Evolution of Patenting in GMOs and Innovation Appropriability: Implications for Agriculture

Maria Ester Dal-Poz.-Faculty, School of Applied Sciences – University of Campinas – UNICAMP, José Maria Jardim Ferreira da Silveira-Faculty, Institute of Economics, UNICAMP. Vinicius Eduardo Ferrari.-Ph.D. Candidate, Institute of Economics– UNICAMPFabio Kenji Masago -Researcher, M.Sc. Institute of Computer Sciences,– UNICAMP.

Paper presented at the 17th ICABR Conference“Innovation and Policy for the Bioeconomy”

Ravello (Italy): June 18 - 21, 2013

Goals and some hypothesis• Mapping the technological trajectories on transgenic plants (TTP, from

now on) applying a methodology based on network analysis.;• identify firms and the strategies conducted in the environment of

agriculture innovation systems (FUGLIE;SCHIMMELPFENING, 2010); • TTPs identified by the methodology are related to the building of

mechanisms of technological appropriability (DOSI, 1982);• The firms that achieve successful strategies – a complex combination of

the building of intangible complementary assets, protected by patenting, and a strong focus on market – have had gain market share, causing huge impacts of seed industry all over the world. (MOSCHINI;YEROKIN, 2007; MOSCHINI, 2010; LOPEZ, 2009).

Methodology : stepsStep 1:

Building the Network: Odissey’s robot (, OPCS, by Masago, 2013), based on complex queries;

Main Network Indicators: a) number of patents from the search; density; b) k-neighbors by citation of the patents from the search; c) in-degree: frequency;

Setp 2

Applying the HCHC criteria(high cited high connected): k-core-20, to build a sub-network of patents connected with at least degree 20 (Batagelj, 2003);

Step 3

Identifying Patents with high in-degree (cited patents) with a strong path. Indicators: geodesical distance 1, higher centrality degrees and proximity prestige indicators in a directed network;

Step 4

Back to the Step 1, load the ThomsonInnovation (trade mark) with the same patents to build the Themescape: patent lexicographical landscapes. Refining trajectories based on Themescape: plotting patents from Step 3 on themescape' maps: crossing patents, subjects and firms to identify competences and domains.

(see Jackson, 2009; Goyal, 2006)

Search strategy: queries by selected promoters• Network map: built by Patents from the search plus patents that are identified

because they cited those patents from the search (derived patents); • Initially search only on USPTO (patents granted); Derwent World Patent Index

at the end the steps to refine the understanding of the technological trajectory.• Patents with the key-words: 559• Derived patents: 2106• Number of vertex: 2665• Number of Arcs: 9756• Network density: 0,0013741696668525937 (1/1000 connections are done)

The challenge: identify trajectories from the original network

Returned Patents (with the key-words) by year:

The full network analysis • Shows the 1990’s increasing efforts on GMOs leading to a

intense patenting activity;• From the 2000’: patenting activities declining, but M&A are

intense involving firms that had patented in the 90’s;• There is a changing in the nature of the patents in the 2000:

they cited patents whose content is related to "enabling technologies" , but they were closely related to Plant breeders rights;

• (see Graff, Zilberman and Benett, 2010, in Plant Science)

Sub-network with k-core 20: a thick net• Vertex: 37 • Arcs: 438 • Density: 0.32882883• Average degree: 23.67567568 (forcefully over 20)• Índices:• • Betweenness Centralization: 0,01512346 (very high)• • All Closeness Centralization: 0,23007190• • See I the next slide, the timeline (red, returned patents; green,

derived)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2009 2010

Results from the k-core 20 net• High density indicators : mature technology;• There is a group of central patents strongly connected;• Closeness Indicators: the main patents are close in the sub- network and in

the original (correspondence) ;• The main returned patents (with key-words) were from the nineties;• Main “enabling technologies”: insertion of genes, vectors of expression,

plasmids, promoters, anti-sense, aiming HT, DR, Protein enrichment were protected during the 90-99 period (filled and granted during this period).

• From the year 2000 to 2012, the majority are derived patents (with no key-words)

• Patents to protect GMO Maize Varieties (closer to the final market).

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1999 2000 2002 2006 2009

Monsanto

Dekalb

Calgene

Rockefeller Univ

Commonwealth& Lubrizol

Monsanto

Monsanto

JeffersonRichard

Other Inventors

Monsanto

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Refining TT: using themescape• Graphic images (final steps of the methodology

• Legend:• Green bullets: returned patents (with key-words)• Circles: technology clusters

5874265

4940835

5001060

5034322

7064248

5110732

5188642

5550318

5188958

6399861602554

5

5268463

5290924

5919675

7615685

5352605

Glyphosate-resistant plants

Promoters CaMV 35S; 35S OR ubiquitin

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1999 2000 2002 2006 2009

Monsanto

Dekalb

Calgene

Rockefeller Univ

Commonwealth& Lubrizol

Monsanto

Monsanto

JeffersonRichard

Other Inventors

Monsanto

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Dekalb

Refining TT• Cluster A: Dna Transcription and expression of genes and processes• Cluster B: Stability and fertility related to TH (RR Soy)• Clusters C and D: Dna promoters: linked to A, because a genetic

modified organism must be fertile and stable to generate a GMO variety.• There is a cross citing activity between trajectories• Bt genes are not dominant in the net. It means that these technologies

rely on the enabling technologies, aiming the seed market diversification.

• .

Schumpeterian Technologies: innovation and market power (Mark II?)• Patents related to the Enabling Technologies (4940835; 5352605;

5034322; 5001060) show the higher index of closeness of the network;

• Patent 5554798: First GM Corn, 1996, cites the “key enabling patents”‘ and has been cited by GM corn patents from this year on;

• They are close to the patents of GM cultivars, granted recently to the leading companies (geodesic distance 1);

• From economic point of view, these linkages reveals deterrence in the GM seed market; (Tirole, 1988).

• . (see also Dasgupta and Stiglitz, 1980)