IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc95370.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The capability of the EU R&D Scoreboard companies to develop Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. An assessment based on patent analysis

Author

Abstract

In this report the main results of the study performed in the context of the Advanced Manufacturing for Competitiveness Project are presented. This project aims at developing and testing a methodology based on patent analysis to assess the capacity of the EU R&D Scoreboard companies to develop advanced manufacturing and key enabling technologies which are expected to have a major impact on the productivity, the efficiency, the profitability and the employment in major industrial sectors. The companies listed in the R&D Scoreboard hold a dominant position in KETs and AMT filings with about 61% of total KETs filings and 57% of total AMT filings in 2011. European companies hold almost 50% of the AMT related patent filings and about 50% of these are from Germany headquartered companies. Japanese based companies are responsible for 27% of the AMT filings worldwide and the US for about 24% of all transnational AMT patents. In KETs Japanese companies are dominating the scene, followed by Europe and the USA. Developing and patenting AMT and KETs related technologies seems to become more expensive over the time period under study as the decrease in the average patent intensity since 2004 shows. Larger firms have lower patent intensities than smaller ones and the patent intensity is higher in industry than in the service sector. European firms have the highest patent intensities followed by North American, Asian and companies from the rest of the world. R&D expenditures and patent filings are significantly positively correlated to the number of employees. This correlation is also observed in the case of firms who file AMT patents, larger firms are thus filing more AMT related patents compared to smaller ones. With regard to employment growth, however, we find no significant effect of KETs or AMT filings. The largest shares of KETs related filings are found in the Electronic & Electrical Equipment and Chemicals sectors. Firms in the Electronic & Electrical Equipment sector are also responsible for the largest shares of filings in AMT. Large shares, however, can also be found in the Industrial Engineering sector followed by the Automobiles & Parts and General Industrials sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc95370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC95370
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    2. Raffo, Julio & Lhuillery, Stéphane, 2009. "How to play the "Names Game": Patent retrieval comparing different heuristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1617-1627, December.
    3. Hariolf Grupp, 1998. "Foundations of the Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1390.
    4. Blind, Knut & Cremers, Katrin & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 428-436, March.
    5. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    6. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    7. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis & Woolf, Patricia, 1981. "Citation rates to technologically important patents," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 160-163, October.
    8. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    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. Petros Gkotsis & Antonio Vezzani, 2016. "Advanced Manufacturing Activities of Top R&D investors: Geographical and Technological Patterns," JRC Research Reports JRC101970, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Rinaldo Evangelista & Valentina Meliciani & Antonio Vezzani, 2019. "Fast Growing and Key Enabling Technologies and their impact on regional growth inEurope," Working Papers 42, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2021.

    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. Frietsch, Rainer & Neuhäusler, Peter & Michels, Carolin & Dornbusch, Friedrich, 2014. "Medical research at universities – An international comparison," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2014, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    2. Neuhäusler , Peter & Schubert, Torben & Frietsch , Rainer & Blind , Knut, 2015. "Managing Portfolio Risk in Strategic Technology Management: Evidence from a Panel Data Set of the World’s Largest R&D Performers," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/41, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    3. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    4. Anthony Breitzman & Patrick Thomas, 2015. "Inventor team size as a predictor of the future citation impact of patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 631-647, May.
    5. Kerstin J. Schaefer & Ingo Liefner, 2017. "Offshore versus domestic: Can EM MNCs reach higher R&D quality abroad?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1349-1370, December.
    6. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Breitzman, Anthony & Thomas, Patrick, 2015. "The Emerging Clusters Model: A tool for identifying emerging technologies across multiple patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 195-205.
    8. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    9. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    10. Jang, Hyun Jin & Woo, Han-Gyun & Lee, Changyong, 2017. "Hawkes process-based technology impact analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 511-529.
    11. Jordan A. Comins, 2015. "Data-mining the technological importance of government-funded patents in the private sector," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 425-435, August.
    12. Jurriën Bakker & Dennis Verhoeven & Lin Zhang & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Patent citation indicators: One size fits all?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 187-211, January.
    13. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    14. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    15. von Wartburg, Iwan & Teichert, Thorsten & Rost, Katja, 2005. "Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1591-1607, December.
    16. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    17. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    18. Juranek, Steffen, 2018. "Investing in legal advice," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 28-46.
    19. Sahar Araghi & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2024. "The impact of language translation quality on commerce: The example of patents," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(2), pages 224-246, June.
    20. Burhan, Muqbil & Singh, Anil K. & Jain, Sudhir K., 2017. "Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 181-190.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    manufacturing; patent;

    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:jrc95370. 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.