IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc101970.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Advanced Manufacturing Activities of Top R&D investors: Geographical and Technological Patterns

Author

Abstract

Advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) and other key enabling technologies (KETs) are expected to have a major impact on productivity, efficiency, profitability and employment in major industrial sectors worldwide. Thus, development of AMTs and KETs is considered essential if the European Union is to achieve the strategic goals set out in the European Commission’s Employment, Growth and Investment priorities. Indeed, AMTs and KETs are among the top priorities identified as necessary to support the competitiveness of European industries in the context of the European flagship on industrial modernisation. This study builds upon and extends results that were obtained in the context of the Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Competitiveness AMTEC project, in which the technological profiles of the patent portfolios of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard companies were constructed using patent-based analysis. In particular, their technological competences were investigated and it was found that European companies invest in KETs, and in particular in AMTs, as these technologies are considered to be vital for maintaining current competitiveness. However, other countries also invest heavily in AMTs and KETs. It is therefore very important for the EU to define a strategy that aims to find a suitable position in the global value and innovation chains and that selectively augments existing capabilities. To this end, a methodology based on patent analysis was applied to assess the capacity of the world’s top R&D investors in developing AMTs. Particular emphasis was placed on complex AMT patents that also pertain to at least one of the five KETs. These patents are considered important because they represent AMT applications used for the development of KETs in general or, conversely, they represent other KET applications that can be incorporated into AMT systems. The main questions addressed by this study were (1) In which countries are the most important inventors of AMTs and applicants for AMT-related patents located? (2) Is it possible to analyse internationalisation patterns and knowledge flows between world regions and countries? and (3) Are there any special patterns and clusters between AMT-related technological fields and the five core KETs and, if so, which companies are responsible for the development of these technological applications? Developing and patenting AMT-related technologies is particularly important for firms in the Aerospace & defence, Industrials, Automobiles & parts and Electronics & electrical equipment sectors. Moreover, the more specialised a sector is in developing AMT-related technologies, the less internationalised the AMT-related activities of the firms in the sector appear to be. In general AMT-related R&D activities of European- and US-based firms are more internationalised than the activities of Japanese- and Asian-based companies. It was found that many Scoreboard firms based in the USA, Japan, Germany, France and the UK own and develop a large number of AMT-related patents. However, there are also many inventors of AMT-related technologies based in other countries, such as China, India, Canada, Italy, Belgium and Spain. Finally, the ratio of complex AMT patents to the total number of AMT-related patents is close to 8%, the vast majority being patents that relate to micro- and nano-electronics, advanced materials or photonics. Companies that own these complex patents are often relatively small firms that are highly specialised in the development of AMT-related applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Petros Gkotsis & Antonio Vezzani, 2016. "Advanced Manufacturing Activities of Top R&D investors: Geographical and Technological Patterns," JRC Research Reports JRC101970, Joint Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc101970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101970
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annette Alstadsæter & Salvador Barrios & Gaetan Nicodeme & Agnieszka Maria Skonieczna & Antonio Vezzani, 2018. "Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 131-177.
    2. Hariolf Grupp, 1998. "Foundations of the Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1390.
    3. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    4. Hélène Dernis & Mafini Dosso & Fernando Hervas & Valentine Millot & Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Antonio Vezzani, 2015. "World Corporate Top R&D Investors: Innovation and IP bundles," JRC Research Reports JRC94932, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Petros Gkotsis, 2015. "The capability of the EU R&D Scoreboard companies to develop Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. An assessment based on patent analysis," JRC Research Reports JRC95370, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Federico Caviggioli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato, 2018. "Assessing the innovation capability of EU companies in developing dual use technologies," JRC Research Reports JRC113915, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Mafini Dosso & Paulina Ramirez, 2020. "Organization and geography of global R&D and innovation activities: insights from qualitative research on leading corporate R&D investors," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2020-03, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Petros Gkotsis & Antonio Vezzani, 2019. "Heterogeneity of technology-specific R&D investments. Evidence from top R&D investors worldwide," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2018-04, Joint Research Centre.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Sara Amoroso & Michele Cincera, 0. "Corporate R&D intensity decomposition: different data, different results?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 458-473.
    2. Ronald B. Davies & Dieter F. Kogler & Ryan Hynes, 2020. "Patent Boxes and the Success Rate of Applications," CESifo Working Paper Series 8375, CESifo.
    3. Leonie Koch & Martin Simmler, 2020. "How Important are Local Knowledge Spillovers of Public R&D and What Drives Them?," EconPol Working Paper 42, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    4. Martina Baumann & Tobias Boehm & Bodo Knoll & Nadine Riedel, 2020. "Corporate Taxes, Patent Shifting, and Anti-avoidance Rules: Empirical Evidence," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(4), pages 467-504, July.
    5. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    6. Koch, Leonie & Simmler, Martin, 2020. "How important are local knowledge spillovers of public R&D and what drives them?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    7. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    8. Jyh-Wen Shiu & Chan-Yuan Wong & Mei-Chih Hu, 2014. "The dynamic effect of knowledge capitals in the public research institute: insights from patenting analysis of ITRI (Taiwan) and ETRI (Korea)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2051-2068, March.
    9. Dierker, Daniel A. & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2002. "The Butcher The Baker The Pharmaceutical Maker: Why The Agricultural Biotech Industry May Differ From The General Biotech Industry," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19728, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Tohru Yoshioka-Kobayashi & Tomofumi Miyanoshita & Daisuke Kanama, 2020. "Revisiting incremental product innovations in the food-manufacturing industry: an empirical study on the effect of intellectual property rights," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    13. Yu-Shan Chen & Ke-Chiun Chang, 2009. "Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 637-655, September.
    14. Serkan Altuntas & Zulfiye Erdogan & Turkay Dereli, 2020. "A clustering-based approach for the evaluation of candidate emerging technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1157-1177, August.
    15. José Monteiro-Barata, 2005. "Innovation in the Portuguese Manufacturing Industry: Analysis of a Longitudinal Company Panel," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 11(3), pages 301-314, August.
    16. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    17. Hirschey, Mark & Richardson, Vernon J., 2001. "Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and U.S. firms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 65-82, January.
    18. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    19. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    20. repec:kap:iaecre:v:11:y:2005:i:3:p:301-314 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Chiara Pederzoli & Grid Thoma & Costanza Torricelli, 2013. "Modelling Credit Risk for Innovative SMEs: the Role of Innovation Measures," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 44(1), pages 111-129, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Advanced Manufacturing Technologies; Key Enabling Technologies; Patents; Industry;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc101970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.