Overview of patents of Federal Universities through patent quality metrics and impact on innovation from the database of the European Patent Office - PATSTAT EPO 2010-2020





Innovation, Patents, Universities Patent Quality Indicators


This study aims to provide a scenario and indicate the quality of patent registration in Brazilian federal universities from the database of the European Patent Office - EPO and PATSTAT between the years 2010 and 2020, considering the deposits, grants and other relevant data for research. The data were obtained in SQL language and were treated through data integration, supported by MS Power BI software, bringing contributions to the research profile in this international bank, such as the number of patents, research area profile, number of inventors, offices that received patent deposits, patent citations by family, geographic location, profile through patent classes, to understand the innovative process and pure invention, besides helping to improve processes, promote better partnerships, investments in more vital areas and to know the know-how of Universities in specific research areas. Finally, we note the 461-fold increase in the number of filings on this international base since 2015, indicating the maturity of Brazilian university patenting, and the concentration of universities in the Northeast, Southeast, and South. Based on the International Patent Classification (IPC), the most prominent areas are health, medical or veterinary clinics and hygiene (A61), representing 41.48% of the total number of patents, the area of microorganisms or enzymes, their compositions; propagation, conservation or maintenance of microorganisms, genetic or mutational engineering, culture media (C12), representing 12.29% of the total number of patents, the area of Food and food products (A23), microorganisms or enzymes; their compositions; propagation, preservation or maintenance of microorganisms represents 11.69% of patents, and area of organic chemistry (C07) represents 9.12% of patents and the area of investigation or analysis of materials by determining their chemical or physical properties (G01) which represents 6.18% of the total number of patents. The most prominent universities are UFPA, UFMG, UFPE, UFRGS, UFCE, UFPR, UFPEL, UFRN, UTFPR.


Não há dados estatísticos.


Álvarez, P., Reyes, M., Cantalejo, J.S., & Argüello, A. (2019). Analysis of factors associated with Grant for PCT national phase entries patent: a mathematical model. European journal of anatomy, 23, 333-340.

Barra, C., Maietta, O. W., & Zotti, R. (2017). Academic excellence, local knowledge spillovers and innovation in Europe. Regional Studies, 53(7), 1058-1069. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1540865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1540865

Barrichello, A., Santos, E. G., & Morano, R. S. (2020). Determinant and priority factors of innovation for the development of nations. Innovation & Management Review, 17(3), 307-320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-04-2019-0040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-04-2019-0040

Bikard, M. A., & Marx, M. (2019). Bridging academia and industry: How geographic hubs connect university science and corporate technology. Management Science. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3385

Boeing, P., & Mueller, E. (2016). Measuring patent quality in cross-country comparison. Economics Letters, 149, 145–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.10.039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.10.039

Bulut, H., & Moschini, G. (2009). US universities’ net returns from patenting and licensing: a quantile regression analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(2), 123–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590701709025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590701709025

Cai, Y., & Etzkowitz, H. (2020). Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future. Triple Helix, 1–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10003

Callaert, J., Du Plessis, M., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2013). The impact of academic technology: Do modes of involvement matter? The Flemish case. Technovation, 33(12), 432-451. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.07.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.07.005

Cammarano, A., Michelino, F., Lamberti, E., & Caputo, M. (2019). Investigating technological strategy and relevance of knowledge domains in R&D collaborations. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(2), 41. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5020041.

Cao, Q. (2020). Contradiction between input and output of Chinese scientific research: A multidimensional analysis. Scientometrics, 123, 451–485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03377-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03377-w

Carvalho, L. D. S., & De Lima, C. R. M. (2014). Administração da informação para a inovação em uma organização. Informação@Profissões, 2(2), 01. doi: https://doi.org/10.5433/2317-4390.2013v2n2p0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5433/2317-4390.2013v2n2p01

Chang, S., Chang, H., & Fan, C. (2018). Structural model of patent quality applied to various countries. International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(3), 371–384. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-05-2017-0036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-05-2017-0036

Chen, Z., & Guan, J. (2010). The impact of small world on innovation: An empirical study of 16 countries. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 97–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.09.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.09.003

Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2012). The nexus between science and industry: Evidence from faculty inventions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 755–776. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9214-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9214-y

Dallacorte, C., & Jacoski, C. A. (2016). Avaliação do desenvolvimento econômico e ligação com patentes: Estudo de caso para mensurar inovação em municípios. Ágora: Revista De Divulgação Científica, 21(1), 64–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.24302/agora.v21i1.1103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24302/agora.v21i1.1103

Ejermo, O., & Källström, J. (2016). What is the causal effect of R&D on patenting activity in a “professor’s privilege” country? Evidence from Sweden. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 677–694. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9752-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9752-7

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002

Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). Hélice Tríplice: inovação e empreendedorismo universidade-indústria-governo. Estudos Avançados, 31(90), 23–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-40142017.3190003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-40142017.3190003

Etzkowitz, H., Germain-Alamartine, E., Keel, J., Kumar, C., Smith, K. N., & Albats, E. (2019). Entrepreneurial university dynamics: Structured ambivalence, relative deprivation and institution-formation in the Stanford innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 159–171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.019

Ferreira, S., Garcia, R. & Araújo, V. (2022). Determinants of university and industrial patents in Brazilian regions: A spatial panel approach. In VI Encontro Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação (pp. 555-569). Blucher Engineering Proceedings. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/vi-enei-892.

Freitas, I. Z. de & Lago, S. M. S. (2019). Análise do sistema de patentes no Brasil, no espaço temporal de 2000 a 2018. Research, Society and Development, 10(4), e50210413791. doi: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.13791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.13791

Halilem, N.; Amara, N.; Olmos-Peñuela, J. & Mohiuddin, M. (2017). To Own, or not to Own? A multilevel analysis of intellectual property right policies' on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1479-1489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.002

Hu, A. G. Z., & Jaffe, A. B. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6), 849–880. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7187(03)00035-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00035-3

INPI - Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial. (2020). Patentes. https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/servicos/perguntas-frequentes/patentes#tipos.

Jojo, J. (2013). PATSTAT database for patent-based research, Innovation and Development, 3:2, 313-315. doi: 10.1080/2157930X.2013.833769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2013.833769

Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The Effects of Academic Incubators on University Innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 145–170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1242

Kürtössy, J. (2004). Innovation indicators derived from patent data. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 12(1), 91–101.

Lee, Y.H. (2020). Determinants of research productivity in Korean Universities: the role of research funding. J Technol Transf 46, 1462–1486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09817-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09817-2

Lei, X.-P., Chen, D.-Z., Huang, M.-H., Zhao, Z.-Y., Zhang, X., Zheng, J., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhang, Z.-Y., & Liu, R.-S. (2012). An analysis of innovation competitiveness of China through patent analysis. Scientometrics, 91(3), 779–790. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0697-4.

Li, R., Chambers, T., Ding, Y., Zhang, G., & Meng, L. (2014). Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1007–1017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23054

Luan, C., Zhou, C. & Liu, A. (2010). Patent strategy in Chinese universities: a comparative perspective. Scientometrics 84, 53–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0194-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0194-8

Maclaurin, W. R. (1953). The Sequence from Invention to Innovation and Its Relation to Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 97-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1884150

Mahnken, T. A., & Moehrle, M. G. (2018). Multi-cross-industry innovation patents in the USA - A combination of PATSTAT and Orbis search. World Patent Information, 55, 52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2018.10.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2018.10.003

Martínez, C. & Sterzi, V. (2020) The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European University-owned patents. Industry and Innovation 28(3): 247–282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1709421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1709421

McManus, C. & Neves, A.A. (2021). Production profiles in Brazilian Science, with special attention to social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics 126, 2413–2435. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03452-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03452-2

Mowery, D. C. & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in National Innovation Systems. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0008

Mowery, D. C. & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States. Research Policy, 31(3), 399–418. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00116-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00116-0

Nasir, A., Ali, T., Shahdin, S., & Rahman, T. (2011). Technology achievement index 2009: ranking and comparative study of nations. Scientometrics, 87(1), 41–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0285-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0285-6

