IPR intensity and industrial dynamics.
Date: 2022-10-03
Institutions: European Union Intellectual Property Office
Subjects: European industrial area, business activity, economic growth, foreign trade, gross domestic product, information analysis, intellectual property, productivity, report

IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

August 2022 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

ISBN 978-92-9156-323-4 DOI 10.2814/99855 TB-07-22-601-EN-N 

© European Union Intellectual Property Office, 2022 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Acknowledgements 

The authors are grateful for comments on the draft report from Yann Ménière, Chief Economist of 

the  European  Patent  Office  and  Rick  Miller,  senior  economist  from  United  States  Patent  and 

Trademark Office. 

 3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 3 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................ 4 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5 

1 

Introduction .......................................................................................... 8 

2  Data and methods ................................................................................ 9 

3  Descriptive analysis of data .............................................................. 10 

3.1  Evolution of IPR filings in recent years ............................................... 10 

3.2  Evolution of industry IPR intensities ................................................... 11 

3.3  Productivity and IPR intensity .............................................................. 17 

3.4  Productivity growth ............................................................................... 22 

3.5  Business demography .......................................................................... 28 

3.6  High-growth firms .................................................................................. 39 

4  Conclusions ........................................................................................ 41 

5  Discussion .......................................................................................... 42 

6  Data limitations and directions for future research ......................... 44 

References ................................................................................................. 46 

List of Figures ............................................................................................ 48 

Glossary ..................................................................................................... 49 

Annexes ..................................................................................................... 50 

 4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Executive Summary 

Since 2013 the EUIPO, through the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property 

Rights, and the European Patent Office (EPO) have been conducting regular assessments of the 

intellectual  property  rights  (IPR)  intensity  of  EU  industries.  Those  studies  have  quantified  the 

contribution of IPR intensive industries in the EU economy in terms of employment, share of GDP 

and the  EU  external trade. The rich  datasets  produced for  those  studies  are  used  in the  present 

report to gain deeper insights into the dynamic evolution of EU industries in recent years, focusing 

on the possible associations between those dynamic changes and IPR intensity. 

These analyses show that the use of IPR is becoming more widespread across the EU economy. 

The ownership of IPR is still highly concentrated within IPR intensive industries, especially in the 

case of patents and designs. However, the share of IPR attributable to non-IPR intensive industries 

has grown between 2004 and 2014. Many industries have grown in IPR intensity, but the intensity 

in non IPR-intensive industries has grown faster than that in in IPR-intensive ones. 

IPR  ownership has  been  traditionally  thought  to  be  concentrated  in the manufacturing  industries. 

Manufacturing is still responsible for a majority of patents and designs filings. However, the share of 

manufacturing in IPR filings has declined in recent years. Although manufacturing is still the biggest 

trade mark filing sector, its share represents only a third of 2010-2014 filings. Trade marks are by far 

the most versatile IPR, widely used across the whole EU economy. 

In  general,  IPR-intensive  industries  are  more  productive  than  non-IPR-intensive  ones.  The 

productivity differences between those two groups of industries are higher in the case of services 

and  trade  sectors  than  in  manufacturing.  Moreover,  with  one  exception  of  design-intensive 

manufacturing  industries,  the  correlation  between  IPR  intensity  and  productivity  is  positive.  The 

negative relationship between intensity of design use and productivity in manufacturing could be an 

indication that design rights may be an especially important form of IP protection in more traditional 

and less productive industries. On the other hand, design-intensive manufacturing industries were 

characterised by the highest productivity growth among all IPR-intensive groupings in manufacturing 

between 2011 and 2017. 

 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The  analysis  of  the  productivity  dynamics  indicates  that  IPR-intensive  industries  increase  their 

productivity  more  rapidly  than  non-IPR  intensive  industries.  The  difference  in  productivity  growth 

rates  between  IPR  non-intensive  and  IPR-intensive  industries  is  however  smaller  than  in  the 

productivity levels. In some industry groupings, such as the manufacturing and trade sectors, the 

productivity increase reflects an increase of value added coupled with a reduction in the number of 

employees.  

Analysis of the business demography data indicates that the firm birth rates are in general lower in 

IPR-intensive industries than in non-IPR intensive ones in the manufacturing sector. On the other 

hand,  IPR-intensive  service  industries  are  characterised  by  a  higher  firm  birth  rate  than  non-IPR 

intensive service industries. Moreover, whereas the correlation rate between firm birth rates and IPR 

intensity is in general weakly positive in service industries, it is negative in the case of manufacturing. 

This  could  indicate  that  there  are  relatively  high  barriers  to  entry  in  IPR-intensive  manufacturing 

sectors.  

These  trends  are  also  evidenced  by  the  generally  positive  net  business  population growth  in the 

service sector, which is higher in the case of IPR-intensive industries than in the non-IPR intensive 

ones.  In  manufacturing,  IPR-intensive  industries  are  characterised  by  negative  net  business 

population growth between 2013 and 2018—that is, the number of firms is declining. It contrasts, 

non-IPR  intensive  manufacturing  industries  have  seen  slightly  positive  rates  of  net  business 

population growth. Survival rates do not seem to be affected by the IPR-intensity of industries to any 

significant degree. 

Finally, the analysis of the rate of emergence of high-growth firms (HGF) leads to the conclusion 

that, between 2014 and 2018, HGF tended to appear more frequently among various groups of IPR-

intensive industries than among non-IPR intensive ones. The rate of HGF emergence was highest 

among the patent-intensive industries in the manufacturing and services sectors. 

The results confirm previous findings from academic research. Firms’ innovation activity has been 

found to be important factor contributing to the increase of productivity. A higher innovation rate also 

increases the chance for exceptional performance. Since higher innovation is associated with higher 

IPR intensity, IPR intensive industries are in general more productive and are characterised by a 

higher share of high-growth firms. 

 6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Recent academic literature also investigates the relationship between intangible assets, including 

IPR, and market concentration. The results reported in the present study indicate that IPR intensity 

may lead to different industry dynamics in manufacturing and services. Higher IPR intensity may be 

associated with lower industry dynamism (i.e., fewer new firms) in the manufacturing sector but may 

signal  higher  industrial  vitality  and  new  market  opportunities  leading  to  higher  entry  rates  in  the 

service sector. Due to data and methodological limitations, those conjectures should be treated as 

preliminary, but they provide interesting perspectives for future research. 

 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

1 

Introduction 

Since 2013 the EUIPO, through the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property 

Rights, and the European Patent Office have conducted three EU-wide studies focusing on the use 

of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the EU economy. 

By combining the information stored in IPR registries with demographic and financial information on 

IPR owners, those studies enabled, for the first time, a deeper analysis of the patterns of IPR usage 

by EU industries. The studies employed a transparent indicator that made it possible to compare 

IPR  intensity  between  different  industries,  namely  the  number  of  filings  per  1 000  employees.  It 

allowed not only the calculation of IPR intensity in narrowly defined sectors of the EU economy, but 

also helped distinguish those industries that use IPR intensively from those that do not. 

The combination of information stored in the IPR registries with demographic data of IPR system 

users and Eurostat statistics made it possible to calculate, for the first time, the contribution that IPR-

intensive  sectors  make  to  the  European  economy.  This  was  done  in  three  successive  studies  in 

2013, 2016 and 2019. These studies are referred to as ‘industry-level IPR contribution studies. 

However, the data gathered for those studies allow a much deeper analysis of the characteristics of 

IPR-intensive industries that distinguish them from industries that do not make intensive use of IPR. 

The main objective of the present report is to analyse possible differences between IPR-intensive 

and  non-IPR-intensive  sectors  by  comparing  the  values  of  several  economic  indices  and  their 

dynamic evolution. This report also explores possible associations between the economic indices 

and IPR intensity. 

Section 2 describes the data and preparation methods. Section 3 is the core of the report. It begins 

with the evolution of IPR filings in the last 12 years and an analysis of the dynamic changes in the 

share of these filings that can be attributed to IPR-intensive and non-intensive industries and different 

sectors of the EU economy. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 explore the associations between IPR intensity 

and industries’ productivity. Section 3.3 analyses the productivity differences between IPR-intensive 

and non-intensive sectors as well as correlations between productivity and IPR intensity. Section 3.4 

takes a more dynamic look at the evolution of productivity indicators in two groups of industries, as 

well  as  the  evolution  of  two  indicators  directly  influencing  productivity  levels:  value  added  and 

employment. 

 8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Section  3.5  compares  IPR-intensive  and  non-intensive  sectors  through  business  demography 

indicators: changes in the number of firms and firm entry and exit rates. Section 3.6 compares the 

rate of emergence of high-growth firms in various types of IPR-intensive industries with those in non-

IPR-intensive industries. 

2  Data and methods 

The research in this report is based on tabulations developed for successive reports on IPR-intensive 

industries and the economic performance of the European Union. These tabulations could be used 

almost  without  adaptation  to  analyse  the  productivity,  value  added,  and  employment  indicators 

presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. In these cases, both IPR intensity and productivity indicators were 

derived  from  the  same  Eurostat  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS)  data.  The  only  adaptations 

necessary were caused by the differences in SBS data availability at 4-digit NACE (1) class level in 

different years. These adaptations are described in the Annex. 

As the Eurostat data on business demography is less detailed than SBS statistics, it was not possible 

to use tabulations developed for reports on IPR-intensive industries and the economic performance 

of the European Union directly. Data preparation for the analyses in Section 3.5 therefore consisted 

of  IPR  data  aggregation  to  the  industry  groupings  that  reflected  Eurostat’s  schema  for  business 

demography  statistics.  Subsequently,  IPR  intensities  were  computed  for  these  new  industry 

groupings. IPR intensity status was determined using intensity thresholds corresponding to the 2013 

study, namely: 3.16 trade marks per 1 000 employees, 1.61 designs per 1 000 employees and 0.69 

patents  per  1 000  employees.  The  distribution  of  IPR  between  IPR-intensive  and  non-intensive 

industries  in  the  new  groupings  generally  corresponds  to  that  between  IPR-intensive  and  non-

intensive industries in the original classifications. 

For all industry groups, IPR intensity was determined using data on filings between 2004 and 2008, 

corresponding to the 2013 study. The main rationale for this choice was the possibility of observing 

( 1 ) NACE  (nomenclature  statistique  des  activités  économiques  dans  la  Communauté  européenne)  is  the  standard 

classification of economic activity in the EU, maintained by Eurostat. The most granular level of aggregation used in the IP 

contribution studies is the class (also called the 4-digit level). Classes are in turn aggregated into groups (3-digit level) and 

divisions (2-digit level). The highest level of aggregation is the section, denoted by a letter. 

 9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

developments within IPR-intensive and non-IPR-intensive industries over a longer period. Therefore, 

although there were some minor changes in the composition of the two groups of industries between 

the 2013 and 2019 studies, these were not considered (2). 

For the various types of analysis in the present study, the IPR intensity data has been merged with 

Eurostat  statistics.  The  Annex  contains  a  detailed  description  of  the  Eurostat  tables  used  in  the 

report. 

In principle, the analysis in the report covers the whole population of EU industries. As the entire 

population and not a sample of industries is used, the report does not involve inferential analysis or 

statistical  generalisations.  Therefore,  no  tests  of  statistical  significance  were  conducted.  The 

variability of outcomes within different groups of industries is, however, illustrated with box plots. In 

the box plot diagrams, the median is marked with a solid line, while the box shows the range between 

the 1st quartile (bottom of the box) and the 3rd quartile (top of the box). The vertical lines emanating 

from  the  box  show  the  interquartile  range  (the  difference  between  the  3rd  and  the  1st quartile) 

multiplied by 1.5, while the dots above and below these lines denote outlier observations. Box plots 

illustrate simple mean and medians with equal weight attached to each industry. 

3  Descriptive analysis of data 

3.1 

Evolution of IPR filings in recent years 

Figure 1 presents the evolution of filings for IPR protection by entities based in EU Member States 

between 2008 and 2020 (3). As the absolute number of applications is different for each IPR, for ease 

of comparison, the annual number of applications has been scaled to the number of applications 

filed in 2008 for each IPR under analysis. 

(2) Out of 324 industries that were found to be IPR-intensive in 2013, 94 % (i.e. 304) were considered IPR-intensive in the 

2019 report as well. 29 industries were not considered IPR-intensive in the 2013 report but were found to be IPR intensive 

in 2019. Note that the number of IPR-intensive industries differs from the number reported in 2013 due to adaptations 

made to accommodate differences in data availability between 2013 and 2019; see the Appendix for further details. 

(3) If not otherwise stated, the EU corresponds to the EU28 as it existed prior to 31 January 2020. 

 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The figure clearly shows that, until 2017, the growth rate of design and patent applications was tied 

to the evolution of GDP. The growth rate of trade mark filings by EU entities was, however, much 

faster.  The  number  of  trade  mark  applications  never  declined  during  this  period,  not  even  in  the 

aftermath of the financial crisis after 2008. The number of trade mark applications filed in 2020 was 

75 %  higher  than  in  2008.  In  2020,  patent  filings  were  9.5 %  higher  and  registered  designs  2 % 

higher than in 2008 (4). 

Figure 1. Evolution of EU GDP and IPR filings by EU Member States between 2008 and 2020 (2008=100) 

Note: The figure shows the number of filings for each year compared to the 2008 level (2008=100) for each IP right. IPR 

filings data comprise filings by all entities based in the EU28 as of 30 January 2020. 

3.2 

Evolution of industry IPR intensities 

The first step of the analysis was to investigate whether this growth in filing numbers was distributed 

equally  among  IPR-intensive  and  non-intensive  industries.  For  this  analysis,  the  data  from  two 

(4) The separate report is planned to be published in 2022 to investigate recent trends in 

 trade mark filings. 

 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

matching exercises conducted in 2013 and 2019 were compared (5). This data allows an analysis of 

the changes in IPR intensity from 2004 to 2008 and 2010 to 2014. For this purpose, the growth rate 

of intensity was calculated for each industry associated with patent, trade mark or design activity in 

both periods: 2004 to 2008, covered by the 2013 report, and 2010 to 2014, covered by the 2019 

report (6). 

