WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP International benchmarking

Transcription

1 WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP International benchmarking Draft elaborated by CETA, 2014 Author: F. Fulchir

2

3 Index WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP Benchmark Analysis [1] Introduction... 3 Definition of a patent and granting procedures... 4 Classification of the patents... 4 Structure of the document Methodology Databases and data available OECD database Eurostat database Criteria used to count patents Regional/Area units analysed Classification of the patents Technological outputs of R&D at national level Total patents filed at international level Triadic patent applications Patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections Patent applications in selected sectors Technological outputs of R&D at regional level Patent analysis at NUTS 3 level Overview of patent intensity in Europe at NUTS 3 level Overview in Interreg IV Italia-Austria Patent analysis at NUTS 3 level per IPC sections Section A: Human necessities Section B: Performing operations; transporting Section C: Chemistry, metallurgy Section D: Textiles, paper Section E: Fixed constructions Section F: Mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, wheapons, blasting analysis in Interreg Area Section G: Physics Section H: Electricity Patent analysis in Interreg IV area per selected sectors Patent analysis at NUTS 2 level Patent analysis at NUTS 1 level in Interreg IV area... 97

4 [2] 5 Main findings References Appendix A Appendix B

5 Introduction WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP Benchmark Analysis [3] Fast technological progress, the rise of new competitors and new technologies are challenges which can be met only by continuous adaptation and innovation. The Lisbon strategy 1 encouraging, among others, the development of open method of coordination for benchmarking national research and development policies and identify, by June 2000, indicators for assessing performance in different fields (1). The interest of an analysis of the regional scientific and technological specialisation comes from the necessity of the understanding of the regional level trends and structures in a more competitive knowledge economy (2). The Green Paper of the European Research Area (3) asserts that European countries and regions may build on their strengths by progressively developing specialisation in certain fields. This means that the regions that specialise in certain activities give them an advantage making them competitive because of the economies of scale, positive learning effects based on experience, and reputation (2). Research institutes (public and private) carry out scientific research and render technological services, playing a fundamental role in an increasingly knowledge based society in the production of inventions and innovations necessary for the development of a competitive industrial system (4). Funds (public and private) and scientific manpower are generally the inputs of the research institutes (RIs). The production process of the RIs transforms the inputs into outputs through research projects. The outputs of RIs include publications, patents, business generated from the industry, technologies developed. The report prepared by Fraunhofer ISI (2) asserts that different countries and regions have different propensities to patent because of the following reasons: size, research orientation, degree of internationalization of the companies, and different propensities of different technological fields to be patented. The main objective of this document is to carry out a benchmark analysis of internationally existing competencies in the distinct technology fields and to identify regional research potential. The related key and cross-sectional technologies have been evaluated and compared with other European regions in order to identify the regional research potentials where the Interreg IV region is: already on international level, can reach international level, can fill gaps on research, and can use regional differences. Furthermore have been identified the potential niche segments for the development of energy research capabilities for the Interreg IV region. The present study analyses technological outputs of R&D activities as the measures to elucidate technological innovation of the Interreg Italia-Austria region. In order to compare and evaluate the technological outputs of R&D activities, has been examinated the patent production. The patent production will be carried out at international level and at regional level. The Directorate General for Research asserts (5) that patents on the one hand represent one important measure of research. On the other hand, patents are a potential input for further technological development processes and eventually commercial products or services generating value added. They are therefore a tool to assess the potential future technological strengths and competitiveness of companies, regions or countries. Furthermore, as asserted in the document of Eurostat (6) patents reflect part of a country s inventive activity. Patents also show the country s capacity to exploit knowledge and translate it into potential gains. Before to start with the document, a brief definition of patent and the procedures needed for patent granting. 1 The Lisbon strategy aim was to make the EU The most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion (1).

6 Definition of a patent and granting procedures [4] According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, patents could be defined as an intellectual property right related to inventions in the technical fields, which could be products or processes that provides a new way of doing something, or offer new technical solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent application. As reported by the document of Eurostat (7) An application for a patent has to meet certain requirements: the invention must be novel, involve a inventive step and be capable of industrial application. In order to obtain a patent for an invention, the inventor (or the applicant) must file an application to a patent office and there are three ways to apply for a patent: i) National procedures; ii) European or Regional procedures; iii) International Procedures. i) National procedures. Applying for a patent in a national patent office, after filing the application, the applicant will receive the certificate containing the priority date. Priority date is the date of the worldwide first application of the technology and remain effective for 12 months. If the applicant wants to protect the invention in another country during this period, the filing date for the second application will be the same as the priority date (7). ii) European or Regional Procedures. By filing a single European patent application to the European patent Office (EPO), it is possible to obtain patent rights in all the European Patent Convention (EPC) countries. In order to file EPO patent applications are used three different ways: direct EPO application; extension of an earlier national patent application; international application filed under PCT and then entering into the EPO phase. Additionally, there exist also the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Japan Patent Office (7). iii) International procedures. By filing the invention under the patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the PCT provides the possibility to seek patent rights in a large number of countries by filing a single international application with a single patent office. The PCT procedure starts with the international phase and concludes in the national/regional phase, where will be decided if to grant or reject patent rights. PCT system provides the applicant with up to 30 months (more than national or EPO office) to decide whether or not to seek a national or regional patent (7). Patents are published 18 months after the priority date, and granted, generally, from 24 to 36 months after the priority date. In order to obtain national patents, applicants have to designate each PCT member country. Classification of the patents The main classifications used for patents by technology field could be summarized as it follows: International Patent Classification (IPC), Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), US patent classification (USPC), FI classification. IPC classification The purpose of the IPC system is to group patent and documents according to their technical field. The IPC classification system grew out of the Strasbourg Agreement of 1971 and currently is used in more than 100 countries as the major form of classifying the patents (8). The IPC classification is divided into eight sections. Sections are the highest level of hierarchy of the classification.

