Inventions, public subsidies and market launch: Opportunities and limits of patenting support in Argentina

Milesi, Darío; Aggio, Carlos; Verre, Vladimiro Article Inventions, public subsidies and market launch: Opportunities and limits of patenting support in Argentina Estudios de Economía Provided in Cooperation with: Department of Economics, University of Chile Suggested Citation: Milesi, Darío; Aggio, Carlos; Verre, Vladimiro (2024) : Inventions, public subsidies and market launch: Opportunities and limits of patenting support in Argentina, Estudios de Economía, ISSN 0718-5286, Universidad de Chile, Departamento de Economía, Santiago de Chile, Vol. 51, Iss. 1, pp. 19-43 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/312789 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ 19 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1, Junio 2024. Págs 19-43 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch: opportunities and limits of patenting support in Argentina Invenciones, subsidios públicos y llegada al mercado: oportunidades y límites del apoyo al patentamiento en Argentina DARIO MILESI* CARLOS AGGIO** VLADIMIRO Verre*** Abstract ANR Patentes is an Argentinean program that gives grants for patents applications to innovative firms, entrepreneurs and researchers. Throughout the period 2007-2017, 83 projects (out of 195) were funded. Based on secondary sources and a survey conducted to beneficiaries, this study reconstructs the progress made by the patent applicants. The results show, on the one hand, that a high percentage of the patents have been granted, and, on the other hand, a group of projects are facing difficulties to reach the market. Thus, the study suggests the necessity to complement ANR Patentes with other instruments oriented to foster entrepreneurship and productive development. Key words: Public subsidy, patent, market. JEL Classification: O30 O32 O34. * ** *** Instituto de Industria, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CIECTI), Argentina. [email protected] Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CIECTI), Argentina. Instituto de Industria, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CIECTI), Argentina. Received: March, 2023 Accepted: April, 2024 20 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 Resumen El ANR Patentes es un instrumento que otorga subsidios al patentamiento de desarrollos innovadores en Argentina. Entre 2007 y 2017 se financiaron 83 proyectos de 195 postulaciones. A partir de información secundaria y de una encuesta a beneficiarios se pudo reconstruir el camino de las solicitudes de patentes financiadas. Los resultados revelan una alta tasa de otorgamiento de las patentes solicitadas y, que un conjunto de proyectos ha enfrentado dificultades para llegar al mercado. Esto indica la conveniencia de articular este instrumento con programas orientados al emprendedurismo y con fuentes de financiamiento para el desarrollo productivo. Palabras clave: Subsidio público, patente, mercado. Clasificación JEL: O30 O32 O34. 1. INTRODUCTION Promoting the protection and exploitation of the intellectual and industrial property (IP) of locally generated knowledge is part of the public agenda in many countries. This promotion is implemented in at least four ways (Xu and Munari, 2016): i) measures promoting patent-filings; ii) measures promoting patented technology maturation; iii) measures promoting patent exploitation; and iv) measures promoting patent leverage to access external financing. This paper focuses on an instrument called Aporte no Reembolsable Patentes (ANR Patentes), managed by the Argentine Technological Fund (FONTAR), which falls into the first category insofar as it finances the preparation and filing of patent applications (or utility models) in Argentina and elsewhere. Its ultimate purpose is to protect innovative results generated by the Argentinean scientific, technological and productive sector. ANR Patentes differs from other programs in the world that provide patent fillings subsidies since there is a fairly rigorous selection and evaluation process of the beneficiaries before granting the funds. On the contrary, other countries such as Italy and mainly China, provide subsidies almost automatically based on the chronological order of applications after a check of formal requirements (Xu and Munari, 2016; Lei, et al, 2013). Due to its scale, these schemes have resulted in a rise of the aggregate number of patents in those countries but have raised concerns about the quality (measured by the number of forward citation and concession) and economic value (measured by economic performance after the subsidy) (Li, 2012; The Economist, 2010). 21 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre ANR Patentes partially covers expenses associated with the patent application of those projects that surpassed the instrument ex-ante evaluation. The subsequent results such as the actual granting of the patent and its commercial exploitation are beyond the scope and control of FONTAR. The program does not provide additional support to maintain the validity of the patent in the event that it is granted, nor for the investments required to transform the protected invention into an innovation. However, the instrument implicitly assumes that the stages following the application will be effectively carried out in all cases. In accordance with this expectation, subsidy candidates must demonstrate not only their product or process’s “inventive step” to be deemed as patentable, but also its further commercial potential. The objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it aims to make a methodological contribution to trace and evaluate the path followed by patent applicants after their requests. Secondly, it aims to find out what has happened to the patent applications financed by ANR Patentes. On the one hand, it verifies to what