Figure 2. Comparison of patent intensity growth rate for patent-intensive and non-intensive industries 

(5) The recent trends in industry IPR intensities may be distorted by the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the 

data under analysis does not cover this period. 

(6) The  growth  rate  has  been calculated  as  a difference  of  logarithms  of  mean  value  in  patent,  trade  mark  and  design 

intensity, respectively, from 2004 to 2008 and 2010 to 2014. 

 12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 3. Comparison of trade mark intensity growth rate for trade mark-intensive and non-intensive industries 

Figure 4. Comparison of design intensity growth rate for design-intensive and non-intensive industries 

Note: Figures 2 through 4 present the distribution of the growth rates in the intensity of use of, respectively, patents, trade 

marks and designs in two periods, 2004 to 2008 and 2010 to 2014, for all NACE industries. The IPR intensity designation 

corresponds to the industry status calculated in the 2013 report. 

 13 

 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figures 2 through 4 show the distribution of IPR intensity growth rates within various groups of IPR-

intensive  industries  compared  with  the  group  of  industries  that  were  not  to  use  particular  IPR 

intensively. The figures show the distribution (box plot) and information about the mean and median 

values of the patent, trade mark and design intensity growth rates. As can be seen in the box plots, 

IPR intensity grew more rapidly among the industries not found to be patent-, trade-mark- or design-

intensive than in the industries that were found to be intensive users of those IPRs in the 2013 report. 

This difference is lowest in the case of patents, where the median growth rate is almost equal for 

patent-intensive  and  non-intensive  industries,  and  the  mean  growth  rate  slightly  higher  for  non-

intensive industries. In the case of trade mark and design intensities, both mean and median growth 

rates for the non-intensive industries are higher than for the group of intensive industries. For design-

intensive industries, the mean and median intensity growth rates were negative, which suggests that 

this group of industries filed relatively fewer applications in the second period. 

This pattern of intensity growth results in shifts in the relative shares of IPRs applications that can 

be attributed to patent-, design- and trade-mark-intensive industries and to industries found not to 

intensively use these respective IPRs, as defined in the 2013 report. 

Figure 5 shows that the distribution of all IPRs tends to be highly concentrated within IPR-intensive 

industries. This concentration was highest in the case of patents, where, from 2004 to 2008, patent-

intensive industries were responsible for over 85 % of all patents filed. Design-intensive industries 

were associated with over 81 % of all designs filed within the same period. Trade marks are the IP 

right that seems most evenly distributed between intensive and non-intensive industries. Over 25 % 

of all the trade mark filings made between 2004 and 2008 were linked with industries that were found 

not to be trade-mark-intensive. 

For all IPRs, the relative share of filings attributed to non-intensive industries from 2010 to 2014 is 

higher than from 2004 to 2008. This indicates that not only is the number of filings on the rise, but 

the use of IP rights is also becoming more widespread across the economy. 

 14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 5. Distribution of IP rights between IPR-intensive and non-intensive industries 

Note: the plots present the distribution of IPRs among the patent-, design- and trade-mark-intensive and non-intensive 

industries from 2004 to 2008 and from 2010 to 2014. The IPR intensity designation corresponds to the 2013 report (2004 

to 2008). 

Number  of  observations:  patent-intensive  (142),  non-intensive  (473);  design-intensive  (165),  non-intensive  (450);  trade 

mark-intensive (279), non-intensive (336). 

Figure 6 shows that the changes in the distribution of IPR also affect the spread of IPRs between 

various  sectors  of  the  EU  economy.  Traditionally,  IPRs  were  thought  to  be  the  domain  of 

manufacturing (7). Figure 6 confirms the view that firms from the manufacturing sectors are dominant 

(7) In this report, the term ‘manufacturing’ refers to manufacturing, mining, electricity, gas, steam, air conditioning supply, 

water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities. 

 15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

filers of all IPRs. There are, however, important differences depending on the type of IPR. Whereas, 

for patents, firms representing manufacturing are responsible for over 70 % of all the filings, in the 

case  of  designs,  manufacturing’s  share  reaches  60 %.  For  trade  marks,  this  sector  accounts  for 

approximately  one  third  of  filings.  Firms  representing  services  file  approximately  18 %  of  patent 

applications  and  almost  30 %  of  trade  marks.  Entities  active  in  the  trade  sector  apply  for 

approximately 25 % of designs and trade marks.  From 2008 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2014, the 

share of IP rights associated with firms representing sectors other than manufacturing rose for all 

types of IPR. 

Figure 6. Distribution of IP rights between the main sectors of the economy 

Note: the plots present the distribution of IPRs among various sectors of the EU economy in 2004 to 2008 and in 2010 to 

2014. 

Number of observations: manufacturing (262); services (121); trade (91); construction (22); other sectors (119). 

These findings corroborate the recent academic literature, which argues that trade marks are a very 

versatile  type  of  IPR,  able  to  protect  a  much  broader  set  of  goods  and  services  than  patents  or 

designs.  Trade  mark  legislation  does  not  stipulate  strict  requirements  related  to  the  novelty  or 

 16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

inventive step. Therefore, it may be particularly well suited to the needs of firms active in services 

(Schmoch  and  Gauch,  2009),  cultural  and  creative  industries  (Castaldi,  2018),  or  to  marketing 

products for which patent or design protection may not be available. 

3.3 

Productivity and IPR intensity 

The IP Contribution studies show that IPR-intensive industries account for a higher share of GDP 

than  of  total  employment.  Those  results  suggest  that  IPR-intensive  industries  may  be  more 

productive (i.e. employees in those industries produce more value added than employees of non-

IPR-intensive industries). This may be validated by analysing the Eurostat productivity statistics for 

IPR-intensive and non-intensive industries. 

Figure 7 presents a series of box plots illustrating labour productivity for various industries, grouped 

by  their  IPR  intensity  status.  The  graphs  show  that,  generally,  IPR-intensive  industries  are  more 

productive than their non-IPR-intensive counterparts. These differences are especially evident in the 

service and trade sectors. In the case of manufacturing, the only exception to this general pattern is 

the group of design-intensive industries, where mean productivity is lower than the mean productivity 

of  non-IPR-intensive  industries.  In  all  other  cases,  both  the  mean  and  median  values  of  labour 

productivity are higher for IPR-intensive than non-intensive industries. 

 17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 7. Comparison of mean and median productivity in various groups of industries 

Note: The box plots illustrate the distribution of the productivity values (indicator V91110 – apparent labour productivity – 

gross value added per person employed) within various groups of industries in manufacturing, services and trade. Each 

data point represents the mean value of the annual productivity index for each individual industry calculated from 2011 to 

2018. The text above each box plot shows the mean and median productivity values within the corresponding group of 

industries. 

Figure 8  through  Figure 10  illustrate  correlations  between  the  productivity  of  an  industry  and  its 

degree of patent-, trade-mark- and design- intensity (by number of IP rights per 1 000 employees). 

