The capability of the EU R&D scoreboard companies to develop advanced manufacturing technologies : an assessment based on patent analysis.
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: advanced technology industry, competitiveness, industrial research, innovation, patent, research and development, research report

The capability of the EU R&D 
Scoreboard companies to develop 
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies 

An assessment based on 
patent analysis 

Petros Gkotsis 
2 0 1 5  

Report EUR 27176 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 
Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies / Joint Research Centre 

Contact information 
Fernando Hervás 
Address: Edificio Expo Calle Inca Garcilaso 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 
E-mail: jrc-ipts-kfg-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 95 448 84 63 

JRC Science Hub  
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

Acknowledgement 
The main source of data that were used in this report was from the study “Assessing companies’ capability to develop 
advanced manufacturing technologies in selected industrial sectors” performed by Fraunhofer ISI in the context of the 
project Advanced Manufacturing for Competitiveness. The author would also like to thank Hector Hernandez Guevara and 
Fernando Hervas for their feedback. 

Legal Notice 
This publication is a Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service.  
It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

All images © European Union 2015  

JRC95370 

EUR 27176 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-47226-8 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2791/832930 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

© European Union, 2015 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Abstract 
In this report the first results obtained from data provided by Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research 
(ISI) in the context of the Advanced Manufacturing for Competitiveness project are presented. The aims of this project are 
to develop and test a methodology based on patent analysis to assess the capacity of the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 
companies  to  develop  advanced  manufacturing  technologies  (AMTs)  and  key  enabling  technologies  (KETs)  which  are 
expected to have a major impact on productivity, efficiency, profitability and employment in the major industrial sectors. 
The companies listed in the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard hold a dominant position in KET and AMT filings accounting for 
about 61 % of total KET filings and 57 % of total AMT filings in 2011. European companies hold almost 50 % of the AMT 
worldwide patent filings and about 50 % of these are held by Germany headquartered companies. Japanese companies 
are responsible for 27 % of AMT filings worldwide and US companies for about 24 % of all transnational AMT patents. In 
KETs Japanese companies dominate the scene, followed by Europe and the USA. Developing and patenting AMTs and KETs 
seems to have become more expensive over the time period under study, as shown by the decrease in the average patent 
intensity since 2004. Although R&D expenditures and numbers of patent filings are significantly positively correlated with 
the number of employees, larger firms have lower patent intensities than smaller ones. In addition the patent intensity is 
higher  in  industry  than  in  the  service  sector  and  European  firms  have  the  highest  patent  intensities,  followed  by 
companies in North America, Asia and the rest of the world. This correlation is also observed in the case of firms that file 
AMT patents; thus larger firms are filing more AMT patents than smaller ones.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

In  this  report  the  first  results  obtained  from  data  provided  by  Fraunhofer  Institute  for 
Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) in the context of the Advanced Manufacturing for 
Competitiveness project are presented. The aims of this project are to develop and test a 
methodology  based  on  patent  analysis  to  assess  the  capacity  of  the  EU  Industrial  R&D 
Scoreboard companies to develop advanced  manufacturing technologies (AMTs) and key 
enabling technologies (KETs) which are expected to have a major impact on productivity, 
efficiency,  profitability  and  employment  in  the  major  industrial  sectors.  The  companies 
listed  in  the  EU  Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard  hold  a  dominant  position  in  KET  and  AMT 
filings  accounting  for  about  61  %  of  total  KET  filings  and  57  %  of  total  AMT  filings  in 
2011.  European  companies  hold  almost  50  %  of  the  AMT  worldwide  patent  filings  and 
about 50 % of these are held by Germany headquartered companies. Japanese companies 
are responsible for 27 % of AMT filings worldwide and US companies for about 24 % of all 
transnational AMT patents. In KETs Japanese companies dominate the scene, followed by 
Europe  and  the  USA.  Developing  and  patenting  AMTs  and  KETs  seems  to  have  become 
more expensive over the time period under study, as shown by the decrease in the average 
patent intensity since 2004. Although R&D expenditures and numbers of patent filings are 
significantly positively correlated with the number of employees, larger firms have lower 
patent intensities than smaller ones. In addition the patent intensity is higher in industry 
than in the service sector and European firms have the highest patent intensities, followed 
by  companies  in  North  America,  Asia  and  the  rest  of  the  world.  This  correlation  is  also 
observed in the case of firms that file AMT patents; thus larger firms are filing more AMT 
patents  than  smaller  ones.  With  regard  to  employment  growth,  however,  we  find  no 
significant effect of  KETs or AMTs filings. The largest  shares of KETs filings  are found in 
the  Electronic  &  Electrical  Equipment  and  Chemicals  sectors.  Firms  in  the  Electronic  & 
Electrical  Equipment  sector  also  account  for  the  highest  proportion  of  filings  in  AMT. 
However, the Industrial Engineering sector also accounts for large proportion, followed by 
the Automobiles & Parts and General Industrials sectors.  

Keywords: patents, technological profile, KETS, AMT, R&D 

1.  Introduction 

The  contribution  of  the  manufacturing  sector  to  economic  growth  is  considered  of 
fundamental importance for boosting exports, generating added value and creating jobs 
all  of  which  are  necessary  to  address  the  current  predicaments  faced  by  the  EU 
economy. Manufacturing companies  in the EU in 2012 generated €EUR 1760 billion of 
value  added  and  employed  30  million  employees  directly  and  approximately  twice  as 
that  indirectly,  mainly  in  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)1.  Manufacturing 
plays  a  key  role  in  EU  total  exports,  with  a  large  trade  surplus  in  manufactured 

1 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/amt/index_en.htm 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
products, estimated at €EUR 365 billion in 20122. The industry is also investing heavily 
in  innovation,  accounting  for  almost  80  %  of  total  private  R&D  investment3 and 
manufacturing  firms  are  almost  three  times  more  likely  than  service  business  to 
introduce not only new, innovative products but also new services4. 

EU manufacturing is now facing important challenges: despite the robust performance 
of certain sectors, such as mechanical engineering (in which European companies lead 
the world with a 37 % share of the global market), there has been a steady decline over 
recent years and the sector has been severely affected by the financial crisis of 2007- 8. 
The impact of the crisis on production was substantial and resulted in the loss of almost 
3.8 million jobs. The proportion of value added attributable to manufacturing decreased 
during the crisis and has not yet fully recovered. 

A globally competitive manufacturing sector is a priority not only in the EU, but also in 
all  its  main  competitor  regions,  not  least  because  the  financial  crisis of  2007-  8  led  to 
recession  in  many  developed  countries.  As  a  result,  new  initiatives  to  boost  the 
competitiveness  of  the  manufacturing  sector  are  under  way5,  with  interest  mainly 
focused  on  new  technologies  which  rely  more  and  more  on  information,  automation, 
software  and  networking.  Such  technologies  are  expected  to  exploit  and  at  the  same 
time further enable the development of new production processes, novel materials and 
devices and applications with unprecedented functionality and capabilities. These new 
technologies are also expected to revolutionise the manufacturing of existing products 
by reducing the cost of production, the reliance on raw materials and the consumption 
of energy, while at the  same time diminishing the adverse impact on the environment 
by reducing the generation of waste and pollution. 

These new technologies which include digitisation of equipment and processes, three-
dimensional  printing,  high-precision  zero  defect  additive  manufacturing  and  new 
processes  and equipment  which enable  the  development of  novel functional materials 
with highly customised properties and the manipulation of matter at the atomic and sub 
atomic  levels  are  collectively  referred  to  as  advanced  manufacturing  technologies 
(AMTs).  AMTs  are  also  expected  to  enable  highly  customisable,  cost-effective,  low-
volume,  flexible  production  by  facilitating  rapid  integration  of  new  processes, 
introduction of new features and changes in design.  

In early 2013 the European Commission (EC) established the “Task Force on Advanced 
Manufacturing  for  Clean  Production”  to  “foster  the  development  and  adaption  of 
industry”.  Advanced 
Advanced  Manufacturing 

technologies  by 

the  European 

2 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Manufacturing_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2 
3 http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard.html 
4 http://manufacturing.gov/advanced_manufacturing.html 
5 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-
june2011.pdf 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
manufacturing  is  considered  one  of  the  core  key  enabling  technologies6 that  are 
expected  to  play  a  key  role  in  the  upcoming  industrial  revolution.  The  aim  of  the 
Advanced  Manufacturing  for  Competitiveness  project  is  to  develop  and  test  the 
applicability  of  a  methodology  to  assess  the  capability  of  companies  to  develop  new 
innovative technologies for advanced manufacturing. 

The aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence at the firm level about the role of 
AMTs and KETs and the impact of innovation in these technologies on the efficiency and 
productivity of companies across various industrial sectors and on employment in these 
sectors using data from the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard (the Scoreboard). 
The  Scoreboard  contains  economic  and  financial  data  for  the  world’s  top  companies 
ranked by their investments in research and development (R&D), (see Annex I). In this 
study the 2013 edition of the Scoreboard has been used.  

The principal aim of this report is to describe the profile of the patent portfolios of the 
companies in the  Scoreboard, to  link their innovation  output to input in terms of R&D 
expenditures and to draw useful conclusions about the policy implications at the level of 
the  EU  Member  States.  The  data  source  for  the  input  is  the  2013  edition  of  the  "EU 
Industrial  R&D  Investment  Scoreboard"  and  the  outputs  are  patent  applications  and 
further  patent-related  indicators  at  the  transnational  level  from  the  the  Worldwide 
Patent  Statistical  Database  (PATSTAT)  (see  Annex  I).  Patents  are  mainly  an  output  of 
technology-oriented R&D activities in technology-based sectors (Freeman 1982, Grupp 
1998).  It  is  thus meaningful to assess the  linkage of input and output  with the  help of 
R&D  expenditure  and  patents  in  technology-based  areas.  Among  companies  in  the 
Scoreboard  there  is  a  correlation  between  R&D  expenditure  and  investment  in 
innovation and innovation output, as measured by KET- and AMT-related transnational 
patent filings. 