extent the projects assisted have effectively achieved market performance expectations. On the other hand, it analyzes those aspects of the instrument that could be reformulated to improve its functioning and expected results. In addition, given that this type of financing in other countries is given almost automatically to all applicants through large-scale programs, both the methodological strategy for gathering evidence and the results of Argentina’s ANR Patentes constitute a contribution to the debate of how to evaluate small-scale and niche instruments. The remainder of this paper is organized in four sections. The next section introduces the instrument under analysis in terms of its objectives, characteristics and general results. The third section develops the methodology used to collect information about the path followed by the applications financed by ANR Patentes after receiving the subsidy. The fourth section is devoted to presenting and analyzing the evidence generated. Finally, the fifth section is devoted to conclusions and policy recommendations derived from the study. 2. ANR PATENTES IN ARGENTINA ANR Patentes is a subsidy aimed at protecting R&D results by supporting the preparation and/or filing of invention and utility model patent applications.1 The subsidy covers up to 80% of the project, up to USD 5,000 for applications in Argentina and USD 75,000 abroad. The maximum duration of projects is 1 The translation of Aporte no Reembolsable (ANR) is non-refundable funding, but strictly speaking it is a subsidy. 22 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 36 months. It is aimed at: a) national SMEs; b) individuals; c) public and/or private non-profit scientific and technological institutions. Diagram 1 shows a stylized illustration of a complete cycle of an innovative project and where ANR Patentes makes its contribution. It starts with a research and development phase that may be driven by the search for a technological solution to a problem and/or by the identification of a market opportunity. The duration of this stage varies according to the type and complexity of the project and in some cases it also receives public funding. When the results obtained are positive, the development or invention takes place. When this milestone is sufficiently inventive it becomes patentable in order to, among other things, prevent copying and/or generate income through the licensing of the patent.2 After that, regardless of whether or not a patent is granted, the innovation is completed when the development is taken to a productive scale, reaches the market and is commercially exploited. Finally, these projects can be associated with broader potential socioeconomic impacts in different aspects. In economic terms, the potential is to: i) increase productivity; ii) develop new (niche) markets, iii) substitute imports, iv) generate exports and/or new jobs, among others. Socially, these projects can potentially improve the quality of life of the population (for example, through health) and generate greater inclusion in disadvantaged or relatively less developed groups or regions of the country. 2 The patent guarantees the private appropriation of the innovation through the exclusive rights granted to the inventor. At the same time, it allows a certain diffusion of knowledge by requiring the description of the invention or development to be made public (Griliches, 1990). Several studies show that patents are more widely used to protect product innovations than process innovations and, that their use and effectiveness vary according to the industrial sector (Mansfield, 1986; Levin et al., 1987). Among the limitations of this instrument are the difficulty in demonstrating the novelty of the invention, the disclosure of information to potential competitors and the high costs of application and defense (Levin et al., 1987; Cohen et al., 2000). 23 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre DIAGRAM 1 INNOVATIVE PROJECT CYCLE AND ANR PATENTES’ CONTRIBUTION ANR Patentes funding is conditioned by three evaluation stages: (i) a patentability analysis, conducted by evaluators based on a state-of-the-art search provided by the applicant; (ii) an economic feasibility analysis that includes, at least, a forecast of the potential economic impact, market profile and the capacity of the holder to scale up the project, using the idea commercially or licensing the invention. As part of this, the correspondence between the export strategy, market opportunities and countries in which the patent application is intended is also evaluated; (iii) the financial capacity of the applicant to cover the counterpart contributions foreseen by the instrument. The main eligible expenses include the fees associated with the preparation and submission of the application (drafting, preparation of drawings and figures, translations, compliance with standards and preparation of supplementary documentation required by the various offices, etc.) and the respective fees and tariffs. Finally, it should be noted that, as can be seen from the economic viability analysis that includes the evaluation of projects, the spirit of the instrument is not merely to increase the number of patents, but rather that the industrial propSource: Own elaboration based on Verre et al (2020). 