In eight out of nine cases the correlation is positive, indicating that the more productive the sector, 

the more it relies on IPRs. The only outlier is the correlation between productivity and design intensity 

 18 

 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

in the manufacturing sector. The negative correlation suggests that design rights may be especially 

important for firms active in the traditional manufacturing industries with relatively lower productivity. 

Figure 8. Correlation between productivity and patent intensity 

 19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 9. Correlation between productivity and trade mark intensity 

 20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 10. Correlation between productivity and design intensity 

Note: the scatter plots compare the mean values of apparent labour productivity for each industry, calculated from 2011 to 

2014,  with  its  IPR  intensity  (respectively  patent,  trade  mark  and  design  intensities),  calculated  from  2010  to  2014.  R 

represents the Pearson correlation coefficient between these two values. 

 21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

3.4 

Productivity growth 

This  section  examines  trends  in  productivity  between  2011  and  2017,  including  whether  this 

evolution  differed  between  IPR-intensive  and  non-intensive  industries.  Figure  11  illustrates  that, 

generally,  the  rates  of  productivity  growth  tend  to  be  higher  within  the  groups  of  IPR-intensive 

industries than within non-intensive industries. This difference is, however, not as pronounced as 

the differences in the productivity levels. The greatest difference is between non-IPR-intensive and 

design-intensive services. The median productivity growth of design-intensive services was almost 

twice  as  high  as  that  of  non-intensive  services.  The  difference  between  the  median  productivity 

growth in these two groups of industries was 6 percentage points. 

There  are  some  exceptions  to  the  general  tendency  towards  higher  productivity  growth  in  IPR-

intensive industries. The median productivity growth in patent-intensive services is lower than that 

in  non-IPR-intensive  services.  Moreover,  the  mean  and  median  of  the  industries  grouped  in  the 

trade-mark-intensive  services  category  are  exactly  the  same  as  those  of  the  non-IPR-intensive 

industries. However, the group of IPR-intensive service industries in which productivity grows only 

slightly faster than in non-IPR-intensive industries are characterised by relatively higher differences 

in productivity levels, as seen in Figure 7. 

 22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 11. Productivity growth rates for different groups of industries between 2011 and 2017 

Note: the box plots illustrate the distribution of productivity growth rates (indicator V91110 – apparent labour productivity – 

gross value added per person employed) within various groups of industries in manufacturing, services and trade. Each 

data point represents the index of productivity growth for each sector between 2011 and 2017, calculated as the differences 

in logs of the productivity levels. 

 23 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

There are two components that determine productivity changes – shifts in employment and changes 

in value added produced  by  an  industry.  Figure  12  presents  an  analysis  of the  changes  in  value 

added between 2011 and 2017. All industry groups increased their value added over the period. The 

growth of value added was fastest in the service sector. The value added growth in this sector was 

higher for trade-mark-, patent-, design- and copyright-intensive industries than in the groups of non-

IPR-intensive industries. 

The  pattern  is  less  clear  for  manufacturing  and  trade.  The  median  value-added  growth  rate  was 

lower  in  the  group  of  trade  mark-intensive  and  design-intensive  industries  than  in  non-intensive 

industries in both sectors. Additionally, the mean value added growth in the manufacturing sector 

was higher for non-IPR-intensive industries than in the group of trade-mark-intensive industries. In 

all other cases, however, the mean value  added growth is higher in trade-mark-, patent-, design- 

and copyright-intensive industries than in the group of non-IPR-intensive industries. 

 24 

 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 12. Value added growth rates for different groups of industries between 2011 and 2017 

Note: the box plots illustrate the distribution of the value added growth rates (indicator V12150 – value added at factor cost 

– millions of euro) within various groups of industries in manufacturing, services and trade. Each data point represents the 

index of value added growth for each sector between 2011 and 2017, calculated as the differences in logs of the productivity 

level. 

 25 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 13 illustrates that the rates of employment growth are much lower than the growth of value 

added  in  all  industry  groups.  In  the  manufacturing  and  trade  sectors,  median  and/or  mean 

employment growth rates are often negative. Moreover, in manufacturing, mean employment growth 

rates  are  lower  in  patent-,  trade-mark-  and  design-intensive  industries  than  in  non-intensive 

industries. With the exception of patent-intensive industries, median job growth rates are also lower 

in  the  IPR-intensive  industries  than  in  industries  that  do  not  use  IPR  intensively.  However,  the 

differences  in  employment  growth  rates  between  IPR-intensive  and  non-intensive  industries  are 

rather small. 

It is interesting to note that, whereas employment in manufacturing and trade is stagnant or declining, 

the mean and median employment growth rates in all groups of service industries are at 10 % or 

higher.  Moreover,  in  all  cases,  the  median  and  mean  employment  growth  rates  in  trade-mark-, 

patent-, design- and copyright-intensive services exceed the median and mean growth rates of non-

intensive  industries  in  this  sector  of  the  economy.  This  indicates  that  the  substantial  share  of 

innovations implemented in the service sector may be related to the introduction of new services that 

result in employment expansion. The growth in the number of persons employed is the highest in 

patent-intensive and design-intensive service industries, where both the median and mean growth 

rates exceed 20 %. 

 26 

 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 13. Growth rates of number of persons employed for different groups of industries between 2011 and 

2017 

Note: the box plots illustrate the distribution of the rates of growth of number of persons employed (indicator V16110  – 

persons employed – number) within various groups of industries in manufacturing, services and trade. Each data point 

represents the index of growth of number of persons employed in each sector between 2011 and 2017, calculated as the 

differences in logs of the productivity level. 

 27 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

3.5 

Business demography 

Data  on  the  IPR  intensity  of  European  industries  can  be  combined  with  business  demography 

statistics to examine whether industry dynamism differs between groups of industries with different 

IPR intensity profiles. 

Figure 14 shows that both the mean and median firm birth rate (i.e. the number of newly established 

firms divided by the total number of firms) is lower in the IPR-intensive industries group than in the 

group of non-IPR-intensive industries in the manufacturing sector. However, in the service sector, 

the birth rates are higher in any IPR-intensive industries’ group than in the group of non-IPR-intensive 

industries.  In  the  trade  sector,  the  evidence  is  inconclusive,  as  the  firm  birth rate  is  much  higher 

among trade-mark-intensive industries than among those that are non-IPR intensive, whereas the 

same  indicator  is  slightly  lower  among  design-intensive  industries  than  in  their  non-IPR-intensive 

counterparts. Moreover, the number of observations in the trade sector group of industries is much 

lower than in manufacturing and services. 

Figure 15 through Figure 17 show scatter plots and correlation rates between trade mark, patent 

and design intensities and firm birth rates in various sectors. In the case of all three IP rights, the 

correlation between IPR intensity and the firm birth rate is negative in the manufacturing sector. The 

absolute value of the correlation coefficient is highest for patent intensity, indicating a strong negative 

relationship  between  intensity  of  IPR  use  and  the  rate  of  entry  of  new  firms.  The  value  of  this 

coefficient is lower in trade mark and design intensities. 

