Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Scanning Technologies & Competitors
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Scanning Technologies & Competitors

616

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
616
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Scanning technologies & competitors: Patent analysis Lecture for “Tools for the Management of Innovation“ 2007-11-19 Olof Ejermo CIRCLE [email_address]
    • 2. Overview of lecture <ul><li>What is innovation? </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation indicators – what are the options? </li></ul><ul><li>What is a patent? </li></ul><ul><li>Quality-adjustment of patent data: what are the options? </li></ul><ul><li>Some applications of invention/innovation data </li></ul>
    • 3. What is innovation? <ul><li>The invention-innovation dichotomy, Bozeman and Link (1983, p. 4): </li></ul><ul><li>“ The concepts commonly used in connection with innovation are deceptively simple. Invention is the creation of something new. An invention becomes an innovation when it is put in use.” </li></ul>
    • 4. The ’schumpeterian’ trilogy <ul><li>Inspired by Schumpeter: </li></ul><ul><li>Invention – creation of new technological knowledge, i.e. the creation of things previously non-existent </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation - the application of inventions in a commercial production process. </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion - the process by which innovation spreads into the economic environment. </li></ul>
    • 5. Some thoughts about what would characterize an ’ideal’ innovation indicator: <ul><li>The measure should be all-encompassing – i.e. we should not have to look for many indicators </li></ul><ul><li>The measure should be as close as possible to innovation – preferably commercialized; if not: as close as possible </li></ul><ul><li>The measure should be as comparable as possible across: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. sectors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4. regions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5. firms, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    • 6. The linear model <ul><li>NOTE: The way this is depicted should be look upon as a rough guideline not necessarily indicating causality (innovation may also cause invention and so on...) (cf. Rothwell, R. (1994), &quot;Towards the fifth-generation innovation process&quot;, International Marketing Review , Vol. 11 No.1, pp.7-31. </li></ul>Innovation Invention <ul><li>commercialized </li></ul><ul><li>put into use </li></ul>’ Diffusion’
    • 7. Different related indicators <ul><li>Research and development (R&D) </li></ul><ul><li>Patent data </li></ul><ul><li>Quality-adjusted patent data </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation counts </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation expenditures </li></ul><ul><li>Imitation expenditures </li></ul><ul><li>Underlined = most commonly used </li></ul>
    • 8. Measurement of invention : R&D 1 <ul><li>Research & development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Research and experimental development (R&D) comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications .” (Frascati Manual 1993 OECD, my italics ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>basic research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>applied research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>experimental development </li></ul></ul>
    • 9. Measurement of invention: R&D 2 <ul><ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>long time-series </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>harmonized throughout OECD, i.e. reasonable degree of comparability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>increasingly possible to distinguish between process and product, basic vs. applied research, research vs. development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>possible to divide between industries, government, higher education, non-profit, source of finance </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 10. Measurement of invention: R&D 3 <ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>focus on early stages of innovation process – may not lead to innovation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>not the only input into the invention process: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>bias against small firms - may have less formal innovation processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>bias against more service- and/or organizationally-oriented innovation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>sometimes hard to pin-point to location of actual activity: in particular regions and sometimes countries (the ’Singapore’ effect) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Confidentiality prevents us from knowing which are the companies. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 11. Patents - What is a patent ? <ul><ul><li>legal purpose: awards intellectual property right, a time-limited (usually 20 years) monopoly to a region/country </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>requirements on I. novelty; II. inventive activity; III. industrial applicability. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Main important patent awarding offices are the ’triad’: USPTO (the United States Patent and Trademark Office), EPO (the European Patent Office) and JPO (the Japan Patent Office) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patents are costly to apply for and must be renewed </li></ul></ul>