7 Each section is designated by one of the capital letters A through H. The section title is to be considered as a very broad indication of the contents of the section. Within sections, informative headings may form subsections, which are titles without classification symbols (e.g. Instruments) Each section is subdivided into classes which are the second hierarchical level of the Classification. Each class symbol consists of the section symbol followed by a two-digit number (e.g. H01). The class title gives an indication of the content of the class. Example: H01 BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS. Some classes have an index which is merely an informative summary giving a broad survey of the content of the class. Each class comprises one or more subclasses which are the third hierarchical level of the Classification. Each subclass symbol consists of the class symbol followed by a capital letter. (e.g. H01S). The subclass title indicates as precisely as possible the content of the subclass. Example: H01S DEVICES USING STIMULATED EMISSION. Most subclasses have an index which is merely an informative summary giving a broad survey of the content of the subclass. The electronic version of the IPC allows users to view the content of a subclass also by order of complexity of the subject matter. Where a large part of a subclass relates to a common subject matter a guidance heading indicating that subject matter may be provided at the beginning of that part. Each subclass is broken down into subdivisions referred to as groups, which are either main groups (i.e., the fourth hierarchical level of the classification) or subgroups (i.e., lower hierarchical levels dependent upon the main group level of the Classification). Each group symbol consists of the subclass symbol followed by two numbers separated by an oblique stroke. Each main group symbol consists of the subclass symbol followed by a one- to three-digit number, the oblique stroke and the number 00. (e.g.: H01S 3/00). The main group title precisely defines a field of subject matter within the scope of its subclass considered to be useful for search purposes. Main group symbols and titles are printed in bold in the Classification. (e.g. H01S 3/00 Lasers). Subgroups form subdivisions under the main groups. Each subgroup symbol consists of the subclass symbol followed by the one- to three-digit number of its main group, the oblique stroke and a number of at least two digits other than 00. Example: H01S 3/02 Subgroups are ordered in the scheme as if their numbers were decimals of the number before the oblique stroke. For example, 3/036 is to be found after 3/03 and before 3/04 and 3/0971 is to be found after 3/097 and before 3/098. Summarizing: the sections are defined with a capital letter from A to H, the classes are defined with two numbers (e.g. A01, A21, G21, ), he subclasses are defined in with a letter (e.g. A01F, A01Y,.), and the main groups are defined as codes after a char - (e.g. G06F-9/00). CPC classification The CPC system, is a bilateral system which has been jointly developed by the EPO and the USPTO. CPC is based on ECLA (European Classification System) which was essentially a refined version of the IPC (8). While IPC has categories and ECLA , the CPC has more than categories. EPO started classifying its documentation using the CPC instead ECLA (European Classification System) on January The USPTO will classify using the CPC instead of the USPC on The CPC also includes a Y section for tagging emerging technologies or technologies spanning several sections of the CPC (9). USPC classification In the USPC system each class is created by first analysing the claimed disclosures of US patents and then creating various divisions and subdivisions on the basis of that analysis. USPC usually gives more [5]

8 information on the invention than the IPC (8). The USPTO will classify the patents using the CPC instead of the USPC from FI classification This is the classification system implemented by the Japan Patent Office. It is an extension of IPC and it is similar to the ECLA. It consists of an IPC subgroup followed by three-digit number. Selected technologies according to OECD When the information provided by the IPC is not enough, for instance for analytical or policy interest, it is possible to prepare an aggregate of different IPC codes. OECD has designed definitions of various technical fields: ICT, biotechnology, nanotechnology, medical, pharmaceutics, environmental technologies. These selected technologies are an aggregate of different IPC codes and are defined as it is described in Appendix B. Triadic patent families Considering the triadic paten families, that are defined at the OECD as a set of patents taken at the EPO, JPO and USPTO that share one or more priorities. The triadic patent families indicators are less influenced by different patent offices rules and regulations than traditional indicators based on patent filings to a single patent office. Then, the counting of the triadic patent families provides indicators of an improved quality and international comparability for measuring innovation performance of the countries (10). Structure of the document [6] This document is structured as follows: - Chapter 1 presents briefly the methodology adopted in this study. - Chapter 2 describes the technological outputs of R&D at national level. The analysis of the patents has been carried out considering the total patent applications, the triadic patent applications and the patents applied by the different countries in the different IPC sections. - Chapter 3 describes the technological outputs of R&D at regional level by analysing patent application at NUTS level. The analysis of the patents has been carried out considering all the IPC sections and classes. - Chapter 4 describes the technological outputs at regional level by analysing the patent applications in different selected technologies according OECD database. - Chapter 5 summarize the results of the document.

9 1 Methodology WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP Benchmark Analysis [7] In order to compare and evaluate the technological outputs of R&D activities, has been examinated the patent production. The patent analysis has been carried out at international level and at regional level on examining existing patent databases. Approved patents are the most commonly used indicator of regional technology innovation in the literature. The Eurostat document (6) asserts that an invention has to fulfil the following conditions to be patentable: it must be new, involve an inventive step, be capable of industrial application and not be excluded. In this context, indicators based on patent statistics are widely used to assess the inventive performance of a country or regions. The patents do not cover every kind of innovation but they include many of them. For the analysis presented here, patent applications at the OECD 2 and the Eurostat 3 database are examined. The data extracted from this two statistics databases covers the patent applications 4 to the European Patent Office (EPO), patents filed under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) at international phase, and the patents that belong to Triadic Patent Families 5 according to the OECD definition. Patents are assigned to countries or regions based on the inventor s address, the years of the patents are assigned based on the priority date 6. Total patent filings as well as those of IPC sections and classes patents are used. 1.1 Databases and data available OECD database The OECD Patent database was set up to develop patent indicators that are suitable for statistical analysis. The Patent database covers data on patent applications to the European Patent Office (EPO), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), patent applications filed under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) that designed the EPO, as well as Triadic patent families 7. The following patent statistics were updated on OECD s statistical portal on July 2011: - Patents by country and technology field (EPO, PCT, USPTO, Triadic patent families); - Patents by regions and selected technology field (EPO, PCT), - Indicators of international co-operation in patents (EPO, PCT, USPTO). The data available from the OECD database are summarized as it follows: 2 The access to the data were performed through the statistical online platform of the OECD: OECD.Stat 3 Eurostat database contains the full range of publically available data from Eurostat. The data are presented in multidimensional tables with multiple selection features and export formats. 4 To obtain a patent, an application must be filed with the authorised Patent office with all the necessary documents and fees. From the moment of filing, patent applications go through an interactive process between the applicant and the patent office. The patent office will conduct an examination to decide whether to grant or reject the application. 5 The triadic patent families are a sub-set of patents all filled together at the EPO, at the Japan Patent office (JPO) and granted by the US patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 6 Priority date is the date of the worldwide first application of the technology. 7 Triadic patents are a series of corresponding patents filed at the EPO, the USPTO and the JPO, for the same invention, by the same applicant or inventor.

10 National level WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP Benchmark Analysis Total number of patent applications filed under the PCT and EPO; patent grants at USPTO. The reference date available are: priority date, application date or date of grant. The reference country available are the inventor s country of residence and the applicant s country of residence. Number of patents by IPC subclasses filed under the PCT and EPO; patent grants at EPO and USPTO; triadic patent families. The reference date available are: priority date, application date or date of grant. The reference country available are the inventor s country of residence and the applicant s country of residence. Regional level. The number of patents are based on fractional counts Total number of patent applications filed under the PCT and EPO; patent grants at USPTO. The reference date available are: priority date, application date or date of grant. The reference country available are the inventor s country of residence and the applicant s country of residence. Number of patents in selected technologies (according to the OECD definition) filed under the PCT and EPO. The reference date available are: priority date, the reference country available are the inventor s country of residence or the applicant s country of residence Eurostat database [8] The Eurostat s patent database contains three collections of statistical data: 1) Patent applications to the EPO by priority year; 2)Patents granted by the USPTO by priority year; 3)Triadic patent families by earliest priority year. All the data are available at the national level, some data are available also at the regional level. The patents covered by the EPO data refer to applications filed directly under to the European Patent Convention (EPC) or to applications filed under the PCT and designating the EPO. EPO data refers to all patents applications by priority year. The geographical assignment of the patents is according to the address of the inventor. The data available from the Eurostat database are summarized as it follows: National level Total number of patent applications to the EPO by priority year. Total number of patent applications per million of inhabitants to the EPO by priority year. Number of patents by IPC sections and classes filed under the EPO per priority year Number of patents by IPC sections and classes filed under the EPO per priority year, per million of inhabitants and per million of labour force. High tech patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level (the high tech technologies considered are: aviation, computer and automated business equipment, communication technology, laser, micro-organism and genetic engineering semiconductors). ICT patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level, Biotechnology patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level. Nanotechnology patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level. Radio navigation by satellite patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level. Energy technologies patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level. Total patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level by institutional sector. Patent applications to the EPO by priority year at the national level by sector of economic activity (NACE class derived through concordance with IPC). Total number of triadic patent families per priority year.

11 [9] Regional level Patents by NUTS 3 regions from EPO (European Patent Office) up to 2010 Total number of patent applications to the EPO by priority year and NUTS 3 regions. Number of patent applications to the EPO by priority year, NUTS 3 regions, IPC sections and classes. High-tech patent applications to the EPO by priority year and NUTS 3 regions (the high tech technologies considered are: aviation, computer and automated business equipment, communication technology, laser, micro-organism and genetic engineering semiconductors). ICT patent applications to the EPO by priority year and NUTS 3 regions. Biotechnology patent applications to the EPO by priority year and NUTS 3 regions. Patent applications to the EPO by priority year, country and metropolitan regions. Patent applications to the EPO by priority year, country, metropolitan regions, IPC sections and classes. High-tech patent applications to the EPO by priority year, country and metropolitan regions. ICT patent applications to the EPO by priority year, country and metropolitan regions. Biotechnology patent applications to the EPO by priority year, country and metropolitan regions. 1.2 Criteria used to count patents At national and international level, patent statistics has been elaborated on examining the database of the OECD. At regional level, patent statistics has been elaborated on examining the Eurostat 8 database. In particular were used the patent applications to the EPO by priority year in NUTS 3 regions. This work refers to patent applications by priority year 9, that corresponds to the first filing worldwide and therefore closest to the invention date. The patent applications are assigned according to the address of the inventors in order to measure the inventive capacity of a region. Through this approach is avoided the overestimation of number of patents in favour of the regions in which are located the headquarters of institutions with several branches located in different regions (i.e. great Companies/Corporations). However is still possible some underestimation of the regional potential of innovation as not every inventor register under the address where he/she is resident but rather the address of his/her enterprise or institution. If an application has more than one inventor, the application is divided equally among all of them and subsequently among their regions (fractional counting). In this manner is avoided double counting. The count of patents per IPC code take into account also the cases in which a patent is assigned to more than one IPC code. In this case not only the main IPC code is taken into account but all of them. The application is divided equally among all IPC codes, avoiding double counting. 8 Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union, its task is to provide the European Union with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions (73) 9 The priority year corresponds to the first application filed by the inventor. After this date, the inventor has 12- months legal delay for applying or not for protection of the original invention in other countries.

