, Volume 121, Issue 3, pp 1717–1736 | Cite as

Exploitation of patent information in R&D output analysis for policymaking

  • Veronika FrigyesiEmail author
  • Patrice Laget
  • Mark Boden


This paper provides an insight into the growing importance and conditions of studying R&D output and impacts as well as the internationalisation of R&D. Focusing on policy needs it contributes to the development of the information base and the elaboration of new approaches, aiming at the exploitation of unexplored patent information for analysis of industrial R&D output and re-location. This approach complements the information accumulated in the framework of the European Commission’s EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard.


Indicator Scientometrics R&D Output Outcome Impact Patent Input Investment Scoreboard Innovation Location Internationalisation Government Policy EU Industry Pharmaceutical and biotechnology Engineering and machinery Company Global Domestic Regional 



V. Frigyesi (former Senior Scientist, Support to the European Research Area Unit, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain) and M. Boden (Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain) gratefully acknowledge the support and advice provided by P. Laget (former Head of the Support to the European Research Area Unit, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain).


  1. Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy,31(7), 1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D., & Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalisation of innovation. Research Policy,28, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation,16(9), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2004). Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy,33(10), 1583–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, N., & van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal,112(478), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2002). The location of technological activities of MNCs in European regions: The role of spillovers and local competencies. Journal of International Management,8(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dachs, B., & Zahradnik, G. (2006). The Internationalisation of Research and Development in ICT. Report on Behalf of the Project “Internationalisation of European ICT activities”, carried out for the European Commission, Directorate General JRC Institute for Prospective Studies, Project Number J04/40/2004, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  8. Dernis, H., Guellec, D., & Pottelsberghe, B. (2001). Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. STI review, no. 27. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  9. DTI. (2005a). The 2004 R&D Scoreboard, UK, the top 700 UK and 700 international companies by R&D Investment, Commentary and Analysis. London: DTI.Google Scholar
  10. DTI. (2005b). R&D Intensive businesses in the UK. DTI economics paper, no. 11. London: DTI.Google Scholar
  11. EIRMA. (2004). Assessing research and development effectiveness. Working group reports. WG62 report, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, D. (2005). The complexity and internationalization of innovation: The root causes. In Globalization of R&D and developing countries: Proceedings of the expert meeting, Geneva, 24–26 January 2005 (pp. 61–87). New York and Geneva: United NationsGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2004). Statistics on science and technology in Europe, Data 1991–2002, Part 2. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2005). The 2005 EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard. DG JRC, institute for prospective technological studies and DG RTD. Seville: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2006). The annual digest of industrial R&D. DG joint research centre—DG research. Luxembourg: EUR 22556 EN.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the commission, EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels, 3.3.2010, COM(2010) 2020.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2011). Commission staff working paper, Impact assessment, accompanying the communication from the commission ‘Horizon 2020 - The framework programme for research and innovation’; proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council establishing Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020); proposal for a council decision establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020); Proposal for a council regulation on the research and training programme of the European atomic energy community (2014–2018) contributing to the Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation, Brussels, 30.11.2011, SEC(2011) 1427 final.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS 3). Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2013). Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Official Journal of the European Union. November 20, 2013.
  20. Foray, D. (2004). The patent system and the dynamics of innovation in Europe. Science and Public Policy,31(6), 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  22. Geisler, E. (2004). Measuring the impact from public-sector science and technology: Methods. Prepared for presentation at the “workshop on measuring the impacts of science,” 16–18 June, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Gianelle, C., Kyriakou, D., Cohen, C., & Przeor M. (Eds.) (2016). Implementing smart specialisation: A handbook. Brussels: European Commission, EUR 28053.Google Scholar
  24. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2006). ‘Triad’ or ‘Tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. In Proceedings of the SPRU 40th anniversary conference“The future of science, technology and innovation policy”, 11–13 September, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Godin, B. (2005). The input–output framework: An accounting metaphor. ENIP/PRIME international workshop, “S&T Indicators for policy analysis: Needs, status and new developments”, 22–23 September, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  26. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey part I. NBER paper working series, no. 3301. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, B. H. (2004). Exploring the patent explosion. NBER working paper series, working paper 10605. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1983). Searching for a lag structure? Working paper no. 1227. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  29. Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1984). Is there a lag? Working paper no. 1454. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  30. Hong, S. (2004). The magic of patent information, SMEs division, WIPO. November 2004.
  31. Jaumotte, F, & Pain, N. (2005). From ideas to development: The determinants of R&D and patenting. OECD Economic Department working papers, No. 457. Economics Department, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  32. Johansson, B., & Lööf, H. (2006). Global location patterns of R&D investments. Electronic working paper series, no. 60 the Royal Institute of Technology, Jönköping and Department for Transport and Economics, centre of excellence for studies in science and innovation, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  33. Magerman, T., Van Looy, B., Du Plessis, M., Verbeek, A., & Leten, B. (2005). Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics—Progress report, Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Research Division Incentim, Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics, K.U. Leuven (Belgium) in cooperation with Ariane II—Transiciel Group.Google Scholar
  34. Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2004). The importance of R&D for innovation: A reassessment using French Survey data. MERIT-Infonomics research memorandum series, 2004–2022, MERIT, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Meyer, M. (2006). Measuring science–technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy. Scientometrics,66(2), 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Motohashi, K. (2004). Japan’s patent system and business innovation: Reassessing pro-patent policies. In Proceedings of the OECD conference on patents, innovation and economic performance 2004 (pp. 53–82). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities using patent data as science and technology indicators. Patent manual 1994, OCDE/GD(94)114. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD. (2004). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (2005). Internationalisation of R&D: Trends, issues and implications for S&T policies. Background report, forum on the internationalisation of R&D, March 29–30, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  40. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patent and R&D at the Firm level: A first look. NBER paper working series, no. 561. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  41. Patel, P. (2003). UK performance in biotechnology-related innovation: An analysis of patent data. Brighton-Sussex: SPRU: Science and Technology Policy Research.Google Scholar
  42. Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 509–536). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaaper, M. (2004). An emerging knowledge based economy in China, indicators from OECD databases. STI working paper, 2004/4, Statistical Analysis of Science, Technology and Industry, Directorate for Science and Industry, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  44. Schmoch, U. (2005). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and Market-pull. Paper submitted to Research Policy, September.Google Scholar
  45. Shelton, R. (2006). Relations between National Research Investment inputs and publication outputs: Application to an American paradox. Paper presented on the 9th international conference on science and technology indicators, new challenges in Quantitative Science and Technology Research, 2007–2009 September, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations. (2005). Transnational corporations and the internationalization of R&D. World investment report 2005. New York and Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  47. Van Ophem, H., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Mohnen, P. (2001). R&D and patents: Which way does the causality run? CIRANO, scientific series, 2001s-31, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry for Innovation and TechnologyBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Joint Research Centre, European CommissionSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations