nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2021‒09‒06
six papers chosen by
Uwe Cantner
University of Jena

  1. Emerging 21st Century technologies: Is Europe still falling behind? By Hugo Confraria; Vitor Hugo Ferreira; Manuel Mira Godinho
  2. Practise What You Preach: Innovation Implementation on Campuses of Dutch Research Universities By Magorzata Rymarzak; Alexandra den Heijer; Monique Arkesteijn
  3. Opposing firm-level Responses to the China Shock: Horizontal Competition Versus Vertical Relationships? By Philippe Aghion; Antonin Bergeaud; Matthieu Lequien; Marc Melitz; Thomas Zuber
  4. Are Patent Offices Substitutes ? By Elise Petit; Bruno Van Pottelsberghe; Lluís Gimeno Fabra
  5. Quantitative Assessment on Frictions in Technology Market By Zhang, Yiran
  6. Global Patent Systems: Revisiting the National Bias Hypothesis By Elise Petit; Bruno Van Pottelsberghe; Lluís Gimeno Fabra

  1. By: Hugo Confraria; Vitor Hugo Ferreira; Manuel Mira Godinho
    Abstract: Firms and countries that specialise in emerging technologies tend to have a higher chance of becoming or remaining competitive in the future. This paper aims to analyse the most dynamic areas of technological competition between 2010 and 2019 and to identify which actors are leading in those areas. We analyse patenting dynamics in four major patent offices (USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO), to have a global landscape of technological dynamism, and we use the IPC patent classification system to proxy the technological areas. After examining patenting growth patterns in all 4-digit IPC classes, we built a score to classify the emergent technological areas across the four offices. Our results indicate twelve “emerging” IPC classes, which are related to software engineering, digital communication, IT methods for management, medical technology, pharmaceuticals, energy conservation, games, biotechnology and semiconductor devices. We find that European firms do not hold a leading share in any of these IPC classes. This is particularly true in emerging areas such as software engineering, energy conservation and semiconductor devices, which are likely to be critical to succeed in the new techno-paradigms related to digitalization and clean energy.
    Keywords: Emerging technologies; Technology policy; Technological competition; European Paradox; Matched patent-firm data
    Date: 2021–08
  2. By: Magorzata Rymarzak; Alexandra den Heijer; Monique Arkesteijn
    Abstract: In all advanced economies, there is a general tendency toward reforms of higher education institutions (HEIs) and education systems. In addition to their traditional educational role, and their second mission of conducting scientific research, they are expected to participate in various types of innovation initiatives as part of their third mission. With the transformation of the universities, the campus usage for innovation processes is also changing. From being the grounds where university buildings are providing settings for basic and applied research, it has become both the birthplace and test ground of innovations. Many universities want to practise what they preach on their own campuses: what is invented here is also applied here. On top of that, they want to set a good example of being innovative institutions, not only academically, but also in campus management and services. However, the scope and dynamics of the implementation of their own innovative ideas vary significantly. It is clear that universities need to develop their campus according to their own conditions/needs and features. But while some universities take the opportunity for wider adoption of on-campus innovations to support university performance, others are not as successful in the innovation implementation for many reasons. In this article both the drivers and the barriers that may hinder the implementation of campus innovations at Dutch research universities are studied.
    Keywords: Campus Management; Innovation; universities
    JEL: R3
    Date: 2021–01–01
  3. By: Philippe Aghion; Antonin Bergeaud; Matthieu Lequien; Marc Melitz; Thomas Zuber
    Abstract: We decompose the “China shock” into two components that induce different adjustments for firms exposed to Chinese exports: a horizontal shock affecting firms selling goods that compete with similar imported Chinese goods, and a vertical shock affecting firms using inputs similar to the imported Chinese goods. Combining French accounting, customs, and patent information at the firm-level, we show that the horizontal shock is detrimental to firms’ sales, employment, and innovation. Moreover, this negative impact is concentrated on low-productivity firms. By contrast, we find a positive effect - although often not significant - of the vertical shock on firms’ sales, employment, and innovation.
    JEL: F14 F16 F6 O31
    Date: 2021–08
  4. By: Elise Petit; Bruno Van Pottelsberghe; Lluís Gimeno Fabra
    Abstract: This paper evaluates whether and to what extent patent offices can substitute for each other. Based on an original dataset comprising 7.200 PCT patents filed simultaneously in Japan, the USA and Europe, the empirical analysis confirms that the degree of substitution is significant. Patent offices search up to 37% less technology classes, generate up to 33% less citations, and send up to 43% less communications when a PCT application was previously processed by another office. They also rely more on international citations and provide more information in the early stage of the examination process. Further substitution may still be leveraged, as around 55% of technology classes searched and up to 70% of backward citations are duplicates -voluntarily or not - of prior examination work.
    Keywords: Patent systems, TRIPs, national bias, examination, international comparison
    Date: 2021–07
  5. By: Zhang, Yiran
    Abstract: In this paper, I first document several novel stylized facts from Chinese patent transaction data matched with manufacturing firm data. A key finding is that Chinese patent market is significantly less developed than the U.S. To understand the causes and consequences, I build a model that endogenizes firm R&D investment, patent trading decision and productivity growth. I structurally estimate the model and find the following two main results. First, Chinese patent market plays a small role in growth. It only accounts for 5% of China’s GDP growth rate, as opposed to 17% in the U.S. Second, I evaluate the importance of three frictions calibrated to Chinese patent market: search cost, fixed transaction cost and information asymmetry. Search cost turns out to be the main friction to explain the gap of patent market size. If search cost was reduced to the US level, China’s productivity growth would increase by 0.16 percentage points.
    Keywords: Under-developed Patent Market, patent quality, search cost, fixed cost, information asymmetry
    JEL: O3
    Date: 2021–01–06
  6. By: Elise Petit; Bruno Van Pottelsberghe; Lluís Gimeno Fabra
    Abstract: This paper revisits the literature providing empirical evidence that patent offices are biased in favour of their national applicants. If true, this “national bias” would be proof of disrespect of several international patent-related treaties. Existing investigations are however subject to an important limitation: they focus only on grant rates – a potentially biased indicator of stringency, since it is influenced by economic forces. It is argued that including a deeper analysis of how the patent examination process is carried out provides a more robust approach. Relying on a unique database of 2400 patent families filed simultaneously in three patent offices (EPO, JPO & USPTO), the paper finds no evidence of national bias throughout the examination process of any of them.
    Keywords: Patent systems, TRIPs, national bias, examination, international comparison
    Date: 2021–07

This nep-ino issue is ©2021 by Uwe Cantner. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.