12 1.3 Regional/Area units analysed [10] In order to compare and subdivide in homogeneous manner the EU area, in this document has been adopted the NUTS 10 classification. The NUTS classification is a hierarchical system for dividing up the economic territory of the EU for the purpose of the collection of EU statistics, socio-economic analyses of the regions and framing EU policies. The standard is developed and regulated by the EU, and covers only the member states of EU. For each EU member country, a hierarchy of three NUTS levels is established by Eurostat. The NUTS regions are based on the existing national administrative subdivisions. In countries where only one or two regional subdivision exist, or where the size of existing subdivisions is too small, a second or third level is created. In smaller countries, where the entire country would be placed on the NUTS 2 or even NJUTS 3 level, levels 1, 2, and/or 3 are identical to the level above and/or the entire country. Therefore, the subdivisions in some levels do not necessarily correspond to administrative divisions within the country (11). The thresholds in terms of number of inhabitants used as guidelines for establishing the regions are described as it follows, but they are not applied rigidly: Level CODE Minimum population Maximum population NUTS 1 XXN NUTS 2 XXNN NUTS 3 XXNNN Source: Eurostat (12) A NUTS code begins with a two-letter code referring the country 11. NUTS 1 are the major socio economic regions, and they subdivide the countries, they are referred to with one number (e.g. IT1). NUTS 2 are the basic regions for the application of regional policies and subdivide NUTS 1 regions, they are referred to with 2 numbers (e.g. IT12). NUTS 3 are small regions for specific diagnoses and they are referred to with 3 numbers (e.g. IT 123). The current version of NUTS (2008) subdivides the territory of the European Union and its 28 Member States into 98 NUTS 1 regions, 272 NUTS 2 regions, and 1315 NUTS 3 regions. The Interreg IV area considered Table 1 and Figure 1 describes the cooperation area of the Interreg IV Italy-Austria area. In addition, in order to complete the patent analysis of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region, have been analysed also the province of Trieste. The number of inhabitants of the NUTS 3 regions in Interreg IV area range from of Lungau to of Treviso. NUTS 2 regions population range from more than 523 thousand people of Salzburg to more than 1,2 million population of Friuli-Venezia Giulia region. Total Interreg IV area has more than 5 million population then, it is possible to compare this area with NUTS 1 regions. In fact, NUTS 1 regions has a population that range from 3 million to 7 million. 10 NUTS: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Is based on Regulation 1059/2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics, approved in 2003 and amended in 2006 by Regulation 105/2007. Further amending regulations extended the NUTS system to the 10 Member States that joined the EU in Valid from 1 January 2012 until 31 December The letter code referring the country is identical to the ISO alpha 2 code that represent countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest.

13 Table 1. Interreg IV cooperation area, NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 subdivision (Italy Austria) [11] NUTS 2 NUTS 3 Area Population (average ) ITH4-Friuli-Venezia Giulia ITH41-Pordenone EI ITH42-Udine CI ITH43-Gorizia EI ITH44-Trieste Out ITH10-Bolzano CI ITH32-Vicenza EI ITH33-Belluno CI ITH34-Treviso EI AT21-Kärnten AT211-Klagenfurt-Villach CI AT212-Oberkärnten CI AT213- Unterkärnten EI AT32 - Salzburg AT321 - Lungau EI AT322 - Pinzgau-Pongau CI AT323-Salzburg und Umgebung EI AT33-Tirol AT331-Außerfern EI AT332-Innsbruck CI AT333-Osttirol CI AT334-Tiroler Oberland CI AT335-Tiroler Unterland CI Core Interreg (CI) Enlarged interreg (EI) Total Interreg (CI + EI) elaboration CETA from Eurostat data CI: Core Interreg IV area; EI: Enlarged Interereg IV area Figure 1. Interreg IV cooperation area (Italy Austria)

14 1.4 Classification of the patents WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP Benchmark Analysis [12] The patent analysis was defined at two levels of detail: a) by analysing the patent production considering the IPC classification in section and classes (e.g. A01), where the list of the classes is indicated in Appendix A. b) by analysing the patent production considering selected technologies according to the definition of the OECD, in order to facilitate policy analysis. These selected technologies are an aggregate of different IPC codes and they are defined as it is described in Appendix B.

15 2 Technological outputs of R&D at national level [13] Patent applications represent one important measure of research and they are a potential input for further technological development process (2). Patent applications at the EPO and the OECD database are examined. Total patent filings and patent filing per IPC sections are examined. 2.1 Total patents filed at international level The following table shows the total patent applications filed under the PCT per priority year per each country. The countries are listed in descending order, by considering the average annual number of patents filed from 2000 to The results are also represented in the chart of Figure 2. Table 2. Total number of patent applications filled under the PCT per priority year per each country in descending order av USA Japan Germany China France GBR Korea NLD Italy Canada Sweden CHE Australia Israel Finland Spain Belgium India Austria Denmark SVN Tot OECD Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) USA are the largest patent filing country in the world with more than patents per year, followed by Japan with more than patents per year, Germany with patents per year, and China with patents per year. The countries with the highest number of patent applications in the EU 27 are also the largest countries in terms of population. Italian inventors applied less than 3.00 patents per year and Austria

16 [14] USA: United States JPN: Japan DEU: Germany CHN: China FRA: France GBR: United Kingdom KOR: Korea ITA: Italy AUT: Austria Figure 2. Evolution of the patent applications by priority date and residence of the applicant (countries) Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) Table 3 and Figure 3 shows the number of patent applications under the PCT per priority year per million of inhabitants in descending order, by considering the average annual number of patents filed from 2000 to Table 3. Total number of patent applications filled under the PCT, normalized per million of population, per each year and per each country in descending order Country Av Sweden Finland Switzerland Israel Denmark Germany Japan NLD USA Iceland Austria Norway Korea Belgium France GBR Luxembourg Australia Canada New Zealand Ireland Slovenia Italy Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13)

