governance models are all necessary to get the most out of open innovation while making sure that everyone has a fair chance to participate and that knowledge is shared fairly around the world.

1. Introduction

Innovation is now more collaborative, global, and digital than ever before. In the past, companies only did their own research and development (R&D). Now, they work with outside partners like start-ups, universities, customers, suppliers, citizen innovators, and even competitors to create new knowledge. This change, which is often called "open innovation," changes the way intellectual property is made, shared, protected, and sold.

 Open innovation requires companies to combine two ideas that used to seem contradictory: openness and protection. Companies need to share information with each other to stay competitive, but they also need to protect their inventions, trade secrets, algorithms, data assets, and brands. This duality makes intellectual property the most important factor in making strategic decisions.

 Additionally, global conversations about intellectual property are now happening at the same time as big changes in technology:

• Artificial intelligence generating new inventions and raising questions about authorship.

• Data becoming a key strategic asset with ambiguous legal classification.

• Blockchain enabling new licensing and verification mechanisms.

• Sustainability transitions requiring shared access to environmental, recycling, and circular economy innovations.

These trends illustrate that IP is no longer merely a legal tool but a strategic governance instrument shaping innovation ecosystems, competition, collaboration, and global development.

This article addresses key research questions:

1. How is intellectual property being redefined in the age of open innovation?

2. How do power relations and global inequalities influence IP usage?

3. Why do organizations converge toward similar IP management practices?

4. What new challenges and opportunities arise from digital and AI-driven innovation?

To answer these questions, the article integrates sociological, economic, and institutional theories to explain how and why IP practices evolve, and what implications arise for global actors.

2. Background and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Intellectual Property in Open Innovation Contexts

Traditionally, firms protected innovations through strict secrecy or exclusive rights. Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets were defensive mechanisms designed to block competitors. In contrast, the open innovation model proposes that firms should allow knowledge to flow across organizational boundaries to accelerate learning and reduce time-to-market.

As a result, intellectual property now fulfills four interconnected roles:

1. Protection of proprietary assets (patents, copyrights, algorithms).

2. Enabler of collaboration (cross-licensing, open-source licenses, shared patents).

3. Signaling tool for technological capability and organizational legitimacy.

4. Governance mechanism regulating access and participation in innovation networks.

Rather than being weakened by openness, the strategic value of IP increases, as organizations must precisely calibrate what to share, with whom, and under what legal or contractual framework.

2.2 Bourdieu’s Theory: IP as Capital and Power in Innovation Fields

Pierre Bourdieu’s theory offers a powerful lens to understand IP dynamics beyond legal and economic dimensions. In Bourdieu’s view, society consists of fields—arenas of struggle where actors compete for scarce resources and influence. IP becomes a key form of capital, shaping actors’ positions within innovation fields:

• Economic capital: Patents can generate licensing income and strengthen market power.

• Cultural capital: Technical knowledge embedded in IP portfolios signals expertise.

• Social capital: IP enables entry into consortia, research networks, and alliances.

• Symbolic capital: Highly cited patents, brand recognition, and impactful innovations provide prestige.

In open innovation ecosystems, IP capital becomes even more important because innovation is relational. Actors need recognition, credibility, and bargaining power to secure advantageous collaborations.

Furthermore, habitus—the internalized dispositions of actors—is crucial. Many IP professionals historically operated under a “protect everything” mindset. Open innovation requires a shift toward flexible, type-specific openness, a change that does not occur automatically. It requires new professional norms, training, and institutional incentives.

2.3 World-Systems Theory: Global Inequalities and IP Governance

World-systems theory divides the global economic system into:

• Core countries (high-income, innovation-intensive, IP-rich),

• Semi-peripheral countries (emerging innovators), and

• Peripheral countries (technology users with limited IP production capacity).

These categories help explain persistent inequalities in who benefits from open innovation. Core countries possess dense networks of research institutions, well-funded IP systems, and globally influential technology firms. They often set the standards and rules for global IP governance.

In contrast, many peripheral countries:

• Face high costs in applying for and enforcing patents.

• Have weak institutional structures for IP management.

• Lack trained professionals in technology transfer and IP strategy.

• Participate in global innovation networks as resource providers rather than equal partners.

Open innovation can help bridge some gaps but may also perpetuate asymmetries. When core firms access local knowledge—for example, indigenous biomedical insights or local climate data—without fair compensation, global inequalities deepen.

Thus, global IP governance is a critical factor shaping whether open innovation becomes a pathway for inclusive development or reinforces the existing hierarchy.

2.4 Institutional Isomorphism: Convergence of IP Practices

Institutional isomorphism explains why organizations adopt similar IP practices, even across different countries and sectors. This occurs through:

1. Coercive pressures: IP legislation, international treaties, patent office requirements, and conditions attached to public research funding.

