Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploitation of patent information in R&D output analysis for policymaking

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides an insight into the growing importance and conditions of studying R&D output and impacts as well as the internationalisation of R&D. Focusing on policy needs it contributes to the development of the information base and the elaboration of new approaches, aiming at the exploitation of unexplored patent information for analysis of industrial R&D output and re-location. This approach complements the information accumulated in the framework of the European Commission’s EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. European Commission (2005).

  2. For company perspectives on the evaluation of the R&D effectiveness see EIRMA (2004).

  3. Sources of patent data and statistics see Dernis et al. (2001).

  4. As home home-base “advantage” of residents (number of patents per unit of R&D expenditure in the home country is higher than the average), costs effects, difference in industrial structures and in propensity to patent. On the limitations of patent data for economic analysis see more below.

  5. See Pavitt (1988).

  6. By Canadian Patent Office, USPTO, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research in Germany, the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST) in France, ENEA in Italy, Patent Office and the Central Statistical Office in Finland, MERIT in the Netherlands, University of Sussex, Science and Policy Research Unit (SPRU) in the UK, OECD with Yale Technology (see Archibugi and Pianta 1996; Magerman et al. 2005; OECD 1994; Pavitt 1988).

  7. Raw patent data includes “bibliographic” information (title of the invention, inventor, applicant) abstract, a detailed description of the invention, drawings, claims (which define the scope of the legal protection), patent number, publication date, classification (international, national), application number, priority number(s), legal status, etc.

  8. The publication of a filed patent requires a minimum of 18 months from date of first filing (priority date). USPTO has started to publish the filed patent applications (not only the granted patents) since 29 November 2000. However, the applicants are eligible to “opt out” of the 18-month publication rule “certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country”, according to OECD (2004).

  9. A notable exception is software (in some countries can not be patented, intellectual property is secured by copyright).

  10. The research was carried out on the level of US metropolitan statistical areas. Industrial R&D input measure was based on data on professional employment (professional research staff with technicians).

  11. On this particular research see more in Acs et al. (2002), on patents and innovation counts as indicators see also Archibugi and Pianta (1996).

  12. As a consequence of the uncertainty in technological activities, variations in the distribution of the value of R&D and patenting across all firms and countries expected to be similar (according to Patel 2003).

  13. Patent renewals “measure” the life cycle of patents.

  14. The Kodak-Polaroid case “ultimately cost Kodak a billion dollar judgment and shut down their instant camera business in 1986”, (see more: Hall 2004).

  15. Patent portfolios may contain a number of patents having low value in financial terms.

  16. On the lag between the R&D investments and output/outcome see Acs et al. (2002), Hall et al. (1983, 1984), OECD (2004) and Van Ophem et al. (2001).

  17. Using data on R&D expenditures from the Dutch part of the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) and patent counts compiled on the base of the patents submitted to the European Patent Office.

  18. On the base of patents granted from 1986 to 2000 in the US.

  19. Nationality of ownership and the location of the research unit responsible for patent were identified. See Cantwell and Piscitello (2002).

  20. See more on R&D and innovation output, and R&D internationalization analysis based on patent information in: Archibugi and Pianta (1996), Pakes and Griliches (1980), Hall et al. (1983, 1984), Pavitt (1988), Jaumotte and Pain (2005) and OECD (2005).

  21. It offers one of the first set of information on the developments in industrial R&D investments for the previous year.

  22. The R&D investment data represent the cash investment in R&D conducted on their own behalf and funded by the companies themselves. It excludes R&D undertaken under contract for customers such as governments or other companies.

  23. See http://iri.jrc.es/do/home/portal/inicio. For 2004 thousand companies (500 and 500 non-EU) companies, for 2006 two thousand (1000 EU and 1000 non-EU) companies are listed.

  24. The company data are based on the actual consolidated financial reports.

  25. According to the experience of the Catholic University of Leuven this manual checking on average requires 2 days for one company (see Magerman et al. 2005).

  26. esp@cenet Worldwide, EP—esp@cenet, Patent Abstracts of Japan, WIPO—esp@cenet.

