Patent Outcomes and Industry Collaboration: A Univariate Analysis of Non-Institutional Partnerships

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 50 - 68, 13.01.2026

Kağan Okatan

Öz

Bu makale, kurumsal olmayan iş birliklerinin (rakipler, tedarikçiler, özel sektör müşterileri, kamu sektörü müşterileri, danışmanlar ve diğer özel işletmeler) Avrupa ülkelerindeki patent başvurularını şekillendirmedeki rolünü incelemektedir. Eurostat Topluluk İnovasyon Anketi verilerinden yararlanan çalışma, her iş birliği türünün patent sonuçları üzerindeki bağımsız etkisini izole etmek için tek değişkenli regresyon modelleri kullanmaktadır. Sonuçlar, patent başvuruları ile çoğu iş birliği türü arasında önemli pozitif ilişkiler ortaya koymaktadır; özellikle rakipler, kamu sektörü müşterileri ve özel sektör müşterileriyle iş birliği için güçlü etkiler söz konusudur. Tedarikçi ve danışman iş birlikleri de, nispeten daha düşük bir açıklama gücüne sahip olsa da, pozitif ilişkiler göstermektedir. İlginç bir şekilde, işletme grubu dışındaki diğer özel işletmelerle iş birliği, daha zayıf ancak yine de istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etki göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, farklı iş birliği kanallarının patentlenebilir inovasyonu teşvik etmedeki etkinliklerinin farklılık gösterdiğini ve firmaların buluş çıktılarını en üst düzeye çıkarmak için dış ortaklarla seçici bir şekilde etkileşim kurmaları gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Politika yapıcılar için sonuçlar, iş birliğinin, tedarikçi ağlarının ve kamu alımlarının patent üretimi için katalizör görevi gördüğü rekabetçi ve talep odaklı inovasyon ekosistemlerini teşvik etmenin önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışma, yalnızca tek değişkenli ilişkilere odaklanarak, farklı dış ortaklıkların Avrupa bağlamında patent başvurularını nasıl etkilediğine dair açık ve doğrudan kanıtlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

iş birliği , inovasyon yönetimi , inovasyon politikası , bilgi ağları

Patent Sonuçları ve Endüstri İşbirliği: Kurumsal Olmayan Ortaklıkların Tek Değişkenli Analizi

Öz

This paper examines the role of non-institutional cooperation—competitors, suppliers, private sector clients, public sector clients, consultants, and other private enterprises—in shaping patent applications across European countries. Drawing on Eurostat’s Community Innovation Survey data, the study employs univariate regression models to isolate the independent effect of each cooperation type on patent outcomes. The results reveal significant positive relationships between patent applications and most forms of collaboration, with particularly strong effects for cooperation with competitors, public sector clients, and private sector clients. Supplier and consultant cooperation also show positive associations, though with comparatively lower explanatory power. Interestingly, cooperation with other private enterprises outside the enterprise group demonstrates a weaker yet still statistically significant impact. These findings highlight that different cooperation channels vary in their effectiveness for fostering patentable innovation, suggesting that firms must selectively engage with external partners to maximize inventive output. For policymakers, the results underline the importance of fostering competitive and demand-driven innovation ecosystems where coopetition, supplier networks, and public procurement act as catalysts for patent generation. By focusing exclusively on univariate relationships, this study provides clear and direct evidence of how distinct external partnerships individually influence patent applications in the European context.

Anahtar Kelimeler

coopetition , innovation management , innovation policy , knowledge networks

Kaynakça

• Ahn, J. M., Mortara, L., & Minshall, T. (2018). Dynamic capabilities and economic crises: Has openness enhanced a firm's performance in an economic downturn? Industrial and Corporate Change 27(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx048
• Azadegan, A., & Dooley, K. (2010). Supplier innovativeness, organizational learning styles and manufacturer performance:an empirical assessment. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.02.001
• Belderbos, R., Cassiman, B., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Co‐ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value‐appropriation and value‐creation implications of co‐patenting with different partners. Research Policy, 43(5), 841–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.013
• Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V., & Suzuki, S. (2016). Direct and mediated ties to universities: “Scientific” absorptive capacity and innovation performance of pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Organization, 14(1), 32-52., https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015604734
• Bogers, M., Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. (2018). The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Research Policy, 47(1), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.012
• Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9, 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0168-6
• Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
• Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
• De Silva, M., Howells, J., & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.011
• Edquist, C., Vonortas, N. S., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., & Edler, J. (2015). Public procurement for innovation. Edward Elgar.
• Hoegl, M., & Wagner, S. M. (2005). Buyer–supplier collaboration in product development projects. Journal of Management, 31(4), 530–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272291
• Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
• Luzzini, D., Amann, M., Caniato, F., Essig, M., & Ronchi, S. (2015). The path of innovation: Purchasing and supplier involvement into new product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.034
• Rodríguez, A., Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. (2018). International collaboration and innovation in professional and technological knowledge-intensive services. Industry and Innovation, 25(4), 408–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1414752
• OECD. (2023). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2023-en
• Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 243-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
• Ritala, P., Kraus, S., & Bouncken, R. B. (2016). Introduction to coopetition and innovation: contemporary topics and future research opportunities. International Journal of Technology Management, 71(1-2), 19.
• Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition—The role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.x
• Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2006). Innovation and regional absorptive capacity: The labour market dimension. The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 40(2), 437–447. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00168-006-0068-4
• Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1079–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.003
• Tijssen, R. J. W. (2018). Anatomy of use-inspired university researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model. Research Policy, 47(9), 1626–1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.010
• von Hippel, E. (2017). Free innovation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Wagner, S. M., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Involving suppliers in product development: Insights from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 936–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.10.009
• West, J., & Bogers, M. (2017). Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1258995