17 [15] Sweden Finland Switzerland Israel Denmark Germany Japan USA: United States Austria Korea France United Kingdom Slovenia Italy Figure 3. Total number of patent applications filled under the PCT, normalized per million of population per each country (Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13)) There are large differences between the countries of Europe. Sweden presents the higher patent intensity during the period with an average of less than 300 patent filings per million of inhabitants and per year (PPMI), followed by Finland with 281 patent filings PPMI, Switzerland with 277 PPMI, Israel with 246 PPMI, and Denmark with 204 PPMI. Austria presents an average patent intensity of 138 PPMI during the period higher than the value Slovenia (50 PPMI) and Italy (48 PPMI). 2.2 Triadic patent applications Considering the triadic paten families, that are defined at the OECD as a set of patents taken at the EPO, JPO and USPTO that share one or more priorities. The triadic patent families indicators are less influenced by different patent office s rules and regulations than traditional indicators based on patent filings to a single patent office. Then, the counting of the triadic patent families provides indicators of an improved quality and international comparability for measuring innovation performance of the countries (10). Table 4, shows the total number of triadic patent families filed under the PCT per priority year, represented in descending order by considering the average number of patent filings from 2000 to USA are the most productive country in the world in terms of number of triadic patent applications with an average of more than patents per year (PPY), followed by Japan with patents per year, and Germany with more than PPY. Italy presents an average total number of patent applications of less than 600 patents per year, one order of magnitude with respect Germany. Austria had 274 triadic patent families and Slovenia only 7.

18 Table 4. Total number of triadic patent families under the PCT per priority year in descending order [16] Country av United States Japan Germany France UK Korea Netherlands Switzerland Sweden Italy Canada China Belgium Israel Austria Finland Australia Denmark Spain India Slovenia Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) United States Japan Germany France United Kingdom Korea Italy Austria Slovenia Figure 4. Total number of triadic patent families under the PCT per priority year in descending order (elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13))

19 The following tables and charts show the total number of triadic patent families per each country normalised by million of inhabitants, in descending order considering the average from 2000 to Table 5. Total number of triadic patent families under the PCT per million population per priority year in descending order Country av Japan Switzerland Sweden Germany Netherlands Finland United States Denmark Israel Austria France Luxembourg Belgium Korea United Kingdom Norway Iceland Canada Ireland Australia Italy Slovenia Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) [17] Japan Switzerland Sweden Germany Netherlands Finland United States Denmark Israel Figure 5. Total number of triadic patent families under the PCT per million population per priority year in descending order The average best ratio of triadic patent families per million of inhabitants (TPPMI) during the period is obtained by Japan with 104 TPPMI, followed by Switzerland with 94 TPPMI, Sweden with 67 TPPMI, and Germany with 61 TPPMI.

20 Austria presents a high patent intensity, in fact, during the period , presents an average number of triadic patent families of 33 TPPMI, Italy only 10 TPPMI, and Slovenia 4 TPPMI. [18] 2.3 Patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections The aim of the present section is to analyse the national specialisation analysing patent application at national level. The analysis of the patents has been carried out considering all the IPC sections listed in the International Patent Classification (IPC) sections. Below is listed the International Patent Classification (IPC). Section A: Human necessities. Section B: Performing operations, transporting. Section C: Chemistry, metallurgy. Section D: Textiles, paper. Section E: Fixed constructions. Section F: Mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, wheapons, blasting. Section G: Fixed constructions. Section H: Electricity. Table 6, Figure 6, and Figure 7 presents the average number of patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections, in descending order by considering the average total number of patents filed per year. Table 6. Average number of patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections, in descending order ( ) Country A B C D E F G H Tot 1 United States Japan Germany France China United Kingdom Korea Netherlands Italy Sweden Canada Switzerland Australia Israel Finland Spain Denmark India Austria Belgium Slovenia Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13)

21 [19] H A B United States Japan Germany France G C China United Kingdom Korea Italy F D Austria E Figure 6. Number of patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections (elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13)) G H A B C Italy Austria Slovenia F D E Figure 7. Number of patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections, considering Italy, Austria and Slovenia USA generated the most patent applications to the PCT in all IPC sections in the world, except for section F (Mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, wheapons, blasting), in which Germany produced more partents. In sections A (Human necessities) and G (Physics) USA produced more than patents per year. Patenting in the EU is highly concentrated in a limited number of States. Germany generated the most patent applications in all IPC sections in Europe.

22 France followed in second place in all the IPC sectors, except section A (Human necessities), E (Fixed constructions), and G (Physics) where United Kingdom produced more patent applications. Figure 7 shows the patent production of the Alpe Adria countries: Italy, Austria and Slovenia. [20] Table 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 presents the average number of patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections normalized per million of inhabitants, in descending order by considering the total number. Table 7. Average number of patent applications under the PCT by IPC sections, normalized per million of inhabitants, in descending order. Country A B C D E F G H Tot 1 Sweden Finland Switzerland Israel Denmark Netherlands Germany Japan United States Austria Norway Korea Iceland France United Kingdom Luxembourg Belgium Australia New Zealand Canada Ireland Slovenia Italy China Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) Sweden presents the highest patent activity per million of inhabitants (PPMI) considering the total number of patent applications, followed by Finland and Switzerland. Section A (Human necessities) is leaded by Switzerland with more than 77 patents per million of inhabitants. There is an obvious reason for this intensity: the country is home to the Pharmaceutics giants such as Roche and Novartis. Switzerland is followed by Israel with 73 PPMI, Denmark (57 PPMI), and Sweden (50 PPMI). Considering the section B (Performing operations, transporting), Sweden inventors filed more than 50 patents per million of inhabitants, followed by Switzerland with 47 PPMI and Germany with 42 PPMI. Switzerland is the most patent-intensive country in terms of patents filed in section C (Chemistry, metallurgy ) with 44 PPMI, followed by Denmark and Japan. Section D and H are leaded by Finland, with 15 and 107 PPMI respectively.