    • 12. Why do we have patents? <ul><li>Knowledge tends to ’leak out’ and be imitated (spillovers), therefore inventors may be more reluctant to invent. A patent therefore has two objectives </li></ul><ul><li>It gives a monopoly -> potentially higher rewards to inventors </li></ul><ul><li>In return, all information about the patent has to be disclosed, i.e. when the patent expires it is relatively easy to imitate the invention for others. </li></ul><ul><li>innovation study purpose: patent counts can be useful as inventive/innovative indicators </li></ul>
    • 13. Patents - What is a patent citation ? <ul><ul><li>applicants required to reveal prior art </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In USPTO more patents are cited than in EPO </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Everything that is remotely related is cited -> risk of getting sued </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>” According to EPO philosophy a good search report contains all the technically relevant information with a minimum number of citations” (Michel and Bettels, 2001) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 14. Patents - invention indicators <ul><li>Somewhat more indicative of (esp. technological) inventive activity than R&D: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the actual effort has resulted in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>an application -> a granted patent </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Note: R&D may not lead to patenting, nor does patenting require R&D! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yet: high correlation between R&D and patents -> patent counts may be used as proxies for ’inventiveness’ </li></ul></ul>
    • 15. Advantages of patent data <ul><li>Highly detailed information on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>date of invention (filing date of application, granting date) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>high geographical precision -addresses of inventors (and applicants) -> cy, region, zip code </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>information on technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Long time-series </li></ul><ul><li>Highly available – all patent info. is put online! </li></ul>
    • 16. Disadvantages of patent data <ul><li>not all innovations are patentable </li></ul><ul><li>not all patentable innovations are patented </li></ul><ul><li>there are biases/differences in the propensity to patent depending on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>firm size (t hreshold costs for patenting favors large firms, although studies seem to indicate that patents are less size-sensitive than R&D) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>invention type (e.g. product-life cycle position) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what can be patented has evolved over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the cost of imitation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>technological opportunities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>substantial share of patenting is for strategic, preemptive, competition </li></ul><ul><li>secrecy may be more efficient protection mechanism </li></ul><ul><li>no exact technology-industry concordance </li></ul>
    • 17. Two potential uses of citations for studying innovation: <ul><li>More citations to a patent indicates it has been useful [at least for developing new technology] </li></ul><ul><li>Citations indicate directions of knowledge flows -> may show: diffusion, spillovers, social networks, knowledge ’clubs’ </li></ul>
    • 18. Innovation counts – the ’object’ approach <ul><li>’ Important’ innovations – 100 Trade, engineering and technology journals. Small Business Administration. US, only 1982. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>related efforts in the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland and Finland. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expert appraisal – the SPRU (Sussex) database. British innovations for 1945-83 </li></ul>
    • 19. <ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>expert opinion of what is an innovation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>no no-response problem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>addresses of innovators may be available </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>only important enough innovations. Largely ignores incremental, and process innovations. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very time-consuming work and only few countries where this has been done. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>which journals? which experts? </li></ul></ul>
    • 20. Innovation surveys – the ’subject’ approach <ul><li>Innovation surveys – Yale survey (Levin et al. 1987) – asked managers about </li></ul><ul><li>- sources of knowledge (spillovers) </li></ul><ul><li>- appropriation of knowledge, effectiveness of patents </li></ul><ul><li>Community innovation survey – EU similar. In addition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>innovation expenditures (R&D + other efforts) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sales of imitative and innovative products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>production innovation, process innovation? </li></ul></ul>