AMTs and KETs are core areas for achieving the strategic goals addressed in EU 2020. A 
number  of  initiatives  from  different  directorates-general  (DGs)  such  as  the  KETs 
Observatory  and  the  Business  Innovation  Observatory  are  already  under  way.  In  this 
study  the  technology  definitions,  in  terms  of  classes  of  the  International  Patent 
Classification (IPC) of KETs and AMT that have been developed within the course of the 
"KETs  Observatory"  project  (IDEA  Consult  et  al.  2012,  Annex  II)  are  used  in  order  to 
obtain results which are easily comparable. The focus, however, is on the firm-level data 
and the basic questions addressed are as follows: What firms are responsible for most 
of  the  patent  filings  in  AMTs  and  KETs  and  which  are  the  main  industrial  sectors 
responsible  for  patent  filings  within  the  two  technology  fields?  Where  have  the  R&D 
activities  taken  place?  Which  countries  and  which  sectors  are  most  actively  inventing 
AMTs  and  KETs?  Who  owns  the  technologies  or  what  does  the  ownership  structure 
within  AMTs  and  KETs  look  like?  The  focus  will  be  on  transnational  patent  filings 

6 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/ketsobservatory/ 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
(Frietsch, Schmoch 2010), i.e. filings targeting international markets. In addition to the 
applicant information contained in patent filings, we will also make use of the inventor 
information to establish the location of the inventors that are most active in the area of 
KETs and AMTs. With regard to ownership, the headquarters location of the companies 
included in the Scoreboard   is used. 

2.  Key enabling technologies and their importance 

KETs are technologies associated with high R&D intensity, rapid innovation cycles, high 
capital expenditure and highly skilled employment. They are multidisciplinary, cutting 
across many technology areas  with a  trend towards convergence  and integration. The 
following technologies are identified as KETs:  

  Nanotechnology.  This  utilises  methods  of  manipulating  matter  at  a  molecular/ 
atomic level in order to manufacture structures of a size of 100 nano metres or 
less. 

  Photonics.  This  encompasses  optical  technology  equipment  such  as  lasers, 
lithography  equipment,  optical  measurement  systems,  microscopes,  lenses, 
optical  communication,  digital  photography,  light  emitting  diodes  (LEDs)  and 
organic LEDs (OLEDs), displays and solar cells. 

 

Industrial  biotechnology.  This  focuses  on  enzymes,  micro-organisms,  amino 
acids  and  fermentation  processes  not  related  to  the  fields  of  medicine  or 
agriculture. 

  Advanced  materials  science.  This  covers  a  broad  range  of  innovative  materials 
including polymers, macromolecular compounds, rubber, metals, glass, ceramics, 
other  non-metallic  materials  and  fibres  as  well  as  the  whole  field  of  nano 
materials and speciality materials for electric or magnetic applications. 

  Micro-  and  nano-electronics.  This  covers  new  technologies  related  to 

semiconductors, piezo-electrics and nano-electronics. 

  Advanced  Manufacturing  Technologies  for  other  KETs  includes  process  and 
equipment technology that is used to produce any of the other five KETs. In the 
case of advanced materials, industrial biotechnology, nanotechnology and micro- 
and  nano-electronics,  such  process  technology  typically  relates  to  production 
apparatus, equipment and procedures for the manufacture  of specific materials 
and components. In  the case of photonics, process technology covers apparatus 
and equipment that is used to manufacture photonics products. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Building on the KETs Observatory definition, we identify five different technologies as 
examples of application oriented technologies that are related to KETs. These are: 

  Fuel  cells.  Fuel  cells  are  promising  new  energy  sources  that  convert  chemical 
energy from a fuel, such as hydrogen or biogas, into electricity and can achieve a 
very high degree of efficiency.  

  Digital  information  transmission.  This  field  includes  technologies  for  the 

transmission of digital information, such as telegraphic communication. 

 

Imaging  physics.  Imaging  physics  includes  all  pictorial  communication,  e.g. 
television, the transmission of pictures or their reproduction, scanning resolving 
and reproducing a picture.  

  Dynamo- electric machines (electric motors): Dynamo- electric machines convert 

mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa by electromagnetic means.  

  Biotechnology– Agro-food: Agro-food is defined as micro- organisms or enzymes 
and  their  composition  as  well  as  techniques  for  propagating,  preserving  and 
maintaining them. It  includes  undifferentiated animal  and  plant  cells as  well as 
methods for cultivation, mutation and genetic engineering. 

The definition  of the  respective technologies is also based on the  IPC. They have  been 
developed  with  technology  experts  at  the  Fraunhofer  Institute  for  Systems  and 
Innovation Research (ISI) (Neuhäusler et al, 2015). 

3.  Results 

The  total  number  of  transnational  patents  and  the  number  of  transnational  patent 
filings related to KETs and AMTs over time are plotted in Figure 1. The general trends 
are similar in both fields with the number of KET filings increasing from approximately 
32000 in the year 2000 to about 35000 in 2007 followed, by a slight decrease between 
2008  and  2009.  However,  the  number  of  transnational  patents  shows  a  similar  trend, 
which is attributed to the financial crisis. From 2009 onwards, the number of filings in 
KETs rises very rapidly, up to about 41000 in 2011. AMT-related patents also increased 
between 2000 and 2007 from  6700 to 7500, then decreased the following year before 
increasing again after 2009 (Neuhäusler et al, 2015). 

Over  the  period  2000-2011,  although  the  absolute  numbers  of  patent  filings  in  KETs 
and  AMTs  increased,  the  proportion  of  total  filings  accounted  for  by  these  technology 
fields decreased because the total number of filings rose faster than the number of KET 
and  AMT  filings.  In  2000,  20  %  of  total  filings  were  related  to  KETs  but  by  2011  this 
figure  had  dropped  to  18  %.  The  same  is  true  for  AMTs  with  the  proportion  of  total 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
filings that relate to AMTs falling from 4.2 % in 2000 3.5 % in 2011. Since then however, 
this overall trend, has been reversed as a result of the steep increase in AMT filings and 
especially in KETs filings, in recent years (Neuhäusler et al, 2015). 

Figure 1 Total number of transnational filings and numbers of filings in KETs and AMTs. 

Figure 2 Total number of transnational filings and number of filings in KETs and AMTs from companies in the 
EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 

In 2011 the 2,670 matched Scoreboard firms (see Annex III) accounted for only a small 
proportion of the applicants in PATSTAT (about 2 %) but were responsible for 58 % of 
the transnational patents filed in that year. The remaining 42 % of patents were filed by 
universities or public research institutes, single inventors or firms that are not included 
in  the  Scoreboard (Neuhäusler,  2015).  The  Scoreboard  companies  are  also  responsible 
for the majority of transnational filings in KETs and AMTs accounting for, respectively, 
61 % and 57 % of all transnational patent filings in these fields in 2011. To get a better 
idea  of  the  number  of  patents  filed  by  the  firms  listed  in  the  2013  EU  Industrial  R&D 
Scoreboard  and  their  patent  activities  in  KETs  and  AMTs,  Figure  2,  shows  the  total 
number of transnational filings, as well as the numbers of KET and AMT- related patents 
over time. The total number of transnational filings by the firms listed in the Scoreboard 
follows  quite  closely  the  general  trends  in  patenting  (Figure  1).  The  number  of  filings 
increased  between  2000  and  2007,  then  decreased  between  2008  and  2009,  an  effect 
that  can  be  attributed  to  the  economic  crisis.  Analysis  of  a  sample  of  German  firms, 
showed that this  effect is  due  not only to a  decrease  in R&D expenditures  during that 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
period but also to cost-saving patent strategies adopted by firms, e.g. filing less patents 
internationally etc. (Neuhäusler et al. 2014). After 2008, however, the number of filings 
starts  growing  again,  with  a  peak  in  2011,  when  Scoreboard  firms  filed  about  130000 
transnational patents.  

It is further observed that the  proportion of total filings that are KET and AMT patent 
filings drops over time (Neuhäusler et al, 2015). KET and AMT filings as a proportion of 
transnational patent applications filed by the Scoreboard firms followed a similar trend 
over the same period. This means that, on average, the rate of filing in these fields was 
slower than the rate of filing overall. If, however, we calculate the proportion of AMT-
related  filings  which  are  filed  by  the  Scoreboard  companies  and  correlate  this  to  the 
proportion  of  the  total  transnational  filings  by  the  Scoreboard  companies  we  observe 
that they are positively correlated, i.e. patenting by Scoreboard companies in  the  field 
becomes more important over time. This is also true for KET related filings. 

Figure 3 Proportion of KET and AMT related patents and proportion of total filings by Scoreboard companies 
between 2000 and 2011. 

These  results  are  summarised  in  Figure  3  where  the  proportion  of  filings  by  the 
Scoreboard  companies  between  2000  and  2011  are  shown  (blue  squares)  along  with 
the proportion of KETs and AMTs filings by the same companies over the same period 
of  time.  The  proportion  of  all  transnational  patents  that  come  from  Scoreboard 
companies  has  increased  over  time.  Over  the  same  time  the  contribution  in  KET  and 
AMT-related patents also increased. At the same time, however, the patenting activities 
of the Scoreboard firms become broader. 