23 Section E (Fixed constructions ) is leaded by Norway with 20 PPMI, followed by Sweden and Denmark with 10 PPMI. Germany presents the highest patent intensity in Ssection F (Mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, wheapons, blasting) with 29 PPMI, followed by Sweden with 26 PPMI, and Denmark (25 PPMI). G (Physics) is leaded by Israel with 65 PPMI, followed by Finland with 54 PPMI and Netherlands with 52 PPMI. [21] 120 A G H B C Sweden Finland Switzerland Israel Denmark Netherlands Germany Japan United States F D Austria E Figure 8. Number of patent applications to the EPO by IPC sections per million of inhabitants (2010) Figure 9 presents the patent intensity in Interreg Italia-Austria-Slovenia area. Austria presents the highest patent intensity in all the IPC classes. 30 A H B Austria G 0 C Slovenia Italy F D E Figure 9. Number of patent applications to the EPO by IPC sections per million of inhabitants (2010)

24 The patent intensity of Austria is higher than the EU 27 countries in all the IPC sections. The IPC sections with the higher patent intensity in Austria are section B (Performing operations; Transporting) with 27 patent applications per million of inhabitants (PPMI), followed by section H (Electricity) with 24 PPMI, C (Chemistry, metallurgy) and G (Physics). Italy presents the same patent intensity of the EU 27 countries in section A (Human necessities) with 11 PPMI and B (Performing operations; Transporting) with 11 PPMI. Sections D (Textiles, paper) and E (Fixed constructions) are the sections in which Italy presents the lowest patent intensity. Slovenia presents a patent intensity lower than EU 27 Countries in all the IPC sections. [22]

25 2.4 Patent applications in selected sectors [23] These selected technologies are an aggregate of different IPC codes and they are defined as it is described in Appendix B. Table 8. Average annual number of patent applications under the PCT per selected sectors and per country ( ) in descending order Country Biotechnology ICT Nanotechnology Medical technology Pharmaceuticals Selected environmentrelated technologies 1 United States Japan Germany United Kingdom Korea China France Netherlands Canada Sweden Israel Italy Australia Switzerland Finland Denmark Spain India Austria Belgium Total 37 Slovenia Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) Considering the high tech sectors, USA presents the highest average patent application per year from 2001 to 2011 with more than patents, followed by Japan with more than patents, and Germany with more than patents. The high tech sectors with the highest patent applications in the world are ICT, followed by Pharmaceutics, and Medical technology. Table 8 and Figure 10 describes the average number of patent applications per year under the PCT per selected sectors according to OECD considering the period from 2000 to The countries are listed in descending order by considering the average annual total patent filings. USA leads all the sectors, except for the Selected environment-related technologies, in which Japan inventors are the leader of the world in terms of patent applications.

26 [24] Selected environment-related technologies Biotechnology ICT United States Japan Korea Germany United Kingdom China Pharmaceuticals Nanotechnology Medical technology Figure 10. Average annual number of patent applications under the PCT per selected sectors and per country ( ) (elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13)) In ICT sector, the best country in the world, in terms of average patents filed per year during the period , is USA, with more than patents per year, followed by Japan with more than patents per year, and Germany with more than patents per year. Italy and Austria filed a number of patents of an order of magnitude lower than Germany, the best Country in Europe. The highest number of patents filed in Medical technology, Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology and Nanotechnology comes from USA inventors. Table 9 describes the average annual number of patent applications under the PCT in the so-called selected environment-related technologies per country and in descending order.

27 Table 9. Average annual number of patent applications under the PCT in selected environment related technologies per country ( ) in descending order [25] Country General Environmental Management (air, water, waste) Energy generation from renewable and non-fossil sources Combustion technologies with mitigation potential (e.g. using fossil fuels, biomass, waste, etc.) Technologies specific to climate change mitigation Technologies with potential or indirect contribution to emissions mitigation Emissions abatement and fuel efficiency in transportation Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting 1 Japan United States Germany France Korea United Kingdom China Canada Netherlands Sweden Italy Australia Denmark Spain Austria Switzerland Finland Israel Norway Russian Federation Tot Selected techn. 38 Slovenia Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) Japanese inventors, during the period , filed the highest average number of patents per year, in selected environment-related technologies, with less than patents per year, followed by USA with patents, and Germany with patents. Italy and Austria inventors filed an order of magnitude less patents than Germany. General Environmental Management : the inventors that filed the highest number of patents per year during the period comes from USA with 669 patents, followed by Japanese inventors with 550 patents per year, and Germany with 324 patents. Italian inventors produced 61 patents per year and Austria 27. The average number of patents filed in Energy generation from renewable and non-fossil sources by USA inventors is 626 per year, followed by Japanese inventors with 418 patents per year, and German inventors with 306 patents. Italy produced 52 patents per year and Austria 26.

28 Japan has the highest number of patents filed in Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting with 303 patents per year, followed by USA and Germany. Italian and Austrian inventors filed both 11 patents per year from 2000 to [26] General Environmental Management (air, water, waste) Japan United States Germany Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting Energy generation from renewable and nonfossil sources France Korea United Kingdom China 200 Emissions abatement and fuel efficiency in transportation 0 Combustion technologies with mitigation potential (e.g. using fossil fuels, biomass, waste, etc.) Technologies with potential or indirect contribution to emissions mitigation Technologies specific to climate change mitigation Figure 11. Average annual number of patent applications under the PCT in selected environment related technologies per country ( ) (elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13)) From the above chart is possible to highlight that Japan leads the patent production of the following selected sectors. Technologies with potential or indirect contribution to emissions mitigation, Emissions abatement and fuel efficiency in transportation, and Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting. Table 10 and the spider chart of Figure 12 describes the average number of patents filed per each country during the period under the PCT per priority year by selected sectors and normalized per million of inhabitants. The best 20 countries in the world have been described in descending order in terms of average annual total number of patents per million of inhabitants (PPMI).

