# A Study on Finding Partners through Patent Network Analysis of UAM (Urban Air Mobility)
## 4 Discussion and Conclusions
### Summaries and Conclusions  
This study derived implications regarding UAM companies' technology (H1) and technical cooperation (H2) by analyzing their joint patent applications. Here are some of the things we wanted to see through the research, and suggestions for improving UAM technology in the future. * H1. As a result of confirming UAM technology through quantitative and qualitative analysis of patents, certain technologies were more advanced than others. There was no significant difference between AIRBUS and BOEING in the quantitative analysis, but there were differences by technology in the qualitative analysis. At this time, AIRBUS and BOEING--the leading groups in UAM technology development--can be confirmed as having consistent patent level and performance and adopting H1 compared to the 19 UAM developers described in Table 5. \(\rightarrow\)_Adoption_
* H2. UAM companies' technical cooperation showed that AIRBUS was mostly ahead in the centrality figures. \(\rightarrow\)_Adoption_  
It was found that UAM technology is very weak in patent competitiveness in the case of startups that do not have patent organizations in the early stages of development. Patents are territorial, and in the case of EHANG, the competitiveness of products was high due to application in its home country China, but the global competitiveness of such patents was quite low. EHANG's technology is known through patent applications mainly in China, and technology development through EHANG patent analysis can help to shorten the development period. In developing UAM, developing a product that is equal or superior to competitors through low technical cooperation can lead to the judgment that the entity has strong in-house technology, and strategic technology transfer is required from group companies to parts companies for continuous innovation and development. When the subject of open innovation is limited to group companies, if a patent is applied for without a patent organization, compared to those of relatively specialized technology development companies, only the technology disclosure proceeds--as in the case of AIRBUS--and there may be disadvantages in that the scope of the secured rights is narrowed. To maintain the superiority of UAM technology, it is necessary to identify technology development capabilities through inventor evaluation using patent data of partner companies with low technology among the cooperative structures for each technology field, and to use them to determine whether to cooperate. In the future, companies should also be able to work with the companies that have cooperative relationships with competitors. It is necessary to identify retirees by tracking the application histories of key inventors of competitors and find ways to utilize key inventors. Accumulation and utilization of knowledge is important for innovative growth, and unlike traditional production factors such as capital or labor, intellectual-property-embodying technology and ideas dramatically increases productivity and significantly improves social welfare through development and diffusion of creative ideas [53]. In developing UAM, developing a product that is equal or superior to competitors through low technical cooperation can be judged as denoting high in-house technology, and strategic technology transfer to group companies and parts companies is required for continuous innovation and development [36; 54]. In UAM development, core technology and non-core technology should be distinguished; non-core technology should be transferred to group companies and parts companies, and time should be devoted to core technology development. The automotive industry does not always follow a path of radical innovation and tends to prefer incremental innovation and process-oriented innovation due to its complex operating method, low profit margin, and high risk.