However, the correlation coefficients between the IPR intensities and firm birth rates are positive in 

the services and trade sectors. The absolute value of  the correlation coefficient is higher in trade 

industries than in services, while the correlation coefficient is relatively low, pointing to a weaker (but 

still positive) association between IPR intensity and firm birth rates. 

 28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 14. Firm birth rates in different groups of industries 

Note: the box plots present the distribution, mean and median values of annual birth rates in various groups of industries 

in 2012 to 2018. The birth rate is defined as the number of enterprise births in the reference period (t) divided by the number 

of enterprises active in t (percentage). Source of data – Eurostat table bd_9bd_sz_cl_r2 ‘Business demography by size 

class (from 2004 onwards, NACE Rev. 2)’ 

 29 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 15. Correlation between trade mark intensity and birth rate in different groups of industries  

 30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 16. Correlation between patent intensity and birth rate in different groups of industries  

 31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 17. Correlation between design intensity and birth rate in different groups of industries  

Note: the scatter plots present the relationship between the mean value of annual firm birth rates, calculated from 2010 to 

2018 for each sector, and IPR intensity (respectively patent, trade mark and design intensities), calculated from 2010 to 

2014. 

 32 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 18 presents another look at the number of firms active in European industries. The figure is 

based on the analysis of annual net business population growth rates, reflecting gross flows of firm 

births  and  exits.  In  trade-mark-,  patent-  and  design-intensive  manufacturing  industries,  the  mean 

and median annual exit rate is higher than the firm birth rate, resulting in a reduction in the number 

of  active  firms.  However,  the  net  business  population  growth  in  the  group  of  non-IPR-intensive 

manufacturing industries is positive, with more firms born than exiting the market. The net business 

population  growth  is  positive  across  the  board  in  the  group  of  service  industries.  In  this  industry 

group, both the mean and the median values of net business population growth are higher for all the 

IPR-intensive industries’ groups (trade mark, patent and design intensive) than in the group of non-

IPR-intensive industries. 

The picture is less clear in the trade sector. The mean and median net population growth rates in 

the  group  of  non-IPR-intensive  industries  are  negative,  with  more  exits  than  births  of  new  firms. 

Those indicators are very similar for the design-intensive industries, with the absolute value of the 

mean slightly higher and the median slightly lower than in non-IPR-intensive industries. However, 

both the mean and median net business population growth rate indicators are higher in trade mark-

intensive industries than in non-IPR-intensive industries. 

In summary, IPR-intensive service industries are experiencing a higher rate of net firm population 

growth than non-intensive service industries, while the number of IPR-intensive manufacturing firms 

is declining, with a mixed picture for the trade sector. 

 33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 18. Annual net business population growth in different groups  of industries from 2013 to 2018 

Note: the box plots illustrate the distribution of the annual indices of net business population growth (indicator V97010  – 

Net business population growth  – percentage) within various groups of industries in manufacturing,  services and trade. 

Source of data – Eurostat table bd_9bd_sz_cl_r2 ‘Business demography by size class (from 2004 onwards, NACE Rev. 2)’. 

 34 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 19 shows that the differences in the survival rates are less pronounced than differences in 

the  business  population  growth.  Indicators  of  the  survival  rate  (of  firms  born  3 years  earlier)  are 

similar  in  the  various  groups  of  IPR-intensive  industries  as  in  non-IPR-intensive  industries  in  the 

manufacturing  and  services  sectors.  There  are  some  differences  in  the  trade  sector,  where  the 

survival  rate  in  trade  mark-intensive  industries  is  generally  lower  than  in  non-IPR-intensive 

industries,  although the opposite is true for  design-intensive industries. Moreover,  the  analysis  of 

survival in the trade sector may be affected by the low number of observations. 

 35 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 19. Survival rate in different groups of industries  

Note: the box plots present the distribution, mean and median survival rates in various groups of industries from 2015 to 

2018. Survival rate is defined as the number of enterprises born in t-3 that have survived to t, divided by the total number 

of enterprise births in t-3. Source of data  – Eurostat table bd_9bd_sz_cl_r2 ‘Business demography by size class (from 

2004 onwards, NACE Rev. 2)’ 

 36 

 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The  business  demographic  processes  described  above  translate  into  long-term  tendencies  as 

regards the number of firms active in various groups of industries. Figure 20 illustrates the changes 

in the number of firms active in the market between 2011 and 2017. As shown in the top panel, the 

number of firms active in the median manufacturing industry reduced, irrespective of IPR intensity. 

This reduction in the number of firms active in manufacturing industries was somewhat slower in the 

group of non-IPR-intensive industries than in the various groups of IPR-intensive industries. 

Similarly, the number of firms active in the trade sector tended to diminish between 2011 and 2017. 

However, unlike the manufacturing sector, the pace of decline was more rapid in the group of non-

IPR-intensive industries than in any group of IPR-intensive ones. 

However, the number of firms in the services sector was characterised by relatively strong growth. 

The  mean  and  median  growth  rate  of  the  number  of  firms  active  in  the  IPR-intensive  service 

industries is higher in various IPR-intensive groups than in the group of non-IPR-intensive industries. 

 37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 20. Growth in the number of firms active in an industry between 2011 and 2017  

Note: the box plots illustrate the distribution of the rate of growth in the number of enterprises between 2011 and 2017 

(indicator V11110 – number of enterprises) within various groups of industries in manufacturing, services and trade. Each 

data point represents the index of growth between 2011 and 2017, calculated as the differences in logs of the number of 

firms active in 2017 and 2011. 

 38 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

3.6 

High-growth firms 

Research has shown that a relatively small number of firms with exceptional growth play a vital role 

in  innovation  and  employment  creation  in  the  economy.  These  firms  often  pave  the  way  for 

subsequent industry growth and development (Bos and Stam, 2014). An earlier EUIPO/EPO study 

(EUIPO/EPO 2019b) showed that SMEs with prior IPR activities are more likely to experience a high 

turnover growth period than firms that were not IPR-active. Analysis of the frequency of emergence 

of high-growth firms (HGF (8)) in various industries provides another window for analysis of industrial 

dynamism. 

Figure 21 illustrates that the share of HGF among firms with more than 10 employees is higher in 

every IPR-intensive industries group than in the group of firms not using IPR intensively. Across the 

manufacturing and services sectors the expected share of HGF is the highest among the patent-

intensive industries. Within the manufacturing sector, mean and median HGF rates are very similar 

between  the  trade  mark-  and  design-intensive  industries,  exceeding  9.5 %  in  both  cases.  In  the 

services sector the mean and median shares of HGFs among the design-intensive industries are 

higher than among the trade mark-intensive industries. For both groups of industries, the mean HGF 

share is at least 0.5 percentage points higher than in non-IPR-intensive industries. This difference is 

even higher for the median HGF share, as it exceeds 1 percentage point when comparing non-IPR-

intensive  industries  with  any  IPR-intensive  industries  group.  Finally,  the  tendency  for  a  relatively 

higher incidence of HGF in an industry (whether measured by the mean or the median value) is also 

confirmed for industries in the trade sector, where the difference between the trade-mark-intensive 

groups  and the  non-IPR-intensive  industries group  exceeds  2 percentage  points,  and  for  design-

intensive industries it exceeds 1 percentage point. 