KET filings, AMT filings and total filings at the transnational level by applicant location 
are shown in Figure 4 for the years 2000 and 2011. For clearer visibility, the countries 
have  been  categorised into  four  groups:  Europe,  North  America,  Asia  and  "Rest  of  the 
world".  At  this  level  of  aggregation  distinguishing  between  applicant  and  inventor 
location  has  a  negligible  effect  on  the  result.  Figure  4  shows  that,  among  Asian 
companies included in the Scoreboard the proportion of total transnational filings that 
related to KETs rose from 38 % in 2000 to 59 % in 2011. In 2011, European and North 
American  applicants  were  each  responsible  for  20  %  of  the  total  transnational  patent 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
applications.  Only  1  %  of  KETs  patents  came  from  countries  in  the  rest  of  the  world. 
Interestingly,  the  picture  looks  totally  different  for  AMTs,  with  European  companies 
consistently  dominating  this  area  between  2000  and  2011.  European  applicants  were 
responsible for 42 % of all transnational AMT filings in 2011, followed by applicants in 
Asia  (34  %)  and  in  North  America  (24  %).  However,  the  progress  made  by  Asian 
applicants  is  also  reflected  in  their  share  of  the  total  number  of  transnational  patents 
which has rose from 30 % to 44 % over this period. 

Figure 4 Share of AMTs, KETs and total patents according to applicant location in 2000 and 2011. 

Looking  in  more  detail  of  the  contribution  of  the  individual  EU-28  Member  States  to 
AMT  patenting  over  the  period  2009-  2011  we  find  Germany  and  Austria-based 
companies  at  the  top  of  the  list  with  approximately  200  AMT  patents  per  million 
employees.  Using  transnational  patents  per  million  employees  rather  than  simply  the 
number of patents ensures a better international comparability since the former metric 
is  not  influenced  by  the  size  of  the  workforce  within  the  countries  under  analysis. 
Germany  and  Austria  are  closely  followed  by  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  Denmark  and 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finland with France and the United Kingdom ranking lower on this comparison (Figure 
5).  Germany  and  Austria-based  companies  also  file  the  most  KET  patents  per  million 
employees  in  this  case  followed  closely  by  the  Netherlands,  Finland,  Belgium  and 
Sweden (Neuhäusler, 2015).  

Patent intensities or propensities are calculated from patent and R&D expenditure data 
and an assessment of the value of patent filings can be attempted using two indicators, 
the number of times a patent is cited in subsequent patent applications (patent forward 
citations) and the average patent family size. The number of patent forward citations is 
the indicator that is probably most commonly used to estimate the value of companies’ 
patent  filings  or  companies’  patent  portfolios  (Narin  et  al.  1987;  Trajtenberg  1990; 
Albert  et  al.  1991;  Blind  et  al.  2009;  Carpenter  et  al.  1981).  The  average  number  of 
forward  citations  in  a  four-year  time  window  has  been  calculated  and  related  to  the 
number  of  patent  filings  from  a  particular  company  in  a  given  priority  year.  The  time 
window  is  necessary  in  order  to  avoid  introducing  a  systematic  bias  favouring  older 
patents  (Neuhäusler,  2015).  The  average  patent  family  size  is  determined  by  the 
number of countries or patent offices at which a patent has been filed (Martinez 2011; 
Putnam 1996; Schmoch et al. 1988). Thus it first of all provides information about the 
internationalisation of a company's patent portfolio. However, it also tells us about the 
number  of  markets  in  which  the  applicant  is  seeking  to  secure  in  order  to  sell  his 
invention.  

Figure 5 Share of AMT patents per million employees by applicant country from 2009 to 2011. 

In 2007, the average number of citations a patent received from subsequent filings was 
1.5. KETs patents are cited slightly more often than average with about 1.6 citations per 
filing. In contrast, AMT filings are cited less often than average, with only 1.15 filings per 
patent. The average family size is 5.1. This figure is somewhat lower for KETs and AMT 
filings with values below 4.9 (Neuhäusler, 2015).  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  1  shows,  in  summary  form,  the  profiles  of  the  patent  portfolios  of  the  top  10 
patenting  firms  in  the  2013  R&D  Scoreboard.  With  more  than  3500  filings  Panasonic 
accounted for largest number of transnational patent applications in 2011, followed by 
the  Chinese  firms  Huawei and  ZTE each with about  3000 filings.  Patent intensities  are 
quite  similar  with  two  notable  exceptions:  ZTE  with  2.74  patents  per  million  R&D 
expenditures  and Sharp with 1.55 patents per million R&D  expenditures. Patent  value 
indicators in Table 1 show that filings from ZTE and Huawei are cited less frequently by 
subsequent  patents  than  filings  of  the  other  companies  of  the  list.  In  addition,  the 
average  family  size  of  these  two  companies  is  smaller,  implying  that  Huawei  and  ZTE 
file their patents in a smaller number of patent offices compared to the other companies 
of this top ten list. Finally in Table 1 information extracted from patent data about the 
location  of  the  inventors,  which  provides  hints  about  the  internationalization  of  R&D 
activities of the companies, is presented.  

Table 1 Profiles of the top 10 EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard companies by total transnational patent filings 
in 2011 (Neuhäusler, 2015). 

Table 2 Profiles of the top10 EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard companies (2013 edition) by total transnational 
patent filings in 2000. 

In  most  cases  inventors  are  based  close  to  the  location  of  the  company  headquarters. 
This is especially true for Asian-based companies with Hitachi, ZTE and Panasonic, for 
example, having over 97 % of their inventors located in Asia, implying that only a few of 
their  patents  are  filed  by  foreign  divisions  of  the  company  or  subsidiaries.  Of  the 
companies  in  this  list,  General  Electric  shows  the  largest  spread  across  countries  in 
terms of inventors with only 66 % of the inventors located in North America where the 
headquarters  of  the  company  are  also  located.  The  remaining  34  %  are  split  between 
Europe (20 %) and Asia (14 %). This large proportion of inventors in foreign countries 
is an indication that General Electric also carries out R&D in those countries. The other 

10 

PANASONICHUAWEIZTESIEMENSSAMSUNG ELECTRONICSHITACHIROBERT BOSCHTOYOTA MOTORSHARPGENERAL ELECTRICJPCNCNDEKRJPDEJPJPUS45562714111042787235361242426829135634873307678000089786402000n.a.3235403025193259055675630100035293074303827232280226722322113210720210.771.132.740.640.320.630.530.311.550.58Europe2%2%0%83%4%1%83%1%2%20%North America1%5%1%11%4%1%8%1%2%66%Asia97%92%99%4%92%98%6%98%96%14%ROW0%1%0%2%0%0%3%0%0%0%4.253.312.644.184.234.114.115.154.064.523.521.290.541.191.232.351.253.023.591.59Average family size (2006)Average member of fw citations (2006)Patent Intensity per million R&DInventor locationCompany NameCountryR&D expeditures (in millions)EmployeesTransnational patent filingsSIEMENSPANASONICPHILIPSSONYROBERT BOSCHERICSSONALCATEL-LUCENTBAYERGENERAL ELECTRICINFINEON TECHNOLOGIESDEJPNLJPDESEFRDEUSDE2037190618891655160012771139107910131003Europe94%3%89%8%95%84%56%64%11%79%North America5%2%5%6%4%13%42%31%83%19%Asia1%95%4%86%1%2%1%4%6%1%ROW0%0%2%0%0%1%1%1%0%1%9%22%23%17%9%6%19%29%20%56%10%4%3%3%12%12%1%1%2%3%Company NameCountryTransnational patent filingsShare of KETs filings in transnational filingsShare of AMT filings in transnational filingsInventor location 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
two companies with a wide spread of inventors across the world are both German firms, 
Robert  Bosch and  Siemens.  In  both  cases,  83  %  of  their  patents  are filed  by  inventors 
from Europe, but inventors can also be found in North America, Asia and in the rest of 
the  world.  Interestingly,  in  the  case  of  all  the  Asian  firms  in  the  list  "home-based" 
inventors  account  for  more  than  90  %  of  patent  filings,  indicating  that  the  R&D  and 
patenting activities are less internationalized.   

The  performance  of  the  firms  of  the  2013  edition  of  the  Scoreboard  over  the  period 
between  2000  and  2011  was  further  assessed7.  In  Table  2  the  profiles  of  the  patent 
portfolios of the top ten companies by total transnational patents in 2000 are presented. 
Siemens, Panasonic, Robert Bosch and General Electric also appear in this list. One thing 
to  note  is  that  all  these  companies  have  increased  their  patent  output  over  the  years. 
Another  interesting  observation  is  that  Siemens,  Robert  Bosch  and  General  Electric 
have  more  widespread  R&D  activities  judging  by  the  inventor  location  in  2011 
compared  to  2000.  This  is  an  indication  of  R&D  activities  which  over  time  spread  to 
other  geographical  areas  through  collaborations  with  research  institutes,  other 
companies  or  subsidiaries.  Panasonic  on  the  other  hand  files  almost  all  its  patents  in 
Asia  and  this  does  not  change  over  time.  The  presence  of  Chinese  and  Korean 
companies in the list of 2011 is also worth commenting. 

Table 3 Profiles of the top 10 EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard companies by KETs transnational patent filings 
in  2011.  Patent  intensity,  average  family  size  and  forward  (fw)  citations  derived  from  KETs  patents  only 
(Neuhäusler, 2015). 