  27. We established a dataset for 25 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (for 2003 and 2004, number of patents by country of origin of the applicant company unit/subsidiary: for 22 companies), for 20 EU engineering and machinery companies (for 2004, number of patents by country of origin of the applicant company unit/subsidiary: for four companies). We retrieved patent data for 4 years, but the data were consolidated, the changes in the ownership structure were considered for shorter time series.

  28. The exclusive right is granted to a patentee for 20 years in most countries. For the owner of the patent this right excludes others from producing, using, selling the concerned invention in the country where the patent is granted.

  29. See more in Archibugi and Pianta (1996).

  30. The finding corresponds to results of another study, see DTI (2005a).

  31. On the classification and scope of R&D internationalization patterns see Dachs and Zahradnik (2006).

  32. See Ernst (2005), Johansson and Lööf (2006), OECD (2005) and United Nations (2005).

  33. Aggregated data on domestic R&D activities of foreign firms have been published by a number of statistical offices.

  34. 21 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies were considered. As a consequence of the limitations of patent data retrieval in on-line esp@cenet database only the first 500 patent documents could be studied in details. Thus the geographical origin of the patentee could not be identified for three companies. In case of one UK company all patents were filed by foreign units. To avoid the bias arising from the small number of companies in the sample, the data on this company were not considered in the calculations.

  35. Companies listed in the EU R&D investment Scoreboard are classified in compliance with Financial Times Stock Exchange index (FTSE) and since 2006 edition Industry Classification System (ICB).

  36. The first phase is characterised by a strong science-push. The business expectations can not be fulfilled in a short term. The outcome indicators show a decline. The scientific organizations contribute to the solution of basic technical problems. After that phase, in the second cycle the firms are the main players, the adoption of the technology to the users needs is dominated by market-push perspective.

  37. Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

  38. General industrial classification of economic activities within the European Communities.

  39. In Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT).

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy,31(7), 1069–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalisation of innovation. Research Policy,28, 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation,16(9), 451–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2004). Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy,33(10), 1583–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, N., & van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal,112(478), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2002). The location of technological activities of MNCs in European regions: The role of spillovers and local competencies. Journal of International Management,8(1), 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dachs, B., & Zahradnik, G. (2006). The Internationalisation of Research and Development in ICT. Report on Behalf of the Project “Internationalisation of European ICT activities”, carried out for the European Commission, Directorate General JRC Institute for Prospective Studies, Project Number J04/40/2004, Vienna, Austria.

  • Dernis, H., Guellec, D., & Pottelsberghe, B. (2001). Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. STI review, no. 27. Paris: OECD.

  • DTI. (2005a). The 2004 R&D Scoreboard, UK, the top 700 UK and 700 international companies by R&D Investment, Commentary and Analysis. London: DTI.

    Google Scholar 

  • DTI. (2005b). R&D Intensive businesses in the UK. DTI economics paper, no. 11. London: DTI.

  • EIRMA. (2004). Assessing research and development effectiveness. Working group reports. WG62 report, Paris, France.

  • Ernst, D. (2005). The complexity and internationalization of innovation: The root causes. In Globalization of R&D and developing countries: Proceedings of the expert meeting, Geneva, 24–26 January 2005 (pp. 61–87). New York and Geneva: United Nations

  • European Commission. (2004). Statistics on science and technology in Europe, Data 1991–2002, Part 2. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2005). The 2005 EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard. DG JRC, institute for prospective technological studies and DG RTD. Seville: European Commission.

  • European Commission. (2006). The annual digest of industrial R&D. DG joint research centre—DG research. Luxembourg: EUR 22556 EN.

  • European Commission. (2010). Communication from the commission, EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels, 3.3.2010, COM(2010) 2020.

  • European Commission. (2011). Commission staff working paper, Impact assessment, accompanying the communication from the commission ‘Horizon 2020 - The framework programme for research and innovation’; proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council establishing Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020); proposal for a council decision establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020); Proposal for a council regulation on the research and training programme of the European atomic energy community (2014–2018) contributing to the Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation, Brussels, 30.11.2011, SEC(2011) 1427 final.

  • European Commission. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS 3). Luxembourg: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Official Journal of the European Union. November 20, 2013. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN.

  • Foray, D. (2004). The patent system and the dynamics of innovation in Europe. Science and Public Policy,31(6), 449–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (2004). Measuring the impact from public-sector science and technology: Methods. Prepared for presentation at the “workshop on measuring the impacts of science,” 16–18 June, Montreal, Canada.

