Patenting activity and innovativeness in US and Japan: An econometric analysis

  • Mario Gómez Aguirre Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Empresariales
  • José Carlos Rodríguez Chávez Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Empresariales


Este trabajo analiza los regímenes de propiedad intelectual en los Estados Unidos y Japón a través del número de patentes otorgadas durante el periodo 1940 a 2005 y 1965 a 2005, respectivamente. Haciendo uso de la base de datos generada por la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI), probamos la presencia de un cambio en el tiempo en el nivel o en la pendiente de la función tendencia de las series de patentes otorgadas. En la literatura sobre el tema se argumenta que la actividad patentadora en los Estados Unidos ha sido modificada como resultado de las nuevas regulaciones que se impusieron al régimen de propiedad intelectual en ese país durante los años ochenta. En el caso de Japón, se argumenta que las políticas a favor de una mayor actividad patentadora implementadas recientemente en ese país no han afectado significativamente las capacidades innovadoras de sus empresas. Los resultados obtenidos en este trabajo corroboran estos argumentos.


Brouwer, E., and A. Kleinknecht. 1999. Innovative output and a firm propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy 28: 615-624.

Cohen, W. M., and R. C. Levin. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee, R., and R. D. Willing (eds.) Handbook of Industrial Organization. North-Holland: Amsterdam.

Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper Series No. 7552.

De Rassenfosse, G., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2007. Per un pugno di dollari: A first look at the price elasticity of patents. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23: 588-604.

Deng, Y. 2007. The effects of patent regime changes: A case study of the European patent office. International Journal of Industrial Organization 25: 121-138.

Duguet, E., I. and Kabla. 1998. Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Annales d’économie et statistique 49: 289-327.

Encaoua, D., D. Guellec, and C. Martínez. 2006. Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis. Research Policy 35: 1423- 1440.

Hall, B. H. 2001. The global nature of intellectual property: Discussion. Discussion Paper, Industry Canada.

Hall, B. H. 2005. Exploring the Patent Explosion. Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 35-48.

Hall, B. H. 2007. Patents and patent policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23: 568-587.

Jaffe, A. B., and J. Lerner. 2001. Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. The RAND Journal of Economics 32: 167-198.

Levin, R. C., A. K. Klerovick, R. R. Nelson, and S. G. Winter. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3: 783-831.

Motohashi, K. 2003. Japan’s Patent System and Business Innovation: Reassessing Pro-Patent Policies. Working Paper. RIETI.

Ng, S., and P. Perron. 1995. Unit root tests in ARMA models with data dependent methods for the selection of the truncation lag. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 268-281.

Peeters, C., and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2006. Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 16: 109- 135.

Perron, P. 1989. The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57: 1361-1401.

Perron, P. 1997. Further evidence on breaking trend functions in macroeconomics variables. Journal of Econometrics 80: 355-385.

Sakakibara, M., and L. Branstetter. 2001. Do strong patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms. RAND Journal of Economics 32: 77-100.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper: New York. Scotchmer, S. 2004. The political economy of intellectual property treaties. The Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 20: 415-437.

Scotchmer, S., and J. Green. 1990. Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The RAND Journal of Economics 21: 131-146.

Sen, A. 2003. On unit-root test when the alternative is a trend-break stationary process. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 21: 11-30.

Siegel, D. S., D. A. Waldman, L. E. Atwater, and A. N. Link. 2004. Toward a

model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 21: 115-142.

Vogelsang, T. 1997. Wald-type tests for detecting breaks in the trend function of a dynamic time series. Econometric Theory 13: 818-849.