29 Table 10. Average annual number of patent applications per million of inhabitants, under the PCT per selected sectors and per country ( ) in descending order [27] 0 Country Biotechnology ICT Nanotechnology Medical technology Pharmaceuticals Selected environmentrelated technologies 1 Israel 23,1 106,8 2,8 44,7 27,7 10,4 215,6 2 Sweden 14,9 107,6 1,9 26,7 19,7 20,3 191,2 3 Finland 10,2 142,1 1,9 8,4 7,6 16,6 186,8 4 Switzerland 20,6 62,0 2,3 33,2 31,9 13,5 163,5 5 Denmark 32,9 47,4 1,2 23,8 30,4 24,8 160,5 6 Netherlands 13,3 89,0 2,4 18,5 9,7 12,8 145,7 7 Japan 9,3 83,2 2,6 9,9 9,5 23,4 137,9 8 United States 16,0 59,6 2,4 18,0 17,5 8,4 121,8 9 Germany 9,9 49,3 1,7 11,0 10,8 20,6 103,3 10 Iceland 27,3 31,5 1,7 19,6 16,0 3,1 99,1 11 Korea 5,7 52,7 1,7 5,3 5,8 9,6 80,6 12 Austria 8,8 33,7 0,8 7,7 8,1 13,3 72,5 13 Norway 7,1 34,9 0,8 6,5 8,3 13,9 71,5 14 United Kingdom 8,0 33,2 1,0 8,7 11,2 6,3 68,4 15 Canada 9,4 31,8 0,8 6,7 10,4 7,9 67,1 16 Australia 9,2 27,0 0,7 9,9 8,4 7,5 62,7 17 Ireland 5,8 30,7 1,0 13,9 6,5 3,9 61,8 18 France 6,9 30,5 1,1 5,6 8,0 8,2 60,2 19 Belgium 11,8 20,0 0,8 5,4 11,4 5,8 55,2 20 New Zealand 9,4 19,1 0,5 8,0 8,5 5,0 50,6 Total 22 Slovenia 3,0 7,2 0,7 2,3 10,9 2,5 26,6 23 Italy 2,5 8,1 0,3 3,6 4,5 3,1 22,1 Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) In relative terms Israel is the most patent-intensive country in the world in selected sectors, filing an average of more than 200 patents per million of inhabitants per year, followed by Sweden with 191 PPMI, Finland with more than 186 PPMI, and Switzerland with 163 PPMI. Japan and USA are in seventh and eighth place respectively with 138 and 122 PPMI. The patent intensity of Austrian inventors is higher than Slovenia and Italy, with more than 72 PPMI, Slovenia presents 26,6 PPMI and Italy only 22,1 PPMI. Italy is only in the twenty-third position in this special ranking. From the above table is possible to highlights that the most part of the effort in patent production is oriented in ICT patents, followed by medical technologies, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Nanotechnology patent intensity is very low, because of the higher cos of investment necessary to carry out research in this high-tech field.

30 [28] Selected environmentrelated technologies Biotechnology ICT Israel Sweden Finland Switzerland Denmark Netherlands Japan Pharmaceuticals Nanotechnology United States Germany Medical technology Figure 12. Average annual number of patent applications per million of inhabitants, under the PCT per selected sectors and per country ( ) The most higher patent intensity in ICT patents is in Finland with more than 142 PPMI, followed by Sweden with PPMI, and Israel with 106,8 PPMI. Austria presents a patent intensity in this sector of 33,7 PPMI and Italy 8,2 PPMI, a number very low if compared with the most important countries in Europe. In the Selected environment-related technologies, Danish inventors lead the patent intensity, with 24,8 PPMI from 2000 to Japanese inventors filed 23,4 PPMI and Germany 20,6 PPMI. Austria presents a high patent intensity in environment technologies with 13,3 PPMI, Italy has a patent intensity in this sector of only 3,1 PPMI, Slovenia 2,5 PPMI. Despite of the low patent intensity of Nanotechnology, this field is very promising, especially for Renewable energy sources and presents a high growth during the last 10 years. Israel is the country that presents the higher patent intensity in this special field with 2,8 PPMI, followed by Japan with 2,6 PPMI, and Netherlands with 2,4 PPMI. Austria, Slovenia and Italy presents 0,8. 0,7, and 0,3 PPMI respectively. Table 11 unbundles the patent intensity of the Selected environment-related technologies in terms of average patents filed per million of inhabitants, under the PCT. In this table are described the best 20 countries in the world in descending order by considering the total number of patent applications in the selected environment related technologies.

31 Table 11. Average annual number of patent applications per million of inhabitants, under the PCT in selected environment related technologies per country ( ) in descending order [29] Country General Environmental Management (air, water, waste) Energy generation from renewable and non-fossil sources technologies with mitigation potential (e.g. using fossil fuels, biomass, Technologies specific to climate change mitigation potential or indirect contribution to emissions Emissions abatement and fuel efficiency in transportation Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting Total Selected environmentrelated technologies 1 Denmark 5,22 14,35 0,43 0,31 2,15 1,37 0,97 24,80 2 Japan 4,31 3,27 0,15 0,22 7,47 5,58 2,37 23,37 3 Germany 3,94 3,73 0,26 0,27 3,25 7,87 1,32 20,64 4 Sweden 6,61 3,15 0,44 0,29 1,53 7,48 0,82 20,33 5 Finland 7,20 3,76 0,52 0,13 1,57 2,56 0,83 16,58 6 Norway 4,80 5,07 0,39 1,49 1,17 0,62 0,37 13,91 7 Switzerland 3,53 3,92 0,71 0,32 2,08 1,49 1,43 13,48 8 Austria 3,33 2,91 0,13 0,14 1,94 3,46 1,36 13,28 9 Netherlands 2,75 2,88 0,15 0,52 1,12 0,77 4,56 12,76 10 Israel 3,26 4,17 0,21 0,08 1,80 0,56 0,37 10,45 11 Korea 2,38 2,50 0,07 0,12 2,86 0,91 0,72 9,56 12 Luxembourg 2,88 1,83 0,18 0,18 2,01 1,31 0,78 9,16 13 United States 2,25 2,11 0,17 0,28 1,94 1,17 0,49 8,40 14 France 2,17 1,30 0,11 0,27 1,40 2,62 0,34 8,21 15 Canada 2,34 1,54 0,14 0,23 2,05 0,95 0,65 7,90 16 Australia 3,45 1,90 0,07 0,28 0,73 0,67 0,39 7,49 17 United Kingdom 1,90 1,68 0,10 0,15 0,98 1,00 0,48 6,29 18 Belgium 2,40 1,37 0,04 0,08 0,51 0,82 0,54 5,76 19 New Zealand 2,18 1,42 0,24 0,10 0,46 0,38 0,21 4,99 20 Ireland 1,33 1,84 0,10 0,04 0,20 0,20 0,20 3,91 21 Italy 1,04 0,88 0,10 0,04 0,36 0,54 0,18 3,13 24 Slovenia 0,53 0,71 0,08 0,00 0,42 0,35 0,38 2,46 Source: elaboration CETA from OECD Statistics (13) Denmark is the most productive country of selected environment related technologies with almost 25 PPMI, this is due in the most part by the patent activity in the Energy generation from renewable and nonfossil sources. Denmark is followed by Japan, Germany and Sweden. Austria is classified in the top ten countries of this special ranking, with 13,28 PPMI, a patent intensity comparable with the best countries in the world. Italy produced only 3,13 PPMI during the period , and Slovenia 2,46 PPMI.

