Search results

This paper addresses the geographical dimension of cross-border knowledge integration, expressed as the co-invention of patent filings and investigates the siting of patenting activities by major US corporations in China. Most importantly, the study looks into the patterns of international co-invention or the links of these locations to headquarters and other company subsidiaries.

The study explores the cases of six US multinationals that file international patent applications in China. The applications were analyzed based on the composition of invention teams and the locations of inventors.

The co-invented patent filings by US multinational enterprises (MNEs) in China demonstrate a high degree of US–Chinese subsidiary collaboration. Links with other subsidiaries are marginal, and at the same time, high levels of sole patenting by inventors in China point to competence-creating research and development (R&D) activities taking place.

The lack of subsidiary-subsidiary collaboration, especially subsidiaries in other emerging markets, indicates a less diversified strategy of leveraging internal networks of knowledge. This also implies that Chinese subsidiaries still lack attractiveness as partners in subsidiary-subsidiary co-invention. Only two companies in our sample, Procter & Gamble and Intel, demonstrate a highly diversified, integrated and transnational pattern of innovation management.

The paper contributes to the contextual understanding of the rich landscape of R&D activities of major US MNEs in China. By exploring these cases, the paper identifies a number of trends. First, the R&D activities in this sample are highly concentrated in technological clusters located in Beijing and Shanghai. Technological clustering is an important advantage of the innovation landscape in emerging markets. Second, the paper underscores the importance of differentiating between different types of co-invention. The patent applications in this sample tend to unite inventors mostly from the US and China, and so multi-country applications involving subsidiaries in other countries are rare. Thus, the level of integration outside the center-host bandwidth is low. However, Chinese subsidiaries demonstrate high levels of autonomy by filing single-country applications, which implies that they are building their own research identity.

The paper proposes an answer to one of the most important questions in corporate innovation management: what mechanisms of technological diversification exist within multinational companies? It is ascertained that research and development (R&D) intra-firm co-invention or co-patenting is one of those mechanisms. Co-invention implies knowledge-sharing, which should lead to unique combinations of knowledge and expertise and hence technological diversification of patent applications.

This paper offers a novel conceptual framework exploring the relationship between patents’ technological diversification and a detailed classification of different forms of international co-invention. Based on the case of Siemens’ Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, the revealed technological advantage (RTA) index is utilized to measure the extent of the technological diversification of patent output.

The results show that patent applications generated by subsidiaries in advanced economies in cooperation with other subsidiaries feature unique technological areas that deviate from the company's overall technological specializations. These results provide a strong argument in favor of inter-subsidiary or horizontal co-patenting as a mechanism of new knowledge creation.

On the conceptual level, the results accentuate inter-subsidiary patenting being an important mechanism of knowledge meta-integration boosting technological diversification. The obvious limitation of this paper lies in exploring a single company case, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. Due to the dynamic nature of technological change, the author’s dataset also suffers from a lack of temporal external validity. Future research can expand the scope in both regards in applying our co-invention mode typology.

Based on the results, to diversify knowledge portfolio, companies should strengthen the co-patenting effort and reinforce horizontal (inter-subsidiary) R&D collaborations.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first time when such a nuanced typology of co-invention modes is being utilized to understand the effect of different co-invention categories on knowledge diversification.

The purpose of this paper is to identify major developments in corporate innovation. The author focuses on the behavioral differences between MNEs from developed and emerging markets in the way they locate their R&D activities.

With the help of descriptive statistics, the paper identifies major trends in the global distribution of innovative activity. The novel source of patent statistics, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, is used as a proxy for innovative effort by leading MNEs. This paper is among the first attempts to analyze the global geography of innovation based on PCT statistics.

The analysis underscores differences in the patenting activities of MNEs from emerging and advanced markets. It confirms that innovative activity by major MNEs remains largely home-based, which contradicts the premise of the global nature of corporate innovation. At the same time, the growing importance of China as a research center attracts MNEs from a variety of developed markets. Emerging MNEs also file patent applications domestically. Most Chinese R&D subsidiaries of MNEs from advanced economies in our sample do not pursue technological specialization, as they produce patents in the same technological areas as the corporate headquarters or other subsidiaries.

A number of assumptions about the innovation geography of major MNEs were empirically tested. An attempt was made to fill the gaps in our understanding of innovation strategies pursued by MNEs in emerging markets. The author uses the concept of MNEs as meta-integrators to explain the observed dynamics. Its explanatory power is more convincing as applied to our data than the concept of national systems of innovation.