(8) High-growth firms are defined by the European Commission as firms that achieve an annual growth rate of employment 

of at least 10 % in three consecutive years. 

 39 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 21 Percentage of high-growth firms in industries between 2014 and 2018 

Note: the box plots present the share of high-growth firms in various groups of industries between 2014 and 2018. The 

indicator has been calculated based on the Eurostat table bd_9pm_r2 ‘High growth enterprises (growth by 10 % or more) 

and related employment by NACE Rev. 2’. Two indicators: ‘High growth enterprises measured in employment (growth by 

10%  or  more)  –  number’  and  ‘Share  of  high  growth  enterprises  measured  in  employment:  number  of  high  growth 

enterprises divided by the number of active enterprises with at least 10 employees – percentage’ have been combined for 

the analysis. The definition of a high-growth was established by Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 439/2014 

as a firm with at least 10 employees in the beginning of its growth period and an average annualised growth in its number 

of employees greater than 10 % per annum over a 3-year period. 

 40 

 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

4  Conclusions 

The analysis of the filing patterns shows that, in general, the IPR intensity of the EU economy is 

rising. In patent and design filings, the rate of filing growth mirrors GDP growth. However, in trade 

mark filings, growth exceeds GDP growth. Whereas the manufacturing sector dominates patent and 

design filings,  trade  mark  filings  are much  more  evenly  distributed  across  the  EU  economy,  with 

services and trade accounting for over 50 % of filings. A more dynamic look at the filing patterns, 

comparing  2004  to  2008  with  2010  to  2014,  indicates  that  sectors  other  than  manufacturing  are 

increasing their share of filings in all types of registered IPRs, with the pace of change highest in 

trade marks and designs and lower in patents. It is also interesting to note that industries found not 

to be IPR-intensive were increasing their IPR intensity more rapidly from 2004 to 2008 and 2010 to 

2014 than IPR-intensive industries. This indicated a more widespread use of IP rights across the 

economy. 

IPR-intensive  industries  are  more  productive  than  industries  not  using  IPR  intensively.  The 

productivity difference is higher in services and trade than in manufacturing. In the latter sector, the 

mean value of productivity indicator in the design-intensive group of industries is lower than the value 

of  the  same  indicator  in  the  group  of  non-IPR-intensive  industries.  Moreover,  with  one  exception 

(design-intensive manufacturing), there is a positive correlation between productivity and intensity of 

IPR  use.  The  correlation  coefficient  is  highest  in  trade  and  services  and  is  relatively  low  in 

manufacturing.  The  negative  relationship  between  productivity  and  intensity  of  design  use  in 

manufacturing could be an indication that design rights may be an especially important form of IP 

protection in more traditional, but also less productive industries. 

In  general,  productivity  growth  between  2011  and  2017  tended  to  be  higher  in  IPR-intensive 

industries than in industries not using IPR intensively. The differences in the productivity growth in 

the manufacturing and services sectors were minimal. Productivity growth was somewhat higher in 

design-intensive industries than in other types of IPR-intensive and non-intensive groups. 

A look into the dynamic changes in value added and employment helps to untangle the differences 

in productivity growth. Whereas, in the manufacturing sector, the growth of value added was almost 

on  a  par  in  various  groups  of  IPR-intensive  and  non-intensive  industries,  the  mean  employment 

growth  in  IPR-intensive  industries  was  below  that  in  non-IPR-intensive  industries.  However,  the 

differences in the growth rates of value added and employment in the manufacturing sector were 

small. 

 41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The  differences  in  value  added  and  employment  growth  were  more  pronounced  in  the  services 

sector, where the mean and median growth rates were higher in all groups of IPR-intensive industries 

than  in  non-intensive  ones.  A  similar  pattern  emerged  in  trade  industries,  where  mean  values  of 

value added, and employment growth were higher in all types of IPR-intensive industry groups than 

in the group of non-IPR-intensive industries. In a few cases, however, the median values of growth 

rates for IPR-intensive industries were slightly below the non-IPR-intensive industries’ level. 

Overall,  the  analysis  of  the  dynamic  productivity  changes  shows  that  IPR-intensive  industries 

increase their productivity more rapidly than non-intensive industries. The difference in the growth 

rates is, however, relatively low, especially in the manufacturing sector. In the case of some groups 

of IPR industries, especially in the manufacturing and trade sectors, the productivity increase reflects 

an increase of value added coupled with a reduction in the number of employees. Finally, analysis 

of the rate of emergence of high-growth firms leads to the conclusion that, between 2014 and 2018, 

HGF tended to appear more frequently among the various groups of IPR-intensive industries than 

among non-intensive ones. The  rate  of  HGF  emergence  was  highest  among the  patent-intensive 

industries in the manufacturing and services sectors 

5  Discussion 

The results show higher productivity rates among IPR-intensive industries than among industries not 

using IPR intensively. This supports the dominant academic view that innovation is key to economic 

growth. It has been known for a long time that the differences in productivity levels between individual 

firms may be large, even if those firms are active in the same industry and are based in the same 

country or region (Nelson, 1981). Firms’ innovation activity is one of the principal reasons explaining 

such differences. New innovative ideas provide blueprints for the rearrangement of raw materials 

and  other  inputs  into  improved  products,  providing  more  economic  value.  Innovation  makes  it 

possible  to  achieve  higher  economic  value  using  the  same  number  of  inputs  (Romer,  2019). 

Therefore,  more  intensive  innovation  among  companies  in  an  industry  lifts  that  industry’s 

productivity, either because it allows the firms to produce the same products using fewer resources 

(process  innovation)  or  because  it  enables them  to  offer  better,  more  valuable  products  (product 

innovation). Thanks to higher labour productivity, firms can offer their employees higher wages, as 

shown 

in  previous 

joint  EUIPO/EPO 

studies 

(EUIPO/EPO 2013;  EUIPO/EPO 2016; 

EUIPO/EPO 2019a) 

 42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Recent academic debate on the role played by intangible assets, including IPR, in increasing market 

concentration  is  less  conclusive.  Haskel  and  Westlake  (2017)  argued  that  the  highly  scalable 

character of intangible assets promotes the emergence of large, relatively IPR-intensive firms. As 

discussed  above,  higher  reliance  on  intellectual  assets  is  associated  with  improvements  in 

productivity.  However,  it  is  often  also  related  to  the  higher  market  power  of  market  leaders  and 

increasing market  concentration (Crouzet  and  Eberly,  2019,  Autor  et  al. 2020).  In markets  where 

market leadership is based on highly scalable intangible assets, the prospects of smaller rivals are 

usually modest (Haskel and Westlake, 2017), which may discourage entrepreneurs from setting up 

new  firms.  Additionally,  the  Industrial  Organisation  literature  sees  brands  and  trade  marks  as  a 

possible strategic tool for incumbents to discourage market entry (Lipczynski et al., 2005; Spulber, 

2006). 

