1

Tõnis MetsQueensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Australia

Aleksei Kelli, Ave MetsUniversity of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Tiit TiimannKaunas, May 28-29, 2015

Strategic indicators of patenting in transition: What to measure?

Research and Innovation Policy Monitoring Programme TIPS

• Commissioned by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research.

• Aims to provide high quality research competencies for policymaking and strategic development of Estonian research, development and innovation (RDI) policy.

• Implemented by the University of Tartu and Tallinn University of Technology.

Budget and Financing

• Period: January 2011 – August 2015 • Total budget: EUR 1 272 412 • Financiers:

European Social Foundation (85%) National structural funds (10%) Own financing from two universities (5%)

Work Packages• 1. Intellectual property rights (IPR) in research and development• 2. Public funding of research activities in Estonia• 3. Leadership and management models of Estonian research and

development institutions• 4. Management of cooperation between higher education

institutions and industry• 5. Complex analysis of research, development and innovation

policy• 6. Internationalisation of research, development and innovation

activities• 7. Designing the Estonian research, development and innovation

strategy for 2014–2020

Programme Outputs• Policy recommendations for policymakers• Public dissemination of research results through workshops, conferences,

written reports, published articles, policy papers etc• → fosters co-operation between government offices, universities

and the private sector and increases the role of science and research as a supporter of the Estonian economy• Main conferences:

• Cross-border regional co-operation with Nordic countries on RDI policies (2013), 60 participants

• Estonian research as a holder of the continuity of our state: challenges and opportunities (2014), 120 participants

• Business–research cooperation: myths and reality (2015), 190 participants

6

Problem (of IP) & Aim• The role of IP/patenting in welfare and economic

development? Intensity of patenting is low in low-income regions inhibiting high-tech production.

• Statistical approach, however, does not provide any insights into the real contribution of IP and how to reach welfare goals.

• Approximately half of PCT patent applications belong to universities in the Baltic States.

• The aim of the paper is to conceptualize and suggest strategic indicators of IP for the small efficiency-driven economy on the example of Estonia.

7

Patents and economic development

Population2013 2013

Million Per capita Total,Billion Total Industry UniversityFinland 5,44 37,342 203,14 12705 2095 95,4'' 0*Sweden 9,59 42,167 404,38 22645 3945 95,4'' 0*Estonia 1,32 24,568 32,43 273 21 84,2* 15,8*Latvia' 2,01 21,488 43,19 479 25 15,8* 76,2*Lithuania' 2,96 23,777 70,38 220 40 53,3* 46,7*Hungary 9,9 22,192 219,7 1560 163 58,5* 41,5*Iceland 0,32 39,906 12,77 233 43 100* 0*Malta' 0,42 28,357 11,91 273 73 100* 0*Malaysia 29,72 22,553 670,29 2299 308 13,0* 24,9*Singapore 5,4 76,226 411,62 5470 838 36,6* 35,8*'Data of GDP until 2012 ''Share in all PCT patent applications in 2012

0,850,850,900,980,99

0,970,870,650,530,63

State

GDP, PPP, US$ (basis 2011) Patent filing2013 1999-2013

TotalCorrelationShare in top 10*, %

PCT patent applications, 2013

Based on WIPO

8

Quantitative indicators

Innovation Union Scoreboard (EU 2015)

9

Qualitative indicators• IP strategy in R&D strategy framework

Active & non-linear: the substantial role of IP (decisive in some sectors) in R&D strategy design, planning and funding decisions and supporting collaborative research – “soft & hard measures”.

• Regular sector R&D and IP audit, and prognosis, including due diligence and feasibility study for research programs and industry sector

• Support measures (state order) for IP-based knowledge transfer and spin-off programs.

• IP support for SMEs

10

Cases of two universitiesUppsala University

• Re-orientation from IP profit (earning income) to innovation support by universities

• Indirect TT “soft measures”• AIMday®

• University of Tartu

11

Patent applications of personnel of the Uppsala & Tartu universities

Class 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalA 12 11 20 24 11 7 20 16 16 17 15 169B 6 4 10 8 7 12 2 11 8 4 9 81C 17 14 13 10 6 9 7 17 7 9 7 116E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3F 0 1 3 3 1 1 1 5 6 4 2 27G 5 1 8 18 4 6 15 9 6 3 3 78H 8 10 4 10 2 7 11 5 4 7 4 72Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4Total 48 41 58 73 31 42 56 63 52 46 40 550Sc&Techn 2167 2226 2215 2202 2241 2358 2557 2550 2581 2770 3014 26881Pat/articles 2,2 1,8 2,6 3,3 1,4 1,8 2,2 2,5 2,0 1,7 1,3 2,0Pat/articles 1,3 2,6 0,6 1,4 0,5 1,4 2,6 3,4 2,2 2,0 2,5 2,0Sc&Techn 307 352 324 346 426 442 470 584 548 613 720 5132Total 4 9 2 5 2 6 12 20 12 12 18 102A 0 2 0 3 0 1 4 3 6 2 5 26B 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 12C 2 5 2 1 1 3 3 10 3 5 8 43D 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3G 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 6H 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 9Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2Total 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 11 7 5 34Pat/articles 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,6 0,0 0,5 0,2 0,3 2,0 1,1 0,7 0,7

Upp

sala

Tart

uTU

12

Patent applications per 100 articles of the WoS by the personnel of Uppsala & Tartu u-s

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tartu

Uppsala

TÜ

13

Sizes of patent families of two universities by classes, filings 2000-2010

Class Uppsala TartuA 10,7 4,3B 6,4 2,7C 7,1 4,8E 2,3 2,0F 9,4 3,3G 4,0 2,4H 16,6 6,1Y 1 1

14

Discussion and conclusion• Evaluation of the university-industry collaboration

should not be limited by direct commercialisation or knowledge (IP) transfer indicators (IP licensing, sales, spin-offs). Real (not formal) collaboration between academia and firms as indirect commercialization should be counted.

• The patenting intensity of personnel of the Estonian university is comparable to their Swedish colleagues

• University institutional patent ownership rule works with only 1/3 of patent applications

15

Discussion and conclusion• Using only registered IPR (quantitative indicator),

especially in small (innovation) transition country, is not informative for strategy purposes.

• Strategy models and qualitative behavioural patterns of benchmark countries are the best start point for building up own IP indicators’ system.

• More important is to follow qualitative patterns of pathways reaching innovation-based economic development.

• Wise usage of patentometrics.• Aligning public R&D and industry?

16

Q&A, your advice?

Strategic indicators of patenting in transition: What to measure?