Table 3 shows the profiles of the top 10 Scoreboard companies in terms of KETs patent 
filings in 2011. Panasonic filed the largest number of transnational patents in KETs with 
904  filings  in  2011,  followed  by  Sharp  (734  filings)  and  LG  (558  filings).  Applied 
Materials with  86  %  of  their  transnational  filings  in  KET  related  fields  has  the  largest 
share of KETs filings in its portfolio. The only other company in the top 10 list in which 
this share exceeds 50 % is LG. For the remaining companies, shares between 13 % and 
37  %  are  observed.  Patent  intensities  in  KETs  filings  (KETs  filings  per  million  R&D 
expenditures  of  the  firm  in  total)  were  also  calculated  and  the  highest  value  was 

7 Since we are based on the 2013 edition of the Scoreboard there might companies which were among the 
top  R&D  investors  in  one  or  more  years  between  2000  and  2011  but  no  longer  appear  in  the  latest 
editions of the Scoreboard. The performance of these firms is not taken into account. 

11 

PANASONICSHARPLGFUJIFILMSIEMENSHITACHIGENERAL ELECTRICPHILIPSAPPLIED MATERIALSROBERT BOSCHJPJPKRJPDEJPUSNLUSDE45561356n.a.15184278361234871768847424233076756756n.a.81691402000323540301000125241130003025199047345984904794473743463353010.200.54n.a.0.320.110.120.110.200.400.07Europe0%1%0%3%83%1%13%83%12%83%North America1%1%0%1%11%1%72%13%86%11%Asia99%98%100%96%4%98%14%4%2%4%ROW0%0%0%0%2%0%1%0%0%2%4.243.984.994.374.064.464.546.004.944.043.504.012.772.951.213.281.563.340.911.1726%35%55%37%18%20%19%23%86%13%Average family size (2006)Average member of fw citations (2006)Patent Intensity per million R&DShare of KETs filings in transnational filingsInventor locationCompany NameCountryR&D expeditures (in millions)EmployeesTransnational patent filings 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
observed in the  case of Sharp. It  should be  kept  in mind however that information on 
the  exact  amount  of  R&D  expenditure  on  KETs  is  not  available.  Thus,  KET  patent 
intensity  gives  only  a  rough  idea  of  the  amount  spent  on  KET  filings  per  million  total 
R&D expenditures  and should be  considered together with figures  for KET filings as a 
proportion  of  total  filings.  The  highest  average  number  of  forward  citations  can  be 
found for Sharp, Panasonic and Philips. Thus, the two largest KET applicants also score 
highly in terms of quality of the patent portfolio, as measured by citations received from 
subsequent patents. Philips, however, has the largest average family size, i.e. the KETs 
patent portfolio of Philips is broadest in terms of markets covered. 

Table 4 Profiles of the top 10 EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard companies (2013 edition) by KETs transnational 
patent filings in 2000. 

Table 4 shows the profiles of the patent portfolios of the top ten Scoreboard companies 
(edition  2013)  by  total  transnational  patents  in  KETs  in  2000.  Philips,  Panasonic  and 
Applied Materials appear in both lists. In the case of Panasonic KETs related filings as a 
proportion  of  total  filings  has  increased  since  2000.  This  however  is  not  the  case  for 
Philips  and  Applied  Materials  where  the  KET-related  patents  as  a  proportion  of  total 
patents  has  remained  constant  and  slightly  decreased  in  2011  compared  to  2000 
respectively. 

Table 5 Profiles of the top10 EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard companies by AMT transnational patent filings in 
2011. Patent intensity, average family size and forward citations derived from AMT patents only are shown 
(Neuhäusler, 2015). 

In  Table  5  the  profiles  of  the  Top  10  performers  in  terms  of  AMT  filings  at  the 
transnational level in 2011 are presented. The leading technology company in terms of 
AMT  filings  is  Siemens  with  311  AMT-related  transnational  filings  in  2011.  General 
Electric and Robert Bosch rank second and third with 204 and 165 filings, respectively. 

12 

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIESPHILIPSAPPLIED MATERIALSPANASONIC3MBASFBAYERCORNINGSONYDOW CHEMICALDENLUSJPUSDEDEUSJPUS561427425416354327310304280260Europe79%89%89%3%5%84%72%13%5%20%North America19%5%5%4%88%13%26%77%1%74%Asia1%4%4%93%1%2%2%6%4%3%ROW1%2%2%0%6%1%0%1%90%3%56%23%90%22%59%6%29%77%17%60%3%3%5%4%3%12%1%2%3%0%Company NameCountryTransnational KETs patent filingsShare of KETs filings in transnational filingsShare of AMT filings in transnational filingsInventor locationSIEMENSGENERAL ELECTRICROBERT BOSCHMITSUBISHI ELECTRICHITACHIABBYASKAWA ELECTRICTOYOTA MOTORPANASONICHOENEYWELLDEUSDEJPJPCHJPJPJPUS42783487424213663612109591682945561364402000301000302519117314323540133600824632590533076713200031120416511510390797472650.070.060.040.080.030.080.870.010.020.05Europe86%11%78%3%2%59%0%0%0%5%North America12%73%16%8%4%7%0%0%3%95%Asia2%14%3%89%94%11%100%99%97%0%ROW0%1%2%0%0%24%0%1%0%0%4.154.974.084.683.924.754.335.144.613.351.161.581.121.432.111.462.252.443.150.6411%10%7%10%5%12%53%4%2%12%Average family size (2006)Average member of fw citations (2006)Patent Intensity per million R&DShare of AMT filings in transnational filingsInventor locationCompany NameCountryR&D expeditures (in millions)EmployeesTransnational patent filings 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The most highly cited AMT patent portfolios among the top 10 AMT firms are those of 
Panasonic,  Toyota  Motor  and  Yaskawa  Electric,  with  Toyota  Motor also  the  company 
with the highest average patent family size. AMT filings as a proportion of total filings 
are  highest  for  Yaskawa  Electric  at  53  %.  This  result  is  corroborated  by  the  patent 
intensity  in  AMTs  of  Yaskawa  Electric,  which  is  by  far  largest  among  the  firms  under 
comparison.  With  regard  to  the  inventor  locations,  we  once  again  find  that  the  R&D 
activities  of  ABB,  Siemens,  General  Electric  and  Robert  Bosch  are  relatively  widely 
scattered across the globe. It should be borne in mind once again that patent intensities 
are calculated from total R&D expenditure since it is not possible to determine the part 
of the investment that is targeted to AMTs. 

Table 6 Profiles of the top 10 EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard companies (2013 edition) by AMT transnational 
patent filings in 2000. 

In  Table  6  the  profiles  of  the  patent  portfolios  of  the  top  ten  companies  by  total 
transnational  patents  in  AMT  in  the  year  2000  are  presented.  Seven  companies 
(Siemens,  Robert  Bosch,  General  Electric,  Hitachi,  Panasonic,  ABB  and  Honeywell) 
appear in both lists. 

Table 7 presents the 10 top-performing companies in terms of filings of AMT and KET-
related patents each year between 2001 and 2010 in columns 1 and 2 respectively. The 
third  column  of  Table  7  shows  the  top  10  performers  in  filing  transnational  patent 
applications  every  year  over  the  same  period.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  list  of 
companies which hold the lion’s share of AMT and KET filings is limited. In the case of 
AMT filings, Siemens and Robert Bosch from Germany, General Electric and Honeywell 
from  the  USA,  Hitachi  and  Panasonic  from  Japan  and  finally  ABB  from  Switzerland 
appear in the top- 10 list in every year between 2001 and 2010. Hitachi and Panasonic 
from Japan also perform quite well in terms of KET-related filings. The list of companies 
which  have  filed  extensively  in  KETs  during  this  period  also  includes  Philips, Fujifilm, 
Sharp, Konica Minolta, BASF, 3M, Infineon Technologies and LG. Unsurprisingly, most of 
these companies also appear in the final column of the table, which shows the 10 top-
performing  companies  in  transnational  filings  during  the  period  between  2001  and 
2010. This is linked to the initial observations that AMTs and to a lesser extent KETs are 
being  developed  mainly  by  large  companies  that  are  included  in  the  Scoreboard  and 
possess  the  resources  which  are  necessary  for  the  development  of  this  type  of 
technology.  However,  one  should  interpret  these  results  cautiously  because  as 
previously  stated  the  study  is  based  on  the  2013  edition  of  the  EU  Industrial  R&D 

13 

SIEMENSROBERT BOSCHGENERAL ELECTRICHITACHIPANASONICMITSUBISHI ELECTRICABBHONEYWELLHONDA MOTORSONYDEDEUSJPJPJPCHUSJPJP2001909074727169635654Europe90%90%2%0%3%4%75%10%2%4%North America5%7%98%3%2%1%10%87%3%2%Asia0%0%0%97%95%95%0%2%95%92%ROW5%3%0%0%0%0%15%1%0%2%9%9%20%25%22%11%15%32%6%17%10%12%9%9%4%10%17%13%13%3%Company NameCountryTransnational AMT patent filingsShare of KETs filings in transnational filingsShare of AMT filings in transnational filingsInventor location 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scoreboard and there might be companies which were among the top R&D performers 
in  the  past  but  no  longer  appear  in  the  Scoreboard.  As  a  result  these  companies  are 
excluded from our analyses.  