24 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 erty protection conferred by these patents should facilitate the development or invention to effectively take advantage of opportunities and meet needs, with a consequent socioeconomic and competitive impact from the knowledge generated. Up to 2017, the instrument received 195 applications, of which 83 were financed. Some beneficiaries received funding for more than one project, so the total number of beneficiaries is lower than the number of projects. In this regard, there are a total of 58 beneficiaries of which 42 obtained funding for a single project and 16 obtained funding for two or more projects. The annual evolution shows a steady growth until 2012 and then a decline until 2017 (Figure 1). FIGURE 1 ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS FINANCED In terms of the types of beneficiaries, coinciding with the objectives of the instrument, legal persons and SMEs predominate, together accounting for 65 projects (78%), while public institutions were the beneficiaries of the remaining 18 (22%) (Figure 2). It should be noted that within this total, four public-private associative projects were also identified. Source: Own elaboration based on information provided by FONTAR. 25 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre FIGURE 2 NUMBER OF PROJECTS FINANCED ACCORDING TO TYPE OF BENEFICIARY The methodological approach and main results corresponding to the path followed by the patent applications of these 83 projects are presented below. 3. METHODOLOGY The methodological strategy used to access information on the results of the projects was based on secondary and primary sources (see Table 1 for the coverage and type of information collected in each case). TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SOURCES, COVERAGE AND NATURE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY TYPE OF SOURCE Source: Own elaboration based on information provided by FONTAR. Secondary Primary Source Patent databases: • PatentScope • Google Patents • Espacenet Survey of ANR Patentes beneficiaries Coverage 83 projects (100%) 33 projects (40%) Type of information obtained Office(s) of application, status (granted, in force), record of other applications made by the beneficiaries. Motivations and difficulties encountered in the application process. Commercial exploitation. Experience with the public sector. Source: Own elaboration. 26 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 Secondary information on the status of applications was obtained from open access patent databases such as PatentScope, Google Patents and Espacenet. PatentScope, a search engine provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), was initially consulted to identify patent applications that met three conditions: 1) they included ANR beneficiaries as applicants; 2) they revealed lexical proximity to the respective project title; and 3) they were contemporaneous with the project in chronological terms. The PatentScope search was configured to include results from all offices while disabling the automatic separation of words into lexemes. Subsequently, for each of the applications retrieved from PatentScope, we proceeded to identify the “twin” records indexed by Google Patents that allowed us to incorporate the patent grant date. Since only entries in the national or regional phases following the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application are likely to be granted (or rejected), and this occurs according to the applicable law in each jurisdiction, in the case of applications made through the PCT, it was decided to assign the earliest grant date to the first entry at the national phases level. Cross-checking with Google Patents also made it possible to know whether granted patents are active or in force. Likewise, in order to measure the relevance of ANR Patentes in the intellectual property management trajectory of the beneficiaries, patent applications made by the beneficiaries but not related to the financed projects were searched for and retrieved. Finally, data cleaning was performed in terms of consistency and completeness and ex post filtering by categories and by automated identification/sorting strategies to remove duplications, outliers and anomalies from the database. Regarding commercial exploitation and other aspects of the patenting process, a survey was conducted since such information is not available in the patent databases. The questionnaire contained five sections (see Table 2) and was managed through an online platform. As can be seen, in addition to the information on commercial exploitation, the questionnaire also asked about aspects captured by the patent databases, such as the application and granting process, both to allow the respondent to reference the subsequent questions and to corroborate the accuracy of the information obtained from the patent databases. Likewise, in each segment, qualitative aspects of the process, such as the reasons for patenting, were explored in depth. Finally, the beneficiaries were asked about their evaluation of the instrument and their general experience of the relationship with the Public Sector. 33 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre 4.2 Patents Granted In terms of patents granted, 76% of the projects (63 out of 83) were granted at least one of the patents applied for, indicating that the selection of projects has adequately foreseen the potential for patentability in most cases. This conclusion is reinforced if we analyze the reasons in the six surveyed cases of non-granting. Within these cases, there are two that are still in the process of analysis (filed in 2016 and 2017) and could end up being granted. Of the remaining four, in three projects, the inventors desisted from continuing with the process, and in one case, the patent was formally denied by the European Patent Office for lack of an inventive step5. The 63 projects that were granted patents generated a total of 166 applications and 83 patents granted, 62 by direct entry to national offices (50% of applications) and 21 by entry through the PCT system (50% of applications). Of this total, 66 are still in force (46 and 20, respectively). Table 5 summarizes this information. TABLE 5 PATENTS APPLICATIONS, GRANTS AND IN FORCE 5 In this case, however, the holder registered the invention as a utility model in Spain. Project results Number Average per project National Offices Applications 1.49 Grants 0.75 Grants/Applications (in %) 50.0 In force 0.55 In force/Grants (in %) 74.2 PCT Applications 42 0.51 Grants 0.25 Grants/Applications (in %) 50.0 In force 0.24 In force/Grants (in %) 95.2 Source: Own elaboration based on information from the ANR PATENTES Database, PatentScope, Espacenet and Google Patents. 