Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the patenting activity of the Brazilian academic sector vis-à-vis the domestic business sector, taking into account the recent evolution of Brazil’s industrial policies. The paper differentiates between “university academic patents”, which are owned by the universities, and “non-university academic patents”, which despite being invented by academic staff are not owned by the universities.

The authors’ cross-checked information regarding the names of all inventors with Brazilian addresses in PCT patent applications in the Espacenet database with the names of researchers in the CVs available on the Lattes Platform of CNPq. The analysis specifically focussed on patent applications published in the PCT with Brazilian priority for the 2002-2012 period.

It was found that the Brazilian academic patents concentrate on science-based technology areas, especially in the Pharma Biotechnology domain. For a total of 466 patent applications with Brazilian priority in this field, 233 have academic inventors. Of those 233 academic applications, 66.1 per cent have universities as their owners, while the remaining 33.9 per cent are not owned by universities. Further, it was found that there are more Brazilian academic patents in the biotechnology sub-domain than those filed by the business sector.

This research was based on the intersection of patent databases and the content available on the official curriculum base of Brazil (Lattes Platform, CNPq). Once the curricula information are voluntary, there are risks inherent reliability of this information.

This study allows us to identify more accurately which is the effective role of the Brazilian Academy in patents generation, revealing that a significant unaccounted deposits with personal inventors or companies’ ownership really have a academic contribution.

This paper shows that the academic sector plays a key role in Brazil’s international patenting activity, particularly in science-intensive technology domains, and it highlights the specific contribution of academic patents not owned by universities.

Este trabalho apresenta a análise da atividade de patenteamento do setor acadêmico brasileiro considerando a recente evolução das políticas de promoção da inovação no Brasil. O artigo tem como base a diferenciação necessária entre “patentes acadêmicas universitárias”, que são patentes/depósitos cujos requerentes são as universidades, e as “patentes acadêmicas não-universitárias” que, apesar de ser inventadas por docentes da academia, não têm as universidades como requerentes dos depósitos.

Foram cruzadas informações de todos os inventores constantes nos pedidos de patentes de origem brasileira realizados pela via PCT, com os nomes dos pesquisadores com currículos disponíveis na Plataforma Lattes do CNPq. A análise incidiu sobre pedidos de patentes publicado na via do PCT com prioridade brasileira para o período 2002-2012 contidos no banco de dados do Espacenet.

Verificou-se que as patentes acadêmicas brasileiras se concentram em áreas mais tecnológicas, especialmente no domínio de Farmácia-Biotecnologia. Para um total de 466 pedidos de patentes com prioridade brasileiros neste setor, 233 tinham inventores acadêmicos. Destes 233 pedidos acadêmicos, 66.1% têm suas universidades como titulares ou co-titulares, enquanto os restantes 33.9% não são de propriedade das universidades. Verificou-se ainda que existem mais patentes no sub-domínio de biotecnologia depositadas pelo setor acadêmico brasileiro do que aquelas requeridas pelo setor empresarial privado.

Neste artigo, demonstrou que a academia desempenha um papel ainda mais expressivo na atividade de patenteamento internacional do Brasil, particularmente em domínios de tecnologia intensivos em ciência, e destaca a contribuição específica das “patentes acadêmicas não-universitárias”, que possuem origem lastreada pelos pesquisadores da academia.

Defining and validating a map of related technologies is critical for managers, investors and inventors. Because of the increase in the applications of and demand for semiconductor lasers, analyzing the technological position of developers has become increasingly critical. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to adopt the technological position analysis to identify mainstream technologies and developments relevant to semiconductor lasers.

Correspondence analysis and k-means cluster analysis, which are data mining techniques, are used to reveal strategic groups of major competitors in the semiconductor laser market according to their Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent applications.

The results of this study reveal that PCT patent applications are generally obtained for masers, optical elements, semiconductor devices and methods for measuring and that technology developers have varying technological positions.

Through position analysis, this study identifies the technological focuses of different manufacturers to obtain information that can guide the allocation of research and development resources.

The purpose of this paper is to identify major developments in corporate innovation. The author focuses on the behavioral differences between MNEs from developed and emerging markets in the way they locate their R&D activities.

With the help of descriptive statistics, the paper identifies major trends in the global distribution of innovative activity. The novel source of patent statistics, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, is used as a proxy for innovative effort by leading MNEs. This paper is among the first attempts to analyze the global geography of innovation based on PCT statistics.

The analysis underscores differences in the patenting activities of MNEs from emerging and advanced markets. It confirms that innovative activity by major MNEs remains largely home-based, which contradicts the premise of the global nature of corporate innovation. At the same time, the growing importance of China as a research center attracts MNEs from a variety of developed markets. Emerging MNEs also file patent applications domestically. Most Chinese R&D subsidiaries of MNEs from advanced economies in our sample do not pursue technological specialization, as they produce patents in the same technological areas as the corporate headquarters or other subsidiaries.

A number of assumptions about the innovation geography of major MNEs were empirically tested. An attempt was made to fill the gaps in our understanding of innovation strategies pursued by MNEs in emerging markets. The author uses the concept of MNEs as meta-integrators to explain the observed dynamics. Its explanatory power is more convincing as applied to our data than the concept of national systems of innovation.

The paper proposes an answer to one of the most important questions in corporate innovation management: what mechanisms of technological diversification exist within multinational companies? It is ascertained that research and development (R&D) intra-firm co-invention or co-patenting is one of those mechanisms. Co-invention implies knowledge-sharing, which should lead to unique combinations of knowledge and expertise and hence technological diversification of patent applications.