32 Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting Emissions abatement and fuel efficiency in transportation WP 1.1 COMPETENCY MAP Benchmark Analysis General Environmental Management (air, water, waste) 16,00 14,00 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 Energy generation from renewable and nonfossil sources Combustion technologies with mitigation potential (e.g. using fossil fuels, biomass, waste, etc.) [30] Denmark Japan Germany Sweden Finland Norway Switzerland Austria Technologies with potential or indirect contribution to emissions mitigation Technologies specific to climate change mitigation Figure 13. Average annual number of patent applications per million of inhabitants, under the PCT in selected environment related technologies per country ( ) Denmark presents the highest patent intensity in Energy generation from renewable and non-fossil fuels with 14,35 PPMI. This high patent intensity it is due to the wind power giant VESTAS that filed 759 patents under the PCT up to June 2014 (14). Denmark is followed by Norway with 5,07 PPMI and Israel with 4,17 PPMI. Austria presents a patent intensity of 2,91 PPMI, a number comparable with the most productive countries, except for Denmark. Italy presents a patent intensity of 0,88 PPMI and Slovenia 0,71 PPMI. Energy efficiency in buildings and lighting patent intensity is leaded by Netherlands with more than 4,5 PPMI during the period Netherlands is home of the electronic and lighting giant Philips. Netherland is followed by Japan with 2,37 PPMI, Switzerland with 1,43 PPMI, and Austria with 1,36 PPMI. Italy produced only 0,18 PPMI in this specific field.

33 3 Technological outputs of R&D at regional level [31] Patent applications represent one important measure of research and they are a potential input for further technological development process (2). The aim of this section is to analyse the patent applications at regional level for understand the fields in which the Interreg IV region is specialized. The related key and cross-sectional technologies have been evaluated and compared with other European regions in order to identify the regional research potentials where the Interreg IV region is: already on international level, can reach international level, can fill gaps on research, and can use regional differences. Furthermore have been identified the potential niche segments for the development of energy research capabilities for the Interreg IV region. The present section analyses scientific and technological outputs of R&D activities as the measures to elucidate technological innovation of the Interreg Italia-Austria region. In order to compare and evaluate the technological outputs of R&D activities, have been examinated patent applications at the EPO database. 3.1 Patent analysis at NUTS 3 level The NUTS 12 classification is a hierarchical system for dividing up the economic territory of the EU for the purpose of the collection of EU statistics, socio-economic analyses of the regions and framing EU policies. NUTS 1 are the major socio economic regions, NUTS 2 are the basic regions for the application of regional policies and NUTS 3 are small regions for specific diagnoses. The NUTS 3 regions analysed are the Interreg IV and Enlarged Interreg IV Italia-Austria regions. Table 12, and Figure 14 describes the cooperation area of the Interreg IV Italy-Austria area. In addition, in order to complete the patent analysis of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region, have been analysed also the province of Trieste. Table 12. Interreg IV area and number of inhabitants NUTS 2 NUTS 3 Area Population (average ) (Thousand) ITH4-Friuli-Venezia Giulia ITH41-Pordenone EI ITH42-Udine CI ITH43-Gorizia EI ITH44-Trieste Out ITH10-Bolzano CI ITH32-Vicenza EI ITH33-Belluno CI ITH34-Treviso EI AT21-Kärnten AT211-Klagenfurt-Villach CI AT212-Oberkärnten CI AT213- Unterkärnten EI AT32 - Salzburg AT321 - Lungau EI AT322 - Pinzgau-Pongau CI AT323-Salzburg und Umgebung EI NUTS: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, valid from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2014.

34 AT33-Tirol AT331-Außerfern EI AT332-Innsbruck CI AT333-Osttirol CI AT334-Tiroler Oberland CI AT335-Tiroler Unterland CI [32] Core Interreg (CI) Enlarged interreg (EI) Total Interreg (CI + EI) Figure 14. Interreg IV cooperation area (Italy Austria)

35 3.1.1 Overview of patent intensity in Europe at NUTS 3 level [33] In order to benchmark the patent intensity of the Interreg IV at European level, has been carried out an overall analysis of the patent applications per million of inhabitants in all the NUTS 3 regions in Europe. Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata. presents the PCT patent applications per million of inhabitants by inventor and priority year in descending order considering the patent applications of Looking the patent filings by NUTS 3 region reveals heterogeneous patent activities within Europe, this is well highlighted observing the map of Figure 15. Technological activity based on patent applications is concentrated in the centre of Europe. There are 22 NUTS 3 regions in the EU (out of total of 1211 regions with data available) that have more than 400 patent applications per million inhabitants (PPMI) in Among these there are 2 Austrian regions: Rheintal-Bodensee with 460 PPMI and Graz with 403 PPMI. Figure 15. Patent applications to EPO per million inhabitants, by NUTS 3 regions (2008) (source: Eurostat)