OECD (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en

OECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en

Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Korkmaz, I.b.H. & Çetinkaya, C. (2019), A GIS-based DANP-VIKOR approach to evaluate R&D performance of Turkish cities, Kybernetes, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 2266-2306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2018-0456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2018-0456

Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00045-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00045-3

Pasimeni, F. (2019). SQL query to increase data accuracy and completeness in PATSTAT. World Patent Information, 57, 1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2019.02.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2019.02.001

Qiu, H.-H., & Yang, J. (2018). An assessment of technological innovation capabilities of carbon capture and storage technology based on patent analysis: A comparative study between China and the United States. Sustainability, 10(3), 877. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030877

Rasmussen, E.; Moen, Y.; Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.11.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.11.005

Rassenfosse, G.; Dernis, H. & Boedt, G. (2014). An Introduction to the Patstat Database with Example Queries. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2420253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2420253

Schoellman, T. & Smirnyagin, V. (2021). The growing importance of universities for patenting and innovation. SSRN. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3911375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3911375

Schmookler, J. (1962). Economic Sources of Inventive Activity. The Journal of Economic History, 22(1), 1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050700102311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700102311

Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press EBooks. doi: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674432833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674432833

Schmookler, J. (1972). Patents, Invention, and Economic Change: Data and Selected Essays. Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674432864

Silva, F. G.; Ribeiro, J. A. & Barros, F. M. R. (2019). Mapeamento da atuação dos Núcleos de Inovação Tecnológica dos Institutos Federais de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia dos estados de Minas Gerais e Espírito Santo. Revista Administração, Sociedade e Inovação, 5(2), 180-197. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21573/rasi.v5i2.49820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20401/rasi.5.2.344

Soares, T. J.; Torkomian, A.L.V. & Nagano, M. S. (2020). University regulations, regional development and technology transfer: The case of Brazil. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C). doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120129

Sterzi, V. (2013). Patent quality and ownership: an analysis of UK Faculty patenting. Le Centre Pour La Communication Scientifique Directe - HAL - Inria. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.010

Su, C.-Y.; Lin, B.-W.; & Chen, C.-J. (2015). Technological knowledge co-creation strategies in the world of open innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 334-343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.003

Sun, Y.; Zhang, C. & Kok, R.A. (2020) The role of research outcome quality in the relationship between University Research Collaboration and Technology Transfer: Empirical results from China. Scientometrics 122(2): 1003–1026. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03330-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03330-6

Sung, H., Wang, C., Chen, D., & Huang, M. (2014). A comparative study of patent counts by the inventor country and the assignee country. Scientometrics, 100(2), 577–593. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1192-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1192-4

Tahmooresnejad, L. & Beaudry, C. (2019). Collaboration or funding: lessons from a study of nanotechnology patenting in Canada and the United States. J Technol Transf 44, 741–777. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9615-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9615-7

WIPO. (2017). World Intellectual Property Indicators 2017. World Intellectual Property Organization. 34, chemin des Colombettes.

Wójcik-Augustyniak, Marzena.. (2020). How to measure and compare the value of organizations. The case study of HEIs. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(3), pages 2144-2169, March. doi: 10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(46). DOI: https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(46)

Xing, Z., Yu, F., Du, J., Walker, J.S., Paulson, C.B., Mani, N.S., & Song, L. (2019). Conversational Interfaces for Health: Bibliometric Analysis of Grants, Publications, and Patents. J Med Internet Res. 18;21(11):e14672. doi: 10.2196/14672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/14672

Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2012). An analysis of property-function based patent networks for strategic R&D planning in fast-moving industries: The case of silicon-based thin film solar cells. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4), 611-624. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.009

Zuo, Z. & Lin, Z. (2022). Government R&D subsidies and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of accounting information quality. Journal of Innovation Knowledge, 7(2), 100176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100176




Como Citar

Leonidio, U. da C., Pereira, J. C., de Souza, C. G., Cardoso, D. de O., Julião, M. da S., Ferreira, H. M. G., dos Santos, V. C., & Marques, R. A. (2023). Overview of patents of Federal Universities through patent quality metrics and impact on innovation from the database of the European Patent Office - PATSTAT EPO 2010-2020. Revista De Gestão E Secretariado, 14(5), 7706–7724. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v14i5.2146