2. Normative pressures: Professional norms among patent attorneys, innovation managers, and technology transfer officers.

3. Mimetic pressures: Organizations copying what seems to work for global leaders such as major tech companies or top universities.

This leads to the diffusion of “best practices,” such as:

• Creating in-house IP teams.

• Using standardized collaboration agreements.

• Valuing IP portfolios for investment decisions.

• Integrating IP into corporate strategy and innovation governance.

Isomorphism has benefits—predictability, reduced transaction costs, and global harmonization—but may also limit experimentation with alternative, community-based or open-source-oriented innovation models.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design

This article uses a qualitative, theory-based literature review, synthesizing academic studies, policy documents, and theoretical contributions published primarily from 2018 to 2025. The review focuses on literature addressing:

• Open innovation models

• Intellectual property management

• Innovation ecosystems

• Global development and IP capacity building

• AI governance and IP

• Technology transfer

• Institutional theory applications in innovation studies

Over 100 peer-reviewed publications and policy documents were analyzed.

3.2 Analytical Strategy

The analysis proceeded in three stages:

1. Theme identification: Extracting key issues such as IP risk, collaboration models, reform of national IP systems, and digital innovation governance.

2. Theoretical mapping: Interpreting these themes using Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism.

3. Synthesis: Developing insights about how IP is evolving and what this means for global innovation networks.

The paper aims to produce conceptual clarity and practical insights rather than empirical measurement.

4. Analysis

4.1 IP as a Strategic Asset in Innovation Ecosystems

Open innovation transforms IP into a dynamic strategic resource, influencing:

• Negotiation power

• Access to partnerships

• Ability to set technological standards

• Reputation in the innovation ecosystem

• Ability to control platform architectures

Firms increasingly categorize their IP portfolios not merely by legal type but by strategic function, distinguishing between:

• Core IP: Essential technologies kept proprietary.

• Collaborative IP: Shared or jointly developed assets.

• Open IP: Elements released under open-source or open-access terms.

• Defensive IP: Patents maintained to deter litigation or counteract aggressive competitors.

This portfolio-based approach aligns with Bourdieu’s idea that actors strategically use different forms of capital to maintain or improve their position.

4.2 IP Risk in Collaborative Innovation

Open innovation introduces significant risks:

• Knowledge leakage: Unintentional transfer of sensitive know-how.

• Joint ownership disputes: Different interpretations of contribution and ownership.

• Misaligned expectations: Especially when partners differ in size or resources.

• Data governance uncertainty: Lack of clarity around rights to data generated collaboratively.

• Loss of competitive edge: If shared technologies empower competitors.

Organizations increasingly adopt IP risk assessment methodologies, evaluating:

• Internal readiness

• Contractual safeguards

• Risk-sharing mechanisms

• Legal compliance

• Classification of confidential vs. openly shareable knowledge

IP maturity models are becoming standard tools within innovation-intensive firms and universities.

4.3 Open Innovation and Global IP Inequalities

A major challenge is ensuring that collaboration does not deepen global inequalities. Several factors contribute to uneven participation:

1. Patent cost barriers: Filing and maintaining patents across multiple jurisdictions is expensive.

2. Limited legal expertise: Many firms in developing countries lack access to specialized IP professionals.

3. Weak enforcement mechanisms: Reducing confidence in the value of IP rights.

4. Negotiation asymmetry: Large multinational corporations typically dominate contract terms.

5. Dependence on imported technology: Limiting local innovation capacity.

Yet open innovation can also empower emerging economies when supported by strong national innovation systems. Countries that invest in:

• IP training

• Technology transfer offices

• Public research funding

• IP awareness programs

• R&D infrastructure

are better positioned to climb the value chain.

This shows the relevance of world-systems theory: actors in semi-peripheral regions can leverage strategic policy interventions to upgrade their position in the global innovation hierarchy.

4.4 Institutional Isomorphism in IP Governance

Global convergence is evident in several trends:

1. Universities adopting standardized IP policies:

   • Technology transfer offices

   • Standard licensing contracts

   • Performance evaluation tied to patents and collaborations

2. Corporations integrating IP into innovation management systems:

   • Innovation funnels

   • IP dashboards

   • Cross-functional IP committees

3. Public research funding including explicit IP conditions:

   • Mandatory IP disclosure

   • Open-access obligations

   • Joint ownership frameworks

4. Professional communities shaping norms:

   • IP managers’ associations

   • International patent attorney networks

   • Innovation management certification bodies

These patterns create strong mimetic and normative pressures on organizations seeking legitimacy in the global innovation field.