This paper offers a novel conceptual framework exploring the relationship between patents’ technological diversification and a detailed classification of different forms of international co-invention. Based on the case of Siemens’ Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, the revealed technological advantage (RTA) index is utilized to measure the extent of the technological diversification of patent output.

The results show that patent applications generated by subsidiaries in advanced economies in cooperation with other subsidiaries feature unique technological areas that deviate from the company's overall technological specializations. These results provide a strong argument in favor of inter-subsidiary or horizontal co-patenting as a mechanism of new knowledge creation.

On the conceptual level, the results accentuate inter-subsidiary patenting being an important mechanism of knowledge meta-integration boosting technological diversification. The obvious limitation of this paper lies in exploring a single company case, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. Due to the dynamic nature of technological change, the author’s dataset also suffers from a lack of temporal external validity. Future research can expand the scope in both regards in applying our co-invention mode typology.

Based on the results, to diversify knowledge portfolio, companies should strengthen the co-patenting effort and reinforce horizontal (inter-subsidiary) R&D collaborations.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first time when such a nuanced typology of co-invention modes is being utilized to understand the effect of different co-invention categories on knowledge diversification.

This chapter provides an overview of five modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

Marketing executives face numerous hurdles in introducing new products into foreign markets. This article examines the difficulties multinational firms face in patenting new products in the EEC, the difficulties they face in protecting those patents, and the steps the EEC has taken to facilitate or hinder that protection through treaties and litigation. Finally, the article discusses marketing strategy implications of the patent treaties and litigated cases.

This study aims to identify the countries’ innovation factors that are determinant for them to achieve higher levels of development. In addition, the research identified which of these factors should be prioritized so the countries can move up in the rank of the most competitive.

The study used the indicators of innovation and the stage of development of 137 countries proposed by the Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum and techniques of multivariate data analysis.

The results indicated that all the factors tested are determinant to lead the countries throughout their stages of development. The research highlights that the factors “Quality of scientific research institutions” and “Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent applications” should be equally prioritized for the countries’ development.

The results suggested that the factors Capacity for Innovation, Quality of Scientific Research Institutions, Company Spending on Research and Development (R&D), University–Industry Collaboration in R&D, Government Procurement of Advanced Technology Products, Availability of Scientists and Engineers and PCT Patent Applications are decisive for positioning countries in terms of their stage of development and should be part of their public policy and enterprises’ strategic planning.

The findings show that countries should prioritize the factors Quality of Scientific Research Institutions and PCT Patent Applications, as these factors, when acting together, predict the evolution to higher stages of development.

This paper addresses the geographical dimension of cross-border knowledge integration, expressed as the co-invention of patent filings and investigates the siting of patenting activities by major US corporations in China. Most importantly, the study looks into the patterns of international co-invention or the links of these locations to headquarters and other company subsidiaries.

The study explores the cases of six US multinationals that file international patent applications in China. The applications were analyzed based on the composition of invention teams and the locations of inventors.

The co-invented patent filings by US multinational enterprises (MNEs) in China demonstrate a high degree of US–Chinese subsidiary collaboration. Links with other subsidiaries are marginal, and at the same time, high levels of sole patenting by inventors in China point to competence-creating research and development (R&D) activities taking place.

The lack of subsidiary-subsidiary collaboration, especially subsidiaries in other emerging markets, indicates a less diversified strategy of leveraging internal networks of knowledge. This also implies that Chinese subsidiaries still lack attractiveness as partners in subsidiary-subsidiary co-invention. Only two companies in our sample, Procter & Gamble and Intel, demonstrate a highly diversified, integrated and transnational pattern of innovation management.

The paper contributes to the contextual understanding of the rich landscape of R&D activities of major US MNEs in China. By exploring these cases, the paper identifies a number of trends. First, the R&D activities in this sample are highly concentrated in technological clusters located in Beijing and Shanghai. Technological clustering is an important advantage of the innovation landscape in emerging markets. Second, the paper underscores the importance of differentiating between different types of co-invention. The patent applications in this sample tend to unite inventors mostly from the US and China, and so multi-country applications involving subsidiaries in other countries are rare. Thus, the level of integration outside the center-host bandwidth is low. However, Chinese subsidiaries demonstrate high levels of autonomy by filing single-country applications, which implies that they are building their own research identity.

Globalization should provide firms with an opportunity to leverage their know-how and reputation across countries to create value. However, it remains challenging for them to actually capture that value using traditional Intellectual Property (IP) tools. In this paper, we document the strong growth in patents, trademarks, and industrial designs used by firms to protect their IP globally. We then show that IP protection remains fragmented; the quality of IP applications might be questionable; and developing a comprehensive IP footprint worldwide is very costly. Growing numbers of applications are causing backlogs and delays in numerous Patent and Trademarks Offices and litigation over IP rights is expensive, with an uncertain outcome. Moreover, local governments can succeed in transferring value to local firms and influencing global market positions by using IP laws and other regulations. In essence, the analysis shows a global IP environment that leaves much to be desired. Despite these challenges, there are successful strategies to capture value from know-how and reputation by leveraging an array of IP tools. These strategies have important implications for management practice, as we discuss in our concluding section. Global companies will need to organize cross-functional value capture teams focused on appropriating value from their know-how and reputation by combining different institutional, market, and nonmarket tools, depending on the institutional and business environment in a particular region.

In preparing this paper I was faced with the problem of not knowing how much you know about patents. I do not wish to bore those of you who are knowledgeable or confuse those who are expert in other subjects.