There  is  also  evidence  derived  from  patent  intensity  and  R&D  expenditure  data  that 
innovating in these technological fields has become more and more expensive over the 
years.  The average patent intensity per million R&D for the Scoreboard companies was 
0.36 patents per million in 2011 a decrease since 2004 (Neuhäusler, 2015). This trend is 
surprising  because  during  the  1990s  patent  intensities  were  growing  fast  (Blind  et  al. 
2006).  Since  the  total  number  of  patents  increases  over  time  this  could  be  due  to  an 
increase  in  R&D  complexity  and  cost  or  due  to  an  overall  structural  change  towards 
more R&D intensive or more expensive research fields.  

14 

 
 
 
Table 7 Rankings of companies by number of KET, AMT and total transnational patents from 2001-2010. 

15 

year2010SIEMENS278PANASONIC1002ZTE33722010ROBERT BOSCH138SHARP972PANASONIC31632010GENERAL ELECTRIC115FUJIFILM574SIEMENS22982010HITACHI85HITACHI551HITACHI21042010PANASONIC83LG525SHARP19712010MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC82SUMITOMO CHEMICAL475ROBERT BOSCH19622010ABB70KONICA MINOLTA419SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS18322010MITSUBISHI HEAVY69APPLIED MATERIALS367TOYOTA MOTOR17952010ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS61DOW CHEMICAL363LG ELECTRONICS17282010HONEYWELL59PHILIPS351QUALCOMM16042009SIEMENS260SHARP803ZTE28042009ROBERT BOSCH159PANASONIC738PANASONIC27712009GENERAL ELECTRIC105FUJIFILM475ROBERT BOSCH19772009ABB83PHILIPS434SIEMENS19382009PANASONIC80SUMITOMO CHEMICAL376QUALCOMM17842009HITACHI63HITACHI367LG ELECTRONICS17472009MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC61DUPONT359SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS16342009HONEYWELL61BASF354HUAWEI16212009CONTINENTAL61LG352PHILIPS16012009TOYOTA MOTOR56KONICA MINOLTA351SHARP15832008SIEMENS291PANASONIC530PANASONIC23322008ROBERT BOSCH181SHARP498SIEMENS20392008GENERAL ELECTRIC96APPLIED MATERIALS454ROBERT BOSCH19142008HONEYWELL94PHILIPS395HUAWEI17552008ABB91FUJIFILM391QUALCOMM17202008CONTINENTAL84SUMITOMO CHEMICAL389PHILIPS17162008EADS58BASF352ERICSSON14922008PANASONIC56KONICA MINOLTA320LG ELECTRONICS14872008MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC47DUPONT315NEC14292008UNITED TECHNOLOGIES473M312SONY14102007SIEMENS273KONICA MINOLTA428PANASONIC21942007ROBERT BOSCH200PHILIPS427SIEMENS21362007CONTINENTAL116PANASONIC410HUAWEI20532007HONEYWELL94SHARP388ROBERT BOSCH19782007ABB83FUJIFILM360SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS18532007GENERAL ELECTRIC78DUPONT335FUJITSU17652007TOYOTA MOTOR75SUMITOMO CHEMICAL328PHILIPS17422007UNITED TECHNOLOGIES68BASF311TOYOTA MOTOR16792007FANUC68NEC307LG ELECTRONICS16012007FUJITSU64APPLIED MATERIALS305SONY15152006SIEMENS276PHILIPS493SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS24862006ROBERT BOSCH147PANASONIC435SIEMENS24422006ABB134TOKYO ELECTRON390PANASONIC22882006HONEYWELL122KONICA MINOLTA367PHILIPS20142006GENERAL ELECTRIC74SHARP312HUAWEI17082006FANUC74DUPONT309ROBERT BOSCH16612006UNITED TECHNOLOGIES64SIEMENS305FUJITSU15602006PANASONIC59FUJIFILM295NOKIA14742006FUJITSU57CORNING292TOYOTA MOTOR14582006HITACHI56BASF276LG ELECTRONICS13702005SIEMENS268PHILIPS522PHILIPS26742005HONEYWELL147FUJIFILM512PANASONIC26732005ROBERT BOSCH134PANASONIC454SIEMENS25442005FANUC97BASF359SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS21362005TOYOTA MOTOR83TOKYO ELECTRON299ROBERT BOSCH15862005ABB753M298LG ELECTRONICS14822005PANASONIC73KONICA MINOLTA283SONY12672005GENERAL ELECTRIC72GENERAL ELECTRIC282FUJITSU12512005HONDA MOTOR72FUJITSU281BASF12052005EADS58DUPONT272TOYOTA MOTOR11922004SIEMENS267PHILIPS665PHILIPS30112004ROBERT BOSCH133PANASONIC473PANASONIC28852004FANUC121DUPONT417SIEMENS24172004HONEYWELL99FUJIFILM304SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS20622004PANASONIC94BASF266ROBERT BOSCH14912004HONDA MOTOR91EASTMAN KODAK266SONY14292004UNITED TECHNOLOGIES723M253LG ELECTRONICS13332004PHILIPS69TOKYO ELECTRON244NOKIA11312004EADS66HITACHI232JOHNSON & JOHNSON10112004ABB62APPLIED MATERIALS231BASF9932003SIEMENS236PHILIPS569PHILIPS28732003FANUC115PANASONIC531PANASONIC25292003ROBERT BOSCH104DUPONT384SIEMENS22012003PANASONIC1013M373SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS16702003HONEYWELL96CANON342SONY15402003GENERAL ELECTRIC70INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES293ROBERT BOSCH12312003HONDA MOTOR68FUJITSU288FUJITSU12092003ABB64HITACHI285NOKIA9702003HITACHI53SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS283HITACHI9512003PHILIPS52EASTMAN KODAK282LG ELECTRONICS9412002SIEMENS203PHILIPS636PHILIPS29642002ROBERT BOSCH112PANASONIC410PANASONIC20322002HONEYWELL70CANON377SIEMENS20262002HONDA MOTOR67INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES370SONY13652002PHILIPS65DUPONT341ROBERT BOSCH13352002PANASONIC59BASF317SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS11362002GENERAL ELECTRIC59TOKYO ELECTRON307FUJITSU10202002DELPHI57EASTMAN KODAK306NOKIA9832002ABB563M304BAYER9482002FANUC55SONY291BASF9422001SIEMENS248PHILIPS553PHILIPS26902001ROBERT BOSCH1503M416SIEMENS22252001PHILIPS78INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES394PANASONIC17082001HITACHI74PANASONIC372ROBERT BOSCH16422001HONDA MOTOR73CORNING310SONY13692001HONEYWELL68BASF302NOKIA10792001PANASONIC66APPLIED MATERIALS293BAYER10652001ABB61CANON293ERICSSON9712001MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC59SONY284BASF9632001GENERAL ELECTRIC52TOKYO ELECTRON279ALCATEL-LUCENT876Top 10 companies by AMT filingsTop 10 companies by KETs filingsTop 10 companies by total filings 
 
 
Figure 6 KETs patent filings by sectors (ICB 3-digit), from firms in the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard (edition 
2013) between 2000-2012 

Most of the KETs patents that have been filed by Scoreboard companies between 2000 
and 2012 were filed by companies in the Technology Hardware & Equipment sector, in 
the Chemicals sector and in the Electronics and Electrical Equipment sector, followed by 
General  Industrialists  as  shown  in  Figure  6  where  classification  to  sectors  has  been 
based on the ICB classification scheme at the three digit level. Differentiating the ICB at 
the 4-digit level shows that the largest share on total patent filings  between 2000 and 
2012  comes  from  companies  in  the  Chemicals  sector  followed  by  companies  in  the 
Electronic Equipment and in the Semiconductors sectors (Figure 7).  

Figure 7 KETs patent filings by sectors (ICB 4-digit), from firms in the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard (edition 
2013) between 2000-2012 

In  the  case  of  the  AMT  related  patent  filings  over  the  same  period  it  is  observed  that 
companies from the subsectors Electronic & Electrical Equipment, Automobiles & Parts 
and Industrial Engineering and General Industrials are responsible for more than 50 % 
of the total filings (Figure 8). 

Finally  in  Figure  9  the  classification  of  AMT  related  patents  that  were  filed  by 
Scoreboard  companies  over  the  period  between  2000  and  2012  based  on  the  ICB 
classification  scheme  at  the  4  digit  level  is  presented.  The  lion  share  of  filings  at  this 
level comes from companies in the Automobiles and Parts subsector. The contribution 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
of  companies  from  the  Industrial  Machinery,  Electrical  Components  &  Equipment, 
Electronic Equipment and General Industrials subsectors is significant. 

Figure 8 AMT patent filings by sectors (ICB 3-digit), from firms in the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard (edition 
2013) between 2000-2012 

Figure 9 AMT patent filings by sectors (ICB 4-digit), from firms in the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard (edition 
2013) between 2000-2012 

In Table 8 the lists of the top ten performing Scoreboard companies within the specific 
exemplary technologies  (Imaging physics, digital communications, agro food, fuel cells 
and  electric  motors)  are  presented.  These  technologies  are  linked  to  KETs  and  AMT 
applications and it is thus not surprising that companies which excel in filing patents in 
these technologies are companies which appear in the top ten lists in Table 7 as well.  

Table 8 Top 10 companies in transnational patents within the specific technologies between 2000-2012. 