However,  the  scalability  of  intangible  assets  may  be  exploited  through  licensing  out  valuable 

intangible  assets  rather  than  by  relying  on  their  own  tangible  resources  for  market  entry  and/or 

expansion. The option of licensing the intangible assets reduces the risks involved in market entry; 

therefore, the proliferation of IPR may contribute to higher, rather than lower, entry rates. There are 

also  limits  to  the  appropriability  of  intangible  assets  created  by  incumbents,  which  creates 

opportunities for spillovers. This may benefit other market players who can develop their business 

models around innovations not fully exploited by incumbents. 

The present report contributes to that debate by pointing to the possibility that higher IPR intensity 

may be related to very different industry dynamics, depending on the sector. Higher IPR intensity 

seems  to  be  associated  with  lower  industry  dynamism  (in  terms  of  entry  of  new  firms)  in  the 

manufacturing sector. By contrast, in service industries, higher IPR intensity may signal industrial 

vitality and new market opportunities encouraging entrepreneurs to start new businesses. Due to the 

data and methodology constraints (see Section 6 below) these observations should be treated as 

preliminary  and  should  be  verified  in  the  future  with  more  rigorous  analysis,  controlling  for  other 

factors that may be correlated with both business dynamism and IPR intensity. 

The present study provides additional evidence for a positive correlation between IPR activity and 

high growth. This is in line with the findings of the previous study of high-growth firms published by 

EUIPO  and  EPO  (EUIPO/EPO 2019),  which  showed  that  IPR  activity  of  a  firm  signals  a  higher 

likelihood of the firm achieving high growth in subsequent years. These findings support academic 

literature  conjectures  that  innovative  entry  on  the  turbulent  market,  characterised  by  a  high 

 43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

innovation rate and higher IPR intensity, increases chances for exceptional growth (Audretsch, 1995; 

Bhide, 2003). 

6  Data limitations and directions for future research 

The present report facilitates the comparison of IPR-intensive industries with their non-IPR-intensive 

counterparts  along  several  dimensions,  capturing  the  similarities  and  differences  between  them. 

However, the methods of analysis used in this study have some limitations  that restrict the set of 

conclusions that can be drawn. The most salient limitations are set out below, indicating potential 

future  research  activities  that  could  be  carried  out  to  arrive at more robust  conclusions  about the 

phenomena under investigation. 

Descriptive statistics is the main method of analysis employed in this report. It allows the illustration 

of differences between IPR-intensive and non-intensive industries. However, it does not prove the 

existence of a causal relationship between IPR intensity and those differences. 

For instance, the finding of generally lower firm birth rates in the IPR-intensive manufacturing sector 

may be due to the existence of external factors, such as higher capital intensity required to operate 

in certain industries, which may be correlated with both general lower entry rates and higher IPR 

intensity. More sophisticated econometric methods may be employed in the future to disentangle the 

respective shares of the overall difference that can be attributed to IPR intensity  rather than other 

economic phenomena. Therefore, the findings regarding the association between IPR intensity and 

industrial  dynamics  require  deeper  investigation.  Based on  the  present research,  it  is  possible to 

claim  that  indices  based  on  IPR  intensity  may  lead  to  different  conclusions  as  regards  industry 

dynamism,  depending  on  whether  manufacturing  or  service  industries  are  analysed.  Gaining  an 

understanding  of  factors  that  may  be  the  source  of  such  differences  requires  more  rigorous 

investigation. 

The  analysis  in  Section  3.5  shows  that  the  number  of  firms  active  in  a  typical  IPR-intensive 

manufacturing industry declined between 2013 and 2018. Over the same period, the number of firms 

active  in  a  typical  non-IPR-intensive  industry  increased.  This  may  indicate  rising  market 

concentration in the typical IPR-intensive manufacturing industry. As discussed in Section 3.5, rising 

market concentration may be related to the higher productivity of market leaders, which in general, 

results in positive economic outcomes for consumers and economic growth. Rising concentration 

may  also,  however,  be  associated  with  higher  markups  and  the  rising  market  power  of  market 

 44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

leaders, which may lead to economic inefficiencies and misallocation of resources (Covarrubias et 

al. 2020). Each of those possible phenomena leads to different policy prescriptions. Therefore, future 

research may further investigate the relationship between IPR intensity and market concentration. If 

this association is confirmed, the exact mechanism that leads to this outcome should be investigated. 

The objective of the cyclical reports documenting the contribution of the IPR-intensive industries to 

the EU economy is to bring out the evidence of the IPR intensity of the EU industries at the most 

detailed  level  possible,  ideally  at  4-digit  NACE  industry  codes.  Some  of  the  important  indices 

extracted from Eurostat statistics, particularly those analysed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, are available 

at the same  level  as IPR  intensity  aggregations  published in the IP  contribution  studies.  In  those 

cases, the IPR intensity computations may be extracted directly from those reports. However, for 

some  statistics,  particularly  those  used  in  Sections  3.5  and  3.6,  the  level  of  detail  available  at 

Eurostat  is  lower.  In  those  cases,  it  was  necessary  to  aggregate  IPR  data  and  compute  the  IPR 

intensities at different (higher) aggregation levels than those available in the published reports. As a 

result,  some  4-digit  industries  that  were  found  to  be  IPR-intensive  in  previous  reports  may  be 

aggregated  within  the  wider  industrial  groupings  that  are  not  found  to  be  IPR-intensive  and  vice 

versa.  This  may  make  it  difficult  to  interpret  the  findings  in  the  case  of  some  concrete,  narrowly 

defined  industries.  Additionally,  in  some  industry  groupings,  the  number  of  industries  is  relatively 

low, which increases the risks that the differences between non-IPR-intensive industries and some 

groups  of  IPR-intensive  industries  may  be  spurious.  However,  the  findings  regarding  industrial 

dynamics are interesting enough to accept this limitation, with the caveat that they should be treated 

with caution and as a first step towards more thorough investigation. A possible remedy for future 

research  may  be  to  compute  similar  indicators  from  the  census  or  equivalent  comprehensive 

repositories of firm data, such as ORBIS. This should enable the indices to be brought to the required 

4-digit level. 

 45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

References 

Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory 

of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15-30. 

Audretsch, D.B. (1995). Innovation and Industry Evolution, MIT Press Books 

Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L. F., Patterson, C., & Van Reenen, J. (2020). The Fall of the Labor Share 

and the Rise of Superstar Firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2), 645-709. 

Bayus,  B.L.  &  Agarwal,  R.  (2007).  The  Role  of  Pre-Entry  Experience,  Entry  Timing,  and  Product 

Technology Strategies in Explaining Firm Survival. Management Science, Vol. 53, No 12, p.1887-

1902. 

Bhide, A.V. (2003). The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses, Oxford University Press. 

Bos, J. W. B. and Stam, E., 2014. Gazelles and industry growth: a study of young high-growth firms 

in The Netherlands. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 145–169. 

Castaldi,  C.  (2018).  To  trademark  or  not  to  trademark:  The  case  of  the  creative  and  cultural 

industries. Research Policy, 47(3), 606-616. 

Covarrubias,  M.,  Gutiérrez,  G.,  &  Philippon,  T.  (2020).  From  Good  to  Bad  Concentration?  US 

Industries over the Past 30 Years. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 34(1), 1-46. 

Crouzet, N., & Eberly, J. C. (2019). Understanding Weak Capital Investment: The Role of Market 

Concentration and Intangibles (No. w25869). National Bureau of Economic Research. 

EUIPO/EPO  (2013).  Intellectual  property  rights  intensive  industries:  contribution  to  economic 

performance and employment in the European Union. 

EUIPO/EPO  (2016).  Intellectual  property  rights  intensive  industries:  contribution  to  economic 

performance in the European Union: second edition. 

 46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

EUIPO/EPO (2019a). IPR-intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union: 

third edition. 

EUIPO/EPO (2019b). High-growth firms and intellectual property rights. 

Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 

13(4),  421-440.  Haskel,  J.  and  S.  Westlake  (2017).  Capitalism  without  capital:  The  Rise  of  the 

Intangible Economy. Princeton University Press. 

Lipczynski, J., Wilson, J. O., & Goddard, J. A. (2005). Industrial Organization: Competition, Strategy, 

Policy. Pearson Education. 

Nelson, R. R. (1981). Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: dead ends and 

new departures. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(3), 1029-1064. 

Romer, P. The Deep Structure of Economic Growth, https://paulromer.net/deep_structure_growth/, 

accessed on 14/03/2022 

Schmoch, U., & Gauch, S. (2009). Service marks as indicators for innovation in knowledge-based 

services. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 323-335. 

Spulber, D. F. (2006). Entry barriers and entry strategies. In A. E. Burke (Ed.), Modern Perspectives 

on Entrepreneurship (pp. 69–90). Senate Hall. 

 47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.  Evolution  of  EU  GDP  and  IPR  filings  by  EU  Member  States  between  2008  and  2020 

(2008=100) ................................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 2. Comparison of patent intensity growth rate for patent-intensive and non-intensive industries

 ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 3. Comparison of trade mark intensity growth rate for trade mark-intensive and non-intensive 

industries ...................................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 4.  Comparison  of  design  intensity  growth  rate  for  design-intensive  and  non-intensive 

industries ...................................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 5. Distribution of IP rights between IPR-intensive and non-intensive industries .................. 15 

Figure 6. Distribution of IP rights between the main sectors of the economy ................................. 16 

Figure 7. Comparison of mean and median productivity in various groups of industries ................ 18 

Figure 8. Correlation between productivity and patent intensity..................................................... 19 

Figure 9. Correlation between productivity and trade mark intensity ............................................. 20 

Figure 10. Correlation between productivity and design intensity .................................................. 21 

Figure 11. Productivity growth rates for different groups of industries between 2011 and 2017..... 23 

Figure 12. Value added growth rates for different groups of industries between 2011 and 2017 ... 25 

Figure 13. Growth rates of number of persons employed for different groups of industries between 

2011 and 2017 .............................................................................................................................. 27 

Figure 14. Firm birth rates in different groups of industries ............................................................ 29 

Figure 15.  Correlation  between  trade  mark  intensity  and  birth  rate  in  different  groups  of 

industries ..................................................................................................................................... 30 

Figure 16.  Correlation  between  patent  intensity  and  birth  rate  in  different  groups  of 

industries ..................................................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 17.  Correlation  between  design  intensity  and  birth  rate  in  different  groups  of 

industries ..................................................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 18.  Annual  net  business  population  growth  in  different  groups  of  industries  from 

2013 to 2018 ............................................................................................................................... 34 

Figure 19. Survival rate in different groups of industries  ...................................................... 36 

Figure 20. Growth in the number of firms active in an industry between 2011 and 2017  .. 38 

Figure 21 Percentage of high-growth firms in industries between 2014 and 2018 ............ 40 

 48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Glossary 

EPO 

EUIPO 

HGF 

IPR 

NACE 

European Patent Office 

European Union Intellectual Property Office 

High-growth firms 

Intellectual Property Rights 

Nomenclature  Statistique  des  Activités  Economiques  dans 

la 

Communauté  européenne  –  Statistical  classification  of  economic 

activities in the European Community 

SBS 

Structural Business Statistics compiled by Eurostat 

 49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Annexes 

Annex A 

Adaptations due to missing SBS data 

At the time of preparation of the first IP contribution study (2013), employment data was not available 

for several NACE classes. In those classes, it was decided to aggregate the IPR data to the group 

or  division  level.  In  particular,  this  was  necessary  for  division 35  (electricity,  gas,  steam  and  air 

conditioning  supply)  and  group 51.2  (freight  air  transport  and  space  transport).  However,  for  the 

report published in 2019 it was possible to obtain data on the class level for industries falling under 

group  code 51.2.  Due  to  the  different  granularity  levels  in  the  two  reports,  classes  belonging  to 

division 35 and group 51.2 had to be partially eliminated from the descriptive analysis, such as the 

changes in the IPR intensity. They are, however, included in the main part of the descriptive analysis 

based on SBS data. For this purpose, the IPR intensity status on the class level has been determined 

based on 2019 data. 

The  same  situation  concerns  group 7.2  (mining  of  non-ferrous  metal  ores)  for  which  data  on 

employment on class level was not available for the 2019 report. Therefore, direct computation of 

the IPR intensity change has not been possible for this industry. 

SBS data does not cover agriculture, forestry and fishing (NACE Section A), public administration 

(Section O) and non-market services such as education (Section P) and health (Section Q). Those 

industries were eliminated from most of the analysis, which is based on the SBS indicators. They 

are, however, included in the analysis of the evolution of the IPR intensity presented in Section 3.2. 

 50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Annex B 

Sources of industrial statistics data 

The productivity, value added, and employment analyses conducted in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 used 

Eurostat  SBS  data.  SBS  covers  the  ‘business  economy’  (NACE  Rev. 2  sections B  to  N  and 

division 95) and describes the structure and performance of business sector in the EU. SBS statistics 

are available at a very detailed level. It provides indicators down to 4-digit classes, within four broad 

sectors of industry. (9) 

Business demography statistics presented in Section 3.5 rely on Eurostat table bd_9bd_sz_cl_r2 – 

‘Business demography by size class (from 2004 onwards, NACE Rev. 2)’. This data covers a group 

of variables describing the characteristics and demography of the business population and provides 

indicators that allow an assessment of business dynamism. 

Finally, the analysis of the emergence of high-growth firms in Section 3.6 was based on Eurostat 

table  bd_9pm_r2  ‘High  growth  enterprises  (growth  by  10 %  or  more)  and  related  employment  by 

NACE Rev. 2’. 

(9) For  the  purpose  of  this  report,  SBS’  ‘industry’  has  been  renamed  ‘manufacturing’  to  avoid  confusion  with  the  more 

general term ‘industry’ used to denote the lowest level of aggregation used in the IP contribution studies. 

 51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

IPR INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS 

ISBN 978-92-9156-323-4 DOI 10.2814/99855 TB-07-22-601-EN-N 

© European Union Intellectual Property Office, 2022 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

 52