34 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 Some characteristics of applicants and applications affect the probability of obtaining the patent. Table 6 shows how the applications are distributed (taking the total of 166 applications) between granted and not granted according, on the one hand, to the type of applicant and their previous experience in patent applications and, on the other, to the application office and the technological class (at the section level). As can be seen, those beneficiaries with prior experience and who are SMEs or science and technology institutions show a higher proportion of patents granted than those who are legal persons and have no experience, respectively. For their part, the application offices with the highest proportion of patents granted are the USPTO and those in Asian countries, while those with the lowest proportion of grants are those filed in neighboring countries. Finally, the technological classes with the highest proportion of concessions are B (mainly related to machines, devices and transportation equipment for various activities) and E (mainly related to transportation, water and mining infrastructure). 35 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre Characteristics Results of Patent Applications Number Percentage Not granted Granted Total Not granted Granted Total Type of beneficiary Legal person 40 31 71 56% 44% 100% SME 26 31 57 46% 54% 100% S&T public institution 17 21 38 45% 55% 100% Total 83 83 166 50% 50% 100% Previous experience applying to patents No 48 39 87 55% 45% 100% Yes 35 44 79 44% 56% 100% Total 83 83 166 50% 50% 100% Office of application AR 33 35 68 49% 51% 100% PCT 21 21 42 50% 50% 100% USPTO 8 12 20 40% 60% 100% Other South American countries (Brazil/Chile/Uruguay) 16 0 16 100% 0% 100% Asian countries (China/S. Korea/Japan) 2 11 13 15% 85% 100% Other Countries/Offices 3 4 7 43% 57% 100% Total 83 83 166 50% 50% 100% International Patent Class (Sections) A (Human necessities) 25 22 47 53% 47% 100% B (Performing operations, Transporting) 12 22 34 35% 65% 100% C (Chemistry; Metallurgy) 20 13 33 61% 39% 100% D (Textiles; Paper) 0 0 0 - - - E (Fixed constructions) 4 8 12 33% 67% 100% F (Mechanical engineering) 7 5 12 58% 42% 100% G (Physics) 10 12 22 45% 55% 100% H (Electricity) 5 1 6 83% 17% 100% Total 83 83 166 50% 50% 100% TABLE 6 GRANTED APPLICATIONS ACCORDING TO CHARACTERISTICS OF APPLICANTS AND APPLICATIONS Source: Own elaboration based on information from the ANR PATENTES Database, PatentScope, Espacenet and Google Patents. 36 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 Some of these effects remain and others disappear when a probit model of the probability of obtaining the patent is estimated. In this case, each of the characteristics in Table 7 are included as dummies and an indicator of the number of years since the request is added to control for biases associated with the non-granting of the most recent applications. However, the average elapsed time is around 10 years, for both granted and not granted applications. TABLE 7 DETERMINANTS OF THE PROBABILITY OF OBTAINING THE PATENT In the multivariate framework, the probability of obtaining increases when the beneficiary is an SME, when the application is made in Asian offices and also increases as more time passes from the moment of the application (Table 7). Explanatory variables F=Pr(Grant=1) SME 0.421* S&T public institution 0.433 Experience 0.170 AR 0.393 PCT 0.437 USPTO 0.811 Other South American -0.790 Asia 1.482* IPC_A 4.062 IPC_B 4.788 IPC_C 3.876 IPC_E 4.671 IPC_F 4.555 IPC_G 4.318 IPC_H 3.147 Time 0.144*** Constant -6.431 Observations 166 Pseudo R2 0.2031 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 37 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre 4.3 Commercial Exploitation Finally, with regard to commercial exploitation, which is the most difficult information to reconstruct from secondary sources, the results of the fieldwork show that almost one third of the projects (10) reached this phase, 70% of them directly and 30% through licensing. If these proportions are extrapolated directly to the total number of projects that obtained patents, it would mean that 19 of the 63 would be exploiting the patent, 14 of them directly and the remaining 5 through licensing. All of the above shows that for various reasons, there are some projects that fall along the way from project presentation to market arrival. This can be seen graphically in the following diagram. DIAGRAM 2 PROJECT PATHWAY BETWEEN APPLICATION AND ARRIVAL TO MARKET *Estimated based on Survey to beneficiaries of ANR Patentes. Source: Own elaboration based on information provided by FONTAR, ANR Patentes Database and survey of beneficiaries of ANR Patentes. 