Finally  a  number  of  econometrics  models  and  regressions  have  been  performed  by 
Fraunhofer ISI (Neuhäusler, 2015) in order to assess the effect of various parameters on 

17 

CompanypatentsCompanypatentsCompanypatentsCompanypatentsCompanypatents1PANASONIC4608HUAWEI6036BASF609TOYOTA MOTOR740ROBERT BOSCH9922SONY4586ERICSSON5445DUPONT512PANASONIC368SIEMENS9243SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS3652NOKIA5201BAYER417HONDA MOTOR301MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC3824PHILIPS3080ALCATEL-LUCENT4919MONSANTO341NISSAN MOTOR293TOYOTA MOTOR3285TECHNICOLOR2698QUALCOMM4343SYNGENTA224UNITED TECHNOLOGIES257HITACHI3226CANON2246ZTE3672ROCHE167TOSHIBA154GENERAL ELECTRIC2847LG ELECTRONICS2051SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS3282DOW CHEMICAL139GENERAL MOTORS140PANASONIC2588SHARP1820SIEMENS2925MERCK US136SIEMENS121VALEO2579EASTMAN KODAK1013PANASONIC2833PFIZER133SONY117LG ELECTRONICS18710FUJIFILM964LG ELECTRONICS2149GLAXOSMITHKLINE126SAMSUNG SDI110ALSTOM183Imaging PhysicsDigital CommunicationsAgro FoodFuell CellElectric Motors 
 
 
 
 
 
 
patent intensity.  Besides including the amount of R&D expenditures and the number of 
transnational filings as control variables, we  are interested in finding out whether the 
sizes of the firms, as measured by the number of employees, as well as their operating 
profits, influence the patent intensity. Controlling for sector and country specific effects, 
a  significantly negative coefficient  for the  firm size  variable was  found, indicating that 
larger  firms  have  lower  patent  intensities  than  smaller  ones.  All  else  equal,  operating 
profit, on the other hand, does not exert a significant influence on patent intensity. For 
the sector variable, it can be found that patent intensities are higher in industry than in 
the service sector, which is as expected. Among the country groups in comparison, it can 
be  found  that  patent  intensities  are  highest  in  European  firms,  followed  by  North 
America, Asia and the rest of the world. 

4.  Conclusions 

In  this  report  the  first  results  of  the  project  on  Advanced  Manufacturing  for 
competitiveness are summarised. The aim of the project was to link R&D expenditures 
to  patent-related  indicators  in  order  to  be  able  to  assess  the  competitiveness  and 
productivity of the largest R&D performers in developing AMTs and KETs. 

The  companies  listed  in  the  2013  edition  of  the  EU  Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard  were 
responsible  for  more  than  half of the  KET  and  AMT  related transnational patents  that 
have  been  filed  in 2011.  The  Scoreboard  firms are the  top R&D investors in the  world 
although  they  represent  only  2  %  of  all  patent  applicants  in  2011,  and  thus  hold  a 
dominant position in KETs and AMTs filings. The absolute numbers of patent filings in 
KETs and AMTs have increased over time but the KETs’ and AMTs’ shares of total filings 
have  decreased,  implying  that  growth  of  KET  and  AMT  filings  over  the  period  2000-
2011 was below average. This trend also holds true for the firms that are listed in the 
Scoreboard  their  contribution  however  in  total  transnational  patents  and  in  KET  and 
AMT related filings becomes more important over time. 

European  companies  hold  almost  50  %  of  the  AMT  related  patent  filings,  and  about 
50 %  of  these  come  from  Germany-based  companies.  Japan-based  companies  are 
responsible for 27 % of AMT filings worldwide and US companies for about 24 % of all 
transnational  AMT  patents.  In  the  case  of  KETs,  it  is  Japan  and  Asia  in  general  that 
clearly  dominate  the  scene,  followed  by  Europe  and  the  USA.  Over  the  period  under 
study  companies  based  in  Asia,  especially  in  Japan,  have  increased  their  share  in  KET 
related  filings  from  38  %  in  2000  to  59  %  in  2011  and  in  transnational  patent  filings 
from  30  %  in  2000  to  44  %  in  2011.  In  this  case,  the  technological  contribution  of 
Europe is more widespread, with Germany again leading, but more closely followed by 
France, the UK and the Netherlands.  

Another  useful  indicator  in  addition  to  the  absolute  number  of  filings  is  the  patent 
intensity  which  is  defined  as  the  number  of  filings  per  million  R&D  expenditures. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Average patent intensity has decreased since 2004 and this is also the case for KETs and 
AMTs, showing that R&D expenditures  have  grown  faster than  patent  filings  over this 
period.  Larger  firms  have  lower  patent  intensities  than  smaller  ones  and  the  patent 
intensity  is  higher  in  industry  than  in  the  service  sector.  European  firms  have  the 
highest patent intensities followed by North American companies, Asian companies and 
companies  from  the  rest  of  the  world.  R&D  expenditures  and  patent  filings  are 
significantly positively correlated with the number of employees. A positive correlation 
with  the  number  of  employees  is  also  found  for  firms  which  have  filed  AMT  patents. 
This  implies  that  larger  firms  are  filing  more  AMT-related  patents  than  smaller  ones. 
With  regard  to  employment  growth,  however,  we  find  no  significant  effect  of  KET  or 
AMT filings.  

We  further  attempted  to  distinguish  KET  and  AMT  filings  by  economic  sectors.  The 
highest  proportions  of  KET-related  filings  can  be  found  in  the  Electronic & Electrical 
Equipment and Chemicals sectors. Firms  in  the  Electronic & Electrical Equipment sector 
are also responsible for the largest proportions of AMT filings. However, the Industrial 
Engineering sector  also  accounts  for  a  high  proportion,  followed  by  the  Automobiles & 
Parts and General Industrials sectors.  

Finally,  the  study  has  provided  analyses  of  patent  filings  of  firms  listed  in  the  EU 
Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard  in  specific  technology  fields  that  are  related  to  KETs  and 
AMTs.  Among  the  technologies  in  the  comparison,  Digital Information Transmission is 
the  largest  technology  with  40805  transnational  filings  in  total  from  2000  to  2011, 
followed  by  Imaging Physics and  Electric Motors.  The  two  smallest  technologies  within 
this  comparison  are  Fuel Cells and  Agro-food with  less than 3000  patents  in  total  from 
2000 to 2011.  

Based on these findings it is evident that European companies do invest in KETs and in 
particular  in  AMTs,  because  it  seems  that  these  technologies  are  considered  vital  for 
maintaining  current  competitiveness.  Other  countries,  however,  and  especially  Japan, 
also  invest  heavily  in  KETs  and  are  able  to  rely  on  long-lasting  experiences  and 
specialization  advantages  emerging  out  of  economies  of  scale  and  of  scope,  so  that 
catching-up  or even  keeping track is  an  enormous effort.  For policy makers in Europe 
these findings have two important implications. First, efforts to keep up with Japanese 
companies  should  not  be  reduced.  And  second,  a  strategy  aiming  at  finding  a  suitable 
position  in  global  value-  and  innovation  chains  and  selectively  augmenting  existing 
capabilities might be more appropriate than attempting to attain a general technological 
leading position in all KETs. Europe’s dominance in AMTs is such a strength that could 
be extended. The considerable concentration of AMT capabilities in Germany and a few 
other large countries in Europe offers the economies of scale and scope that are not yet 
present to the same extent for the rest of the other KETs. A broadening of the basis as 
well as network effects within Europe might be a worthwhile goal to strive for.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
References 

Albert  M.B.,  Avery  D.,  Narin  F.  and  McAllister  P.  (1991):  Direct  validation  of  citation 
counts  as  indicators  of  industrially  important  patents.  Research Policy,  20,  251-
259.  

Baeza-Yates R. and Ribeiro-Neto B. (2011): Modern Information Retrieval - The concepts 

and technology behind: Pearson Education Limited.  

Blind  K.,  Cremers  K.  and  Mueller  E.  (2009):  The  Influence  of  Strategic  Patenting  on 

Companies' Patent Portfolios. Research Policy, 38, 428-436.  

Blind  K.,  Edler,  J.,  Frietsch  R.  and  Schmoch  U.  (2006):  Motives  to  patent:  Empirical 

evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35, 655-672.  

Carpenter M.P., Narin F. and Woolf P. (1981): Citation rates to technologically important 

patents. World Patent Information, 3, 160-163.  

Du Plessis M., Van Looy B., Song X. and Magerman T. (2009):  Data Production Methods 
for  Harmonized  Patent  Indicators:  Assignee  sector  allocation  (EUROSTAT 
Working Paper and Studies). Luxembourg.  

Freeman C. (1982): The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London: Pinter Publishers.  
Frietsch R. (2007): Patente in Europa und der Triade - Strukturen und deren Veränderung 
9-2007).  Berlin: 

Innovationssystem  No. 

(Studien 
deutschen 
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.  

zum 

Frietsch  R.  and  Schmoch  U.  (2010):  Transnational  Patents  and  International  Markets. 

Scientometrics, 82, 185-200.  

Grupp H. (1998): Foundations of the Economics of Innovation - Theory, Measurement and 

Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 

IDEA  Consult,  ZEW,  TNO,  CEA  (2012):  Feasibility  study  for  an  EU  Monitoring 
Mechanism on Key Enabling Technologies: Report for the European Commission, 
DG Enterprise and Industry.  

Magerman T., Grouwels J., Song X. and Van Looy B. (2009): Data Production Methods for 
Harmonized  Patent  Indicators:  Patentee  Name  Harmonization  (EUROSTAT 
Working Paper and Studies). Luxembourg.  

Martinez  C.  (2011):  Patent  families:  When  do  different  definitions  really  matter? 

Scientometrics, 86, 39-63.  

Narin F., Noma, E. and Perry R. (1987): Patents as indicators of corporate technological 

strength. Research Policy, 16, 143-155.  

Neuhäusler P., Frietsch R. and Rothengatter O. (2014):  Patent Applications - Structures, 
Trends  and  Recent  Developments  2013.  Berlin:  Expertenkommission  Forschung 
und Innova-tion (EFI).  

Neuhäusler P., Frietsch R., Bethke N., Mund C. (2015): Assessing companies’ capability to 
develop  advanced  manufacturing  technologies  in  selected  industrial  sectors. 
JRC/SVQ/2014/J.2/0009/NC, Final Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and 
Innovation Research ISI 

Peeters  B.,  Song  X.,  Callaert  J.,  Grouwels  J.  and  Van  Looy  B.  (2009):  Harmonizing 
harmonized  patentee  names:  an  exploratory  assessment  of  top  patentees 
(EUROSTAT Working Paper and Studies). Luxembourg.  

Putnam J. (1996): The value of international patent rights. Yale: Yale University.  
Raffo  J.  and  Lhuillery  S.  (2009):  'How  to  play  the  "Names  Game":  Patent  retrieval 

comparing different heuristics. Research Policy, 38, 1617-1627.  

20 

 
 
 
 
Schmoch  U.,  Grupp  H.,  Mannsbart  W.  and  Schwitalla  B.  (1988):  Technikprognosen mit 

Patentindikatoren. Köln: TÜV Rheinland.  

Trajtenberg  M.  (1990):  A  penny  for  your  quotes:  patent  citations  and  the  value  of 

innovation. Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 172-187.  

Van Rijsbergen C.J. (1979): Information Retrieval. London, Boston: Butterworths.  
WIPO  (2006):  International Patent Classification: Core Level,  Eighth  Edition,  Volume  5: 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  

Witten  I.H.  and  Eibe  F.  (2014):  Data  Mining.  Practical  Machine  Learning  Tools  and 

Techniques. San Diego, Los Angeles: Elsevier Science & Technology Books. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Annex I 

In this annex the data used for the study are described. Company-specific data such as 
employment  and  R&D  expenditure  come  from  the  EU  Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard, 
whereas  patent  data  are  based  on  the  "EPO  Worldwide  Patent  Statistical  Database" 
(PATSTAT).  The  matching  procedure  which  is  necessary  for  linking  the  PATSTAT 
entries with the Scoreboard companies is briefly presented.  

PATSTAT 

PATSTAT  is  a  relational  database  which  is  updated  twice  a  year  and  contains 
information about published patents from 83 patent authorities worldwide, dating back 
to  the  late  19th  century.  All  information  that  is  provided  on  a  patent  application  is 
included  in  the  corresponding  PATSTAT  entry.  Within  the  original  version  of  the 
database,  the  names  of  the  applicants  are  in  a  "raw  format"  taken  directly  from  the 
patent application, which means that several variants of the same name may exist. The 
names  may  also  contain  special  characters,  abbreviations,  legal  forms,  and  spelling 
mistakes.  The  automated  harmonization  of  all  applicant  names  occurring  in  PATSTAT 
developed by the K.U. Leuven solves this problem (Du Plessis et al. 2009, Magerman T. 
et  al.  2009,  Peeters  B.  et  al.  2009).  The  process  of  name  harmonization  includes 
cleaning-up of special characters (HTML code, accents, etc.) and punctuation , cleaning-
up  of  legal  forms  (e.g.  Inc.,  Ltd.,  GmbH),  harmonisation  of  additional  enterprise 
information  ("COMPANY",  "CORP",  "CORPORATION"),  harmonisation  of  spelling 
variants  ("SYSTEM",  "SYSTEMS",  "SYSTEMES"),  condensation  of  irrelevant  characters 
("3  COM",  "3COM")  and  umlaut  harmonization  (see  Annex  III  for  more  details).  This 
means  that  patents  can  be  more  exactly  assigned  as  belonging  to  a  specific  patent 
applicant, which minimizes classification errors to a large extent.  

The patents in this analysis are counted according to their year of worldwide first filing, 
commonly known as the priority year, which is closest to the date of invention. In order 
to overcome the home  advantage of domestic applicants,  all applications that are filed 
according to the patent cooperation treaty (PCT), whether or not they were transferred 
to the European Patent Office (EPO), are counted along with all applications which are 
directly filed at EPO without a precursor PCT application, as suggested by Frietsch and 
Schmoch  (2010).  The  data  from  the  PATSTAT  database  were  matched  at  the  level  of 
patent  applicants  in  the  harmonized  version  with  data  from  the  EU  Industrial  R&D 
Scoreboard at the level of individual companies (including subsidiaries).  

The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard  

The  EU  Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard  (the  Scoreboard)  is  part  of  the  European 
Commission’s  monitoring  activities  to  improve  the  understanding  of  trends  in  R&D 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
investment by the private sector and the factors affecting it. It was created in response 
to the Commission’s Research Investment Action Plan which aims to help close the gap 
between the EU’s R&D investment and that of other developed economies. The annual 
publication of the Scoreboard is intended to raise awareness of the importance of R&D 
for  businesses  and  to  encourage  firms  to  disclose  information  about  their  R&D 
investments and other intangible assets.  

The  data  for  the  Scoreboard  are  taken  from  the  publicly  available  audited  accounts  of 
the companies. As in more than 99% of cases these accounts do not include information 
about  where  R&D  is  actually  performed,  the  whole  R&D  investment  of  Scoreboard 
companies is attributed to the country in which that company has its registered office. 
The  Scoreboard data  are  primarily  of  interest  to  those  concerned  with  benchmarking 
company commitments and performance (e.g. companies, investors and policymakers).  

The scope of the Scoreboard is gradually being improved, by increasing the geographic 
and time coverage and the number of companies. The target is to cover the world's top 
2500  R&D  investors  so  that  more  fast-growing  middle-sized  companies  can  be 
captured, particularly those in key sectors such as health and the ICT-related industries. 
Thus  far,  the  total  R&D  investment  of  companies  included  in  the  Scoreboard  is 
equivalent  to  almost  90%  of  the  total  expenditure  on  R&D  by  businesses  worldwide. 
The 2013 edition  of the  Scoreboard includes  the  2000 companies investing the  largest 
sums  in  R&D  in  the  world  while  maintaining  an  EU  focus  by  complementing  this 
coverage including the top 1000 R&D investing companies based in the EU.  

The Scoreboard collects key information to enable the R&D and economic performance 
of  companies  to  be  assessed.  The  main  indicators,  namely  R&D  investment,  net  sales, 
capital expenditures, operating profits and number of employees are collected following 
the same methodologies, definitions and assumptions as applied in previous years. This 
ensures  comparability  so  that  the  companies'  economic  and  financial  data  can  be 
analysed over a longer period of time.   For the second consecutive year, data are now 
being collected (by Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing GmbH) following basically the 
same approach and methodology applied since the first edition of the Scoreboard.  

In  the  2013  edition  of  the  Scoreboard,  companies'  R&D  rankings  are  based  on 
information taken from their latest published accounts. In the case of most companies, 
this corresponds to calendar year 2012, but in a significant proportion of companies the 
financial year ended on 31 March 2013. In few of the included companies included the 
financial years end as late as the end of June 2013 and a in a few cases only accounts to 
end- 2011 were available. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
KETs and AMTs related International Patent Classification codes 

Annex II 

The  IPC  is  a  hierarchical  classification  system  used  primarily  to  classify  and  search 
patent  documents  according  to  the  technical  fields  they  pertain.  The  classification 
scheme  contains  about  70000  entries  identified  by  classification  symbols  (IPC  codes) 
that  can  be  allotted  to  patent  documents.  These  different  classification  places  are 
arranged in a tree-like, hierarchical structure. The IPC is updated annually and revised 
every  three  years  to  capture  technological  changes  more  effectively.  Existing  data  are 
adjusted to the current version of the IPC (WIPO 2006, Frietsch 2007). 

For consistency with existing figures for patents relating to KETs and AMTs, we resort 
to the most recent definition of KETs that has been developed by the KETs Observatory, 
in which AMTs is a subfield of KETs (IDEA Consult et al. 2012). The definition is based 
on the (IPC).  

Micro Nano electronics 

Photonics 

Industrial Biotechnology 

Advanced Materials 

Nanotechnology 
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies 

G01R 31/26, G01R 31/27 , G01R 31/28 , G01R 31/303 , G01R 31/304, G01R 31/317, 
G01R 31/327, G09G 3/14, G09G 3/32, H01F 1/40, H01F 10/193, H01G 9/028, H01G 
9/032, H01H 47/32, H01H 57, H015K 3, H01L,  H03B 5/32, H03C 3/22, H03F 3/04, 
H03F 3/06, H03F 3/08, H03F 3/10, H03F 3/12, H03F 3/14, H03F 3/16, H03F 3/183, 
H03F 3/21, H03F 3/343, H03F 3/387, H03F 3/55, H03K 17/72, H05K 1, H05K 3 
F21K,  F21V,  F21Y,  G01D  5/26,  G01D  5/58,  G01D  15/14,  G01G  23/32,  G01J,  G01L 
1/24, G01L 3/08, G01L 11/02, G01L 23/06, G01M 11, G01P 3/36, G01P 3/38, G01P 
3/68, G01P 5/26, G01Q 20/02, G01Q 30/02, G01Q 60/06, G01Q 60/18, G01R 15/22, 
G01R  15/24,  G01R  23/17,  G01R  31/308,  G01R  33/032,  G01R  33/26,  G01S  7/481, 
G01V  8,  G02B  5,  G02B  6,  G02B  13/14,  G03B  42,  G03G  21/08,  G06E,  G06F  3/042, 
G06K 9/58, G06K 9/74, G06N 3/067, G08B 13/186, G08C 19/36, G08C 23/04, G08C 
23/06,  G08G  1/04, G11B  7/12,  G11B 7/125, G11B 7/13,  G11B  7/135,  G11B 11/03, 
G11B 11/12, G11B 11/18, G11C 11/42, G11C 13/04, G11C 19/30, H01J 3, H01J 5/16, 
H01J  29/46,  H01J  29/82,  H01J  29/89,  H01J  31/50,  H01J  37/04,  H01J  37/05,  H01J 
49/04,  H01J  49/06,  H01L  31/052,  H01L  31/055,  H01L  31/10,  H01L  33/06,  H01L 
33/08, H01L 33/10, H01L 33/18, H01L 51/50, H01L 51/52, H01S 3, H01S 5, H02N 6, 
H05B 33, except for co occurence with G02B 61, G02B 63, G02B 66/36, G02B 66/38, 
G02B 66/40, G02B 66/44, G02B 66/46   
C02F 3/34, C07C 29, C07D 475, C07K 2, C08B 3, C08B 7, C08H 1, C08L 89, C09D 11, 
C09D 189, C09J 189, C12M, C12P, C12Q, C12S, G01N 27/327 except for co-occurrence 
with A01, A61, C07K 14/435, C07K 14/47, C07K 14/705, C07K 16/18, C07K 16/28, 
C12N  15/09,  C12N  15/11,  C12N  15/12,  C12N 5/10,  C12P 21/08,  C12Q 1/68, G01N 
33/15,  G01N  33/50,  G01N  33/53,  G01N  33/68,  G01N  33/566,  C12N  1/19,  C12N 
1/21, C12N 1/15, C12N 15/00, C12N 15/10, C12P 21/02 
B32B 9, B32B 15, B32B 17, B32B 18, B32B 19, B32B 25, B32B 27, B82Y 30, C01B 31, 
C01D 15, C01D 17, C01F 13, C01F 15, C01F 17, C03C, C04B 35, C08F, C08J 5, C08L, 
C22C, C23C, D21H 17, G02B 1, H01B 3, H01F 1/0, H01F 1/12, H01F 1/34, H01F 1/42, 
H01F 1/44, H01L 51/30, H01L 51/46, H01L 51/54 
B81C, B82B, B82Y 

B03C, B06B 1/6, B06B 3/00, B07C, B23K, B23P, B23Q, B25J, G01D, G01F, G01H, G01L, 
G01M, G01P, G01Q, G05B, G05D, G05F, G05G, G06M, G07C, G06 if co occurence with 
A21C, A22B, A22C, A23N, A24C, A41H, A42C, A43D,  B01F, B02B, B02C, B03B, B03D, 
B05C,  B05D,  B07B, B08B,  B21B, B21D, B21F, B21H,  B21J,  B22C, B23B,  B23C,  B23D, 
B23G,  B24B,  B24C,  B25D,  B26D,  B26F,  B27B,  B27C,  B27F,  B27J,  B28D,  B30B,  B21B, 
B31C, B31D, B31F, B41B, B41C, B41D, B41F, B41G, B41L, B41N, B42B, B42C, B44B, 
B65B, B65C, B65H, B67B, B67C, B68F, C14B, C23C, D01B, D01D, D01G, D01H, D02G, 
D02H, D02J, D03C, D03D, D03J, D04B, D04C, D05B, D05C, D06B, D06G, D06H, D21B, 
D21D,  D21F,  D21G,  E01C,  E02D,  E02F,  E21B,  E21C,  E21D,  E21F,  F04F,  F16N,  F16B, 
G01K, H05H, G08C except for co occurence with G01D 5/12, G05F 1/10, G07C 9/00, 
G01P  3/42,  H01L  21/02,  G05B  19/05,  H05K  3/34,  G01D  5/14,  F02D  45/00,  H01L 
29/66, G05F 1/56, G05F 3/24, G07C 5/00, G05D 1/00, B60T 8/17, G05D 1/02, G01M 
15/04, G01M 17/007, G07C 5/08, F02D 41/14, G05D 1/06, B60R 16/02, B62D 65/00, 
B60T  7/04, G01P  21/00,  B60R 25/00,  B62D 57/00, B60T  8/172,  B60T  7/06, B62D 
57/032, E05B 49/00, G01P 3/489, G05D 1/08 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex III 

In  this  annex  a  short  description  of  the  three  steps  in  the  name-matching  procedure 
(initial  data  cleaning,  calculation  of  similarity  scores  and  the  selection  of  the  matched 
entries) is provided.  

Data cleaning  

In this step both the applicant names from PATSTAT and the company names from the 
EU  Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard  are  cleaned  by  the  same  procedure  to  ascertain 
conformity. All text strings are converted to lowercase letters and umlauts are replaced 
by  the  corresponding  vowel.  Special  characters  are  replaced  by  a  single  space  and  all 
occurrences  of  multiple  spaces  are  replaced  by  a  single  space.  In  that  way,  we  avoid 
incorrect  assemblies  of  words  that  are  separated  only  by  a  special  character, 
particularly those separated by an “&”. 

Next, text strings denoting the legal form of the companies are removed. The list used to 
detect  legal  forms  contains  internationally  applicable  notations  as  well  as  country-
specific  forms.  Thus,  deletion  of  abbreviations  that  might  have  a  legal  meaning  in  one 
country but not in others is avoided. 

Finally, country and city names are removed from the company names if they occur at 
the end of the company name. This is to prevent removal of the name of a country that 
is  an  essential part  of  the  company  name,  for example  as  in  "France  Telecom".  In  this 
step,  the  country  assigned  to  the  company/applicant  is  also  compared  with  the  one 
mentioned in the text string to avoid potential errors. 

Calculation of similarity scores  

For  the  computation  of  the  similarity  scores,  a  variant  of  the  Levenshtein  distance  is 
applied. The Levenshtein distance is obtained from the number of edits needed to align 
two text strings. By dividing by the number of characters in the longer of the two text 
strings  and  subtracting  from  1,  the  resulting  values  of  the  similarity  function  are 
normalised between 0 and 1. The lower the number of edits necessary to align two text 
strings, the higher the similarity between the two.  

 An  entry  in  PATSTAT  is  considered  a  match  to  a  Scoreboard  entry  only  if  a 
predetermined  similarity  threshold  value  "t"  is  exceeded.  In  order  to  determine  this 
threshold a manually matched random set of 100 company names and 100 subsidiary 
names  is  used  as  the  "golden  standard".  Multiple  assignments  of  PATSTAT  to 
Scoreboard entries are allowed. These matches are then stored in a separate table in the 
PATSTAT database for further use. The basic indicators for matching are: 

25 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  Recall  or  true  positive  rate:  the  proportion  of  true  matches  that  have  been 
correctly identified in the total number of positive elements (true positives (TP) 
and false negatives (FN)) = TP/(TP+FN).  

  Precision or positive predictive value: the proportion of true matches that have 
been  correctly  identified  in  the  total  number  of  elements  identified  as  positive 
(true positives and false positives (FP)) = TP/(TP+FP).  

  F-Score: the harmonic mean of recall and precision. Increasing the Recall usually 
leads to reduction in the Precision (Baeza-Yates 2011; Raffo and Lhuillery 2009; 
van Rijsbergen 1979; Witten and Eibe 2014).  For this study the highest F-Score 
corresponds to a threshold value t=0.98.  

Selection of the matched entries  

For the selection of the matched pairs the matching algorithm is run twice. In the first 
step,  the  companies  and  their  subsidiaries  in  both  datasets  are  matched  only  if  they 
share  the  same  country  information.  If  the  country  information  is  not  the  same,  the 
similarity value is set to 0. For companies without country information in one or both 
datasets, the country criterion is not used. 

In  the  second  step,  the  country  criterion  is  excluded  for  all  companies  that  are  not 
assigned  a  corresponding  entry  in  the  first  run.  We  did  this  only  for  the  company 
headquarters, i.e. without subsidiaries, which had not been matched in the first run. The 
second step is to ensure that some potential correct matches are not missed as a result 
of including the country criterion in the first step. This especially applies to companies 
with  branches  in  multiple  countries.  For  example,  Alcoa  Deutschland  located  in 
Germany, would not be matched to the corresponding entry Alcoa Inc., a US-based firm, 
in  the  first  step.  Since  our  aim  was  to  collect  all  patent  filings  for  all  branches  of  a 
company, even if they are spread across the world, as well as its subsidiaries, the second 
run of the algorithm is necessary. Only by including this step can company divisions in 
different  parts  of  the  world  be  matched  to  the  corresponding  Scoreboard  entry,  i.e. 
Alcoa Deutschland is matched to Alcoa Inc., regardless of the country information. 

Of  the  2847  firms  in  the  2013  EU  Industrial  R&D  Scoreboard  (including  subsidiaries), 
2670 could be assigned a corresponding patent applicant in PATSTAT, i.e. 93 % of the 
firms  listed  in  the  Scoreboard  are  covered  by  the  matching.  In  the  first  step  of  the 
matching,  i.e.  including  the  country  criterion,  2432  matches  were  made.  Step  2, 
excluding the country criterion, led to 97 additional matches. With the help of the final 
identified. 
manual 

another  141 

Scoreboard 

searches, 

could 

firms 

be 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 
EUR 27176 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Title: The capability of the EU R&D Scoreboard companies to develop Advanced Manufacturing Technologies 

Author: Petros Gkotsis 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 

2015 – 26 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

ISBN 978-92-79-47226-8 (PDF) 

doi:10.2791/832930 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
F
-
N
A
-
2
7
1
7
6
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2791/832930 

ISBN 978-92-79-47226-8