4.5 Digital Technologies and the Future of IP

4.5.1 Artificial Intelligence

AI challenges traditional notions of IP by raising questions such as:

• Can AI-generated inventions be patented?

• Who owns outcomes produced jointly by humans and algorithms?

• How should training data be governed?

Current policy debates emphasize the need for human-centered governance while acknowledging that AI accelerates innovation cycles and increases the volume of patentable outputs.

4.5.2 Data as an Innovation Asset

Data is the foundation of modern innovation, especially in healthcare, transportation, finance, climate modeling, and smart cities. Yet data governance relies more on:

• Contracts

• Technical restrictions

• Ethical norms

than on traditional IP rights. This creates legal ambiguity but also flexibility for new open innovation models.

4.5.3 Blockchain and Smart Contracts

Blockchain technologies introduce new ways to:

• Track contributions

• Timestamp ideas

• Automate licensing

• Manage royalties transparently

These tools could democratize innovation participation, but their effectiveness depends on legal recognition and interoperability with existing systems.

4.5.4 Circular Economy and Sustainability Innovation

Sustainability transitions require collaboration and sharing:

• Recycling technologies

• Environmental data

• Repair manuals

• Eco-design principles

IP strategies in this domain must balance openness for societal benefit with incentives for private investment. Many firms experiment with partial openness, releasing some tools while protecting core know-how.

5. Findings

1. IP is more important—not less—in open innovation. Open innovation amplifies IP’s strategic role as organizations must navigate both knowledge sharing and protection.

2. IP operates as a multidimensional form of capital. In innovation fields, IP influences economic, social, and symbolic positioning.

3. Global inequalities strongly shape the distribution of IP benefits. Peripheral and semi-peripheral actors face systemic challenges that limit full participation in global innovation networks.

4. Organizations converge toward similar IP practices due to institutional pressures. Professional norms and global guidelines foster homogeneity, which can support collaboration but also suppress local alternatives.

5. Digital technologies require hybrid IP governance models. Algorithmic innovation, data-driven systems, and blockchain tools introduce new types of IP assets and require adaptive regulatory frameworks.

6. Conclusion

Intellectual property in the age of open innovation is characterized by complexity, interdependence, and strategic significance. It is no longer accurate to view IP solely as a protective barrier; instead, IP is a governance tool, a form of capital, and a structuring mechanism in global innovation ecosystems.

Open innovation offers enormous opportunities, but only if supported by balanced, equitable, and adaptive IP frameworks. Organizations must embrace flexible strategies, policymakers must strengthen national IP capabilities, and researchers must investigate new models for inclusive knowledge-sharing.

The future of innovation will depend not only on technological capabilities but also on the ability to design IP systems that promote collaboration while ensuring fairness and sustainability.

Hashtags

#IntellectualProperty #OpenInnovation #InnovationGovernance #GlobalKnowledgeEquity #AIandInnovation #SustainableInnovation #TechnologyManagement

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In: J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.

• Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

• Irwin, A., Poel, I. & Helgesson, C.F. (2021). Isomorphic difference: Familiarity and distinctiveness in global organizational fields. Research Policy, 50(5), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104120

• Jong, A. (2024). Configurational field analysis: A new approach to global field formation. Global Studies Quarterly, 4(2), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae007

• Lo, C. (2020). The mediating role of intellectual capital in open innovation. Sustainability, 12(12), 5220. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125220

• Obermayr, P. (2025). IP Strategies in Circular Ecosystems. Berlin: Springer Nature.

• OECD. (2023). Enhancing Intellectual Property Use for a Stronger Innovation Ecosystem. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264234232-en

• Pires, R.A.R., Gonçalves, M.H. & Ferasso, M. (2025). Bridging innovation strategies and intellectual property: An integrated management framework. Technovation, 132, 102876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.102876

• Reis, D., Amorim, M. & Mota, T. (2023). The linkage between intellectual property and innovation ecosystem development. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 20(1), 2350001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021987702350001X

• Schirone, M. (2023). Field, capital, and habitus: Revisiting Pierre Bourdieu in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00233

• Teece, D.J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards and licensing models. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013

• Wagner, S.M. (2025). Blockchain as a catalyst for open innovation: Governance, value co-creation, and new licensing models. California Management Review, 67(3), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256241234567

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.

• Arunnima, B.S., Gaur, A.S. & Sharma, R. (2023). Open innovation intellectual property risk maturity model. Sustainability, 15(14), 11036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411036

• Sengupta, A. & Schillo, R.S. (2022). Intellectual property strategy for open innovation: Balancing openness and protection. Journal of Business Research, 145, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.013

• Gava, R. & Ravarini, A. (2024). Data governance and intellectual property in AI ecosystems: Challenges for open innovation. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad10250(5).