    • 21. <ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>makes for richer distinctions (innovative/imitative) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>non-R&D inputs addressed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>service industries addressed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>data on: organizational innovation, technological collaboration, obstacles to innovation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>low response rates (~40-50 %) for EU countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>share of innovative products sensitive to stage of business cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>difficult to answer to what is an innovation expenditure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>firms are asked to provide information on whether goods & services are new to the ’market’ – which market? (specified in later CIS versions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confidentiality prevents us from getting to know which are the companies. </li></ul></ul>
    • 22. An attempt to put measures along our invention-innovation line Innovation Invention <ul><li>commercialized </li></ul><ul><li>put into use </li></ul>’ Diffusion’ Spillovers Imitation Imitation exp. R&D Patents Innovation counts Citations – and related
    • 23. R&D in OECD I 1. 1998. 2. 1999. 3. 2000. 4. 2002. Source: OECD, STI Scoreboard
    • 24. R&D in OECD-countries II, 1999
    • 25. EPO patenting 1993-99 – fractional counts <ul><li>1 patent – </li></ul><ul><li>2 inventors: </li></ul><ul><li>France </li></ul><ul><li>UK </li></ul><ul><li>France -> ½ patent </li></ul><ul><li>UK -> ½ patent </li></ul>
    • 26. EPO patenting per capita
    • 27. EPO patenting – weighted counts Same thing, but counted with weights. Example a patent gets 2 citations -> it gets a count of 2
    • 28. EPO weighted patenting/capita
    • 29. EPO citations per patent
    • 30. Revealed technological advantage of European countries The share of patenting in sector i in all countries in relation to total for all countries The share of patenting in sector i in a country in relation to total for the same country Same thing, but counted with weights. Example a patent gets 2 citations -> it gets a count of 2 Higher than 1 -> the country is relatively specialized in the sector
    • 31. RTA in European countries (weighted measures) <ul><li>AUSTRIA : Lightening equipment 4.57, Basic metals 4.20, Other transport equipment 4.05 </li></ul><ul><li>BELGIUM: Soaps, detergents, toilet preparations 7.77, Other chemicals 5.42, Paper 5.38 </li></ul><ul><li>SWITZERLAND: Watches, clocks 8.89 Food, beverages 2.58, Agricultural and forestry machinery 2.44 </li></ul><ul><li>GERMANY: Man-made fibres 2.05, Wood products 1.83, Pesticides, agro-chemical products 1.52 </li></ul><ul><li>DENMARK: Food, beverages 9.36, Agricultural and forestry machinery 4.79, Non-specific purpose machinery 2.01 </li></ul><ul><li>SPAIN: Other transport equipment 3.72, Domestic appliances 2.18, Fabricated metal products 2.01 </li></ul>Source: CIDER – CIRCLE Innovation Databases for Economic Research
    • 32. <ul><li>FINLAND: Signal transmission, telecommunications 6.03, Paper 2.85, Man-made fibres 2.63 </li></ul><ul><li>FRANCE : Petroleum products, nuclear fuel 1.79, Leather articles 1.54, Electric distribution, control, wire, cable 1.53 </li></ul><ul><li>GREECE : Paper 7.65, Pesticides, agro-chemical products 6.00, Rubber and plastics products 4.39 </li></ul><ul><li>IRELAND: Wearing apparel 16.38, Electric distribution, control, wire, cable 9.05, Other chemicals 4.56 </li></ul><ul><li>ITALY: Leather articles 4.59, Wearing apparel 3.27, Furniture, consumer goods 2.32 </li></ul><ul><li>LUXEMBOURG: Petroleum products, nuclear fuel 8.73, Rubber and plastics products 4.84, Accumulators, battery 3.70 </li></ul>
    • 33. <ul><li>NETHERLANDS: Paints, varnishes 4.72, Food, beverages 3.42, Agricultural and forestry machinery 3.37 </li></ul><ul><li>NORWAY : Petroleum products, nuclear fuel 8.86, Other transport equipment 6.92, Electric motors, generators, transformers 5.90 </li></ul><ul><li>PORTUGAL: Domestic appliances 7.30, Fabricated metal products 4.70, Non-metallic mineral products 3.44 </li></ul><ul><li>SWEDEN: Medical equipment 4.52, Machine-tools 2.52, Signal transmission, telecommunications 2.50 </li></ul><ul><li>UK: Tobacco products 3.71, Petroleum products, nuclear fuel 2.33, Soaps, detergents, toilet preparations 2.29 </li></ul>
    • 34.  
    • 35.  
    • 36. Weighing by citations, patents become more geographically concentrated as compared to unweighed patents -> innovations are more concentrated
    • 37. Indicators of patent quality <ul><li>Forward citations – citation impact. How many cites are going to a specific patent? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Because of truncation, recent patents cannot be compared with old ones. (Why?) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Backward citations – how much information is used. Rationale: More information -> better quality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Backward citations with science links = citations to journal papers -> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Family size – the number of offices where a patent is filed. More offices -> more widespread and valuable </li></ul><ul><li>Claims - How many claims are there? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One claim roughly correspond to a patent in itself </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Litigation (USPTO)/ Opposition (EPO) – If tried in court a patent is likely to be more valuable. </li></ul><ul><li>Technology cycle time – median age of cited patents. Rationale: new patents are more useful </li></ul>
    • 38. © 2005 Joe Tidd, John Bessant and Keith Pavitt
    • 39. When to use patent data? <ul><li>Patents are especially effective and indicative of technological innovation when... </li></ul><ul><li>...in sectors close to science -> codifiable inventions (e.g. formulas as in chemicals, pharma etc) </li></ul><ul><li>The invention is primarily protecting products rather than processes – i.e. indicate primarily product innovation </li></ul>

    ×