  • Gianelle, C., Kyriakou, D., Cohen, C., & Przeor M. (Eds.) (2016). Implementing smart specialisation: A handbook. Brussels: European Commission, EUR 28053.

  • Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2006). ‘Triad’ or ‘Tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. In Proceedings of the SPRU 40th anniversary conference—“The future of science, technology and innovation policy”, 11–13 September, Brighton, UK.

  • Godin, B. (2005). The input–output framework: An accounting metaphor. ENIP/PRIME international workshop, “S&T Indicators for policy analysis: Needs, status and new developments”, 22–23 September, Lisbon, Portugal.

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey part I. NBER paper working series, no. 3301. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B. H. (2004). Exploring the patent explosion. NBER working paper series, working paper 10605. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1983). Searching for a lag structure? Working paper no. 1227. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1984). Is there a lag? Working paper no. 1454. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hong, S. (2004). The magic of patent information, SMEs division, WIPO. November 2004. http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/pdf/patent_information.pdf.

  • Jaumotte, F, & Pain, N. (2005). From ideas to development: The determinants of R&D and patenting. OECD Economic Department working papers, No. 457. Economics Department, Paris, France.

  • Johansson, B., & Lööf, H. (2006). Global location patterns of R&D investments. Electronic working paper series, no. 60 the Royal Institute of Technology, Jönköping and Department for Transport and Economics, centre of excellence for studies in science and innovation, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Magerman, T., Van Looy, B., Du Plessis, M., Verbeek, A., & Leten, B. (2005). Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics—Progress report, Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Research Division Incentim, Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics, K.U. Leuven (Belgium) in cooperation with Ariane II—Transiciel Group.

  • Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2004). The importance of R&D for innovation: A reassessment using French Survey data. MERIT-Infonomics research memorandum series, 2004–2022, MERIT, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Measuring science–technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy. Scientometrics,66(2), 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motohashi, K. (2004). Japan’s patent system and business innovation: Reassessing pro-patent policies. In Proceedings of the OECD conference on patents, innovation and economic performance 2004 (pp. 53–82). Paris: OECD.

  • OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities using patent data as science and technology indicators. Patent manual 1994, OCDE/GD(94)114. Paris: OECD

  • OECD. (2004). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). Internationalisation of R&D: Trends, issues and implications for S&T policies. Background report, forum on the internationalisation of R&D, March 29–30, Brussels, Belgium

  • Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patent and R&D at the Firm level: A first look. NBER paper working series, no. 561. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Patel, P. (2003). UK performance in biotechnology-related innovation: An analysis of patent data. Brighton-Sussex: SPRU: Science and Technology Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 509–536). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schaaper, M. (2004). An emerging knowledge based economy in China, indicators from OECD databases. STI working paper, 2004/4, Statistical Analysis of Science, Technology and Industry, Directorate for Science and Industry, OECD, Paris, France.

  • Schmoch, U. (2005). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and Market-pull. Paper submitted to Research Policy, September.

  • Shelton, R. (2006). Relations between National Research Investment inputs and publication outputs: Application to an American paradox. Paper presented on the 9th international conference on science and technology indicators, new challenges in Quantitative Science and Technology Research, 2007–2009 September, Leuven, Belgium.

  • United Nations. (2005). Transnational corporations and the internationalization of R&D. World investment report 2005. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

  • Van Ophem, H., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Mohnen, P. (2001). R&D and patents: Which way does the causality run? CIRANO, scientific series, 2001s-31, Montréal, Canada.

Download references

Acknowledgements

V. Frigyesi (former Senior Scientist, Support to the European Research Area Unit, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain) and M. Boden (Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain) gratefully acknowledge the support and advice provided by P. Laget (former Head of the Support to the European Research Area Unit, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry for Innovation and Technology, Budapest, Hungary

    Veronika Frigyesi

  2. Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Seville, Spain

    Patrice Laget & Mark Boden

Authors
  1. Veronika Frigyesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrice Laget
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Boden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronika Frigyesi.

Additional information

Patrice Laget—Retired.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frigyesi, V., Laget, P. & Boden, M. Exploitation of patent information in R&D output analysis for policymaking. Scientometrics 121, 1717–1736 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03236-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03236-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation