Industry preferences for foreign patenting of Russian innovation enterprises
Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 189, Issue 5-6(1), Pages: 35-45
Citation information:
Kitaisky, V., Revinsky, G., Revinsky, O., & Shvedova, V. (2021). Industry preferences for foreign patenting of Russian innovation enterprises. Economic Annals-XXI, 189(5-6(1)), 35-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V189-04
Vladimir Kitaisky
PhD (Engineering),
Associate Professor,
Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property (RSAIP)
55-A Mikluho-Maklaya Str., Moscow, 117279, Russian Federation
kve41@mail.ru
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9478-8008
Grigory Revinsky
MA (Engineering),
Head, Department of Scientific and Technical Support of Innovative Projects,
LLC «VKO-Intellect»
7 Molodogvardeyskaya Str., Office 1, Moscow, 121467, Russian Federation
revinskiy@gmail.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-6843
Oleg Revinsky
PhD (Law),
Associate Professor,
Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property (RSAIP)
55-A Mikluho-Maklaya Str., Moscow, 117279, Russian Federation
o_revinski@mail.ru
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9429-4019
Vera Shvedova
PhD (Engineering),
Associate Professor,
Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property (RSAIP)
55-A Mikluho-Maklaya Str., Moscow, 117279, Russian Federation
shvedova39@mail.ru
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4049-5880
Industry preferences for foreign patenting of Russian innovation enterprises
Abstract. Our paper is devoted to the science-research work carried out in the Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property (RSAIP) for revealing the role of foreign patenting for development of export of high-technology goods made by Russian manufacturers, first of all by small and medium-sized innovation enterprises. The results of study the patent documents indicating preferences of Russian innovation enterprises in foreign patenting of their new developments are presented in this paper. Preliminary conclusions on preferences in choice of countries for patenting and fields where innovations are made have been given.
It is well known that the development of a competitive economy depends on the innovative activity of enterprises in the market. Understanding of terminology of innovation and invention opens up their economic and legal essence. A special and basic characteristic of innovation is creativity. In the Japanese business and management system, creativity is a production slogan and an inspiring idea, since creativity generates a person’s desire to improve in work through intelligence. A product that is new on a global level is recognized as an invention and is regulated by patent law. The state of the art for the invention includes all information that became publicly available in the world before the date of applying with the State Department of intellectual property.
The aim of our study is to analyze the economic aspect of patenting made by the innovative companies in the world with attention to Russia, taking into account the role of innovation infrastructure.
Modern concepts of innovative development of economic systems at various levels (state, region, industry, business entity) increasingly focus on the need for new forms of integration of scientific, industrial, commercial, and other resources to increase competitiveness. Domestic and foreign researchers, government, and business representatives pay attention to clusters as a promising form of integration and practical implementation of the idea of Public-Private Partnership for Innovative Industrial Development.
The cluster approach allows combining the advantages of specialization, integration, and cooperation in increasing the competitiveness of business entities in a higher-level organizational and economic system (regional, industry cluster) by consolidating production, financial, intellectual, and managerial resources. Clustering of the innovation system in industry allows transition from supporting individual production enterprises or organizations that carry out scientific research to stimulating the development of relationships between them and other subjects of commercialization of scientific research.
Keywords: Foreign Patenting; Innovation Enterprises; Economy; Economic System; Cluster
JEL Classіfіcatіon: O32; Q55
Acknowledgements and Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Contribution: The authors contributed equally to this work.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V189-04
References
- Arora, A., Cohen, W. M., & Walsh, J. P. (2016). The Acquisition and Commercialization of Invention in American Manufacturing: Incidence and Impact. Research Policy, 45(6), 1113-1128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.005 - Bos B., Broekhuizen, T. L. J., & de Faria, P. (2015). A dynamic view on secrecy management. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2619-2627.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.009 - Bronwyn, H., Helmers, Ch., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The Choice Between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(2), 1-50.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.2.375 - Cantu-Ortiz, F. J., Galeano, N., Mora-Castro, P., & Fangmeyer, Jr. J. (2017). Spreading academic entrepreneurship: Made in Mexico. Business Horizons, 60(1), 541-550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.04.002 - Chang Shu-Hao (2017). The technology networks and development trends of university-industry collaborative patents. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 118, 107-113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.006 - Fischer, B. B., Schaeffer, P. R., Vonortas, N. S., & Queiroz, S. (2018). Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 263-284.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9568-x - Gong, H., & Peng, Sh. (2018). Effects of patent policy on innovation outputs and commercialization: evidence from universities in China. Scientometrics, 117, 687-703.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2893-5 - Huang, F., Rice, J., Galvin, P., & Martin, N. (2014). Openness and Appropriation: Empirical Evidence From Australian Businesses. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(3), 488-498.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2014.2320995 - Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A. B. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1307-1333.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9516-1 - Kim, M., Kim, J.-E., Sawng, Y.-W., & Lim, K.-S. (2018). Impacts of innovation type SME’s R&D capability on patent and new product development. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 45-61.
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-04-2018-043 - Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 171-197.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0339-y - Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 948-975.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9385-4 - Park, S., Lee, S.-J., & Jun, S. (2015). A network analysis model for selecting sustainable technology. Sustainability, 7(10), 13126-13141.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su71013126 - Piening, E. P., & Salge, T. O. (2015). Understanding the Antecedents, Contingencies, and Performance Implications of Process Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 80-97.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12225 - Png, I. P. L. (2017). Law and Innovation: Evidence from State Trade Secrets Laws. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(1), 167-179.
https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00532 - Russo-Spena, T., Tregua, M., & Bifulco, F. (2017). Searching through the jungle of innovation conceptualizations: System, network and ecosystem perspectives. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(5), 977-1005.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2015-0224 - Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2017). Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 252-260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.014 - Tang, M.-F., Li, C.-W., Baskaran, A., Cheng, Y., & Chandran, V. G. (2019). Reshaping the Business Incubator Model: The Case of the Value Chain Model of Innovation Works in China. Science Technology and Society, 24, 401-422.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873179 - Thompson, N. C., Ziedonis, A. A., & Mowery, D. C. (2015). University Licensing and the Flow of Scientific Knowledge.
http://www.neil-t.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/University-Licensing.pdf - Zobel, A.-K., Balsmeier, B., & Chesbrough, H. (2016). Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 307-331.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw005
Received 4.03.2021
Received in revised form 19.04.2021
Accepted 3.05.2021
Available online 10.06.2021