38 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 Regarding the projects that have not reached commercial exploitation, the reasons are varied. In 43% of the cases, the projects are still at an early stage of development to convert the invention into an innovation. If all of them were to reach commercial exploitation after completing the development phase, the percentage of patents that complete the cycle from application to market would double (43% of the 44 that have not reached the market). In the other cases, the constraints seem to be more definitive in that they refer to systemic conditions such as lack of financing (39%) and regulatory barriers (17%) or conditions intrinsic to the beneficiaries or the project itself that are very difficult to remove, such as lack of scale (17%). FIGURE 5 MAIN REASONS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT THE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT (% OF PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT BEING EXPLOITED). In this regard, the beneficiaries were asked about those aspects in which the public sector could have assisted the project to make it possible or to facilitate its arrival on the market. Of the 25 responses obtained, one main issue stands out: the fact that the invention still has some way to go before it can be exploited. There is a high proportion of projects that are still in the development phase, for example in the biotechnology area, and this is indicated as the main reason for nonexploitation, however, in these cases the question of the financing necessary for the projects to advance to a higher stage of development is implicit. This aspect is partially linked to another, which also emerged Note: Respondents could answer more than one option. Source: Own elaboration based on survey to beneficiaries of ANR Patentes. 39 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre from the open-ended questions answered by the beneficiaries: the relationship with potential licensees. On the one hand, some beneficiaries mentioned that the potential licensee demanded the project show a higher degree of progress in order for them to get involved and invest, confirming the lack of maturity of the project to be an obstacle for its commercial exploitation. On the other hand, some potential licensees consulted found the cost/benefit ratio insufficient to undertake production or lacked the necessary production capacity to do so, which may indicate the need for greater activity in the promotion and dissemination of inventions so that supply and demand can meet. Among the other issues mentioned, the lack of articulation with other public institutions (the National Atomic Energy Commission – CNEA, the National Institute of Industrial Technology – INTI) that could have supported the projects from the technical point of view and the lack of regulatory support policies for the invention (the Argentine position towards the International Maritime Organization, the policy of the Secretariat of Energy on biodiesel, delays on the part of the National Administration of Drugs, Food and Medical Technology – ANMAT, among others) also stand out. An additional element to consider regarding the general relevance of the instrument and its results is related to its role within the industrial property management trajectories of the beneficiary entities. TABLE 8 PATENTING BEFORE AND AFTER ANR PATENTES Of the total number of beneficiary entities, slightly more than half (56%) do not register patent applications before or after the ANR (Table 8). For these entities, it could be considered that, up until now, the ANR is an isolated milestone in their IP management. The highest proportion of beneficiaries in this condition corresponds to legal persons, where it reaches 70%, followed by SMEs (50%) and public institutions (20%). In this regard, when evaluating Beneficiary Entities No previous or subsequent applications Subsequent applications only Previous applications only Preand postapplications SMEs 50% 8% 29% 13% Legal persons 70% 4% 26% 0% Institutions 20% 0% 0% 80% Totals 56% 13% Source: Own elaboration based on information from the ANR Patentes Database. 40 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 the instrument in the framework of the survey, several beneficiaries stated that without the instrument’s support they would not have considered patenting their invention.6 It remains to be seen whether, over time, some of these cases may also show that the ANR has been a learning milestone that mobilized their systematic IP management. For the moment, the evidence in this regard is scarce since only 6% of the beneficiaries, all of them SMEs and legal persons, reapplied for a patent after their first experience financed by ANR. For another 25% of the beneficiaries – again made up exclusively of SMEs and legal persons – who already had prior application experience, the ANR has helped to finance their most recent application. Finally, for the remaining 13% with previous and subsequent patent application experience, the ANR appears to have been a funding opportunity for one-off applications in the framework of more established IP management. In this group, public institutions stand out in relative terms. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The evidence generated and analyzed in this study allows us to draw a set of reflections and conclusions about the policy instrument. ANR Patentes has proven to be effective in its objective of supporting individuals, institutions and companies to protect intellectual property generated in the country. The evidence shows that three quarters of the projects financed have obtained at least one patent. In turn, considering averages, two patents were applied for per project and one was obtained. The survey reveals a generalized opinion among the beneficiaries that, without the instrument, it would have been difficult for them to patent, i.e., the subsidy was the condition for the possibility of patenting (project additionality) (Georghiou, 2002; Verre et al, 2020, Buisseret et al, 1995). To this is added an ‘additionality of scale and scope’ insofar as the subsidy has made it possible to expand the target countries in which to patent the invention (which would have been much smaller without public aid). If we consider the different stages of the projects’ life cycles (from the time they apply to FONTAR to obtain financing to commercial exploitation), a process of disengagement is observed. In the case of the most original evidence provided by this study, which corresponds to the step from obtaining the patent to reaching the market, a success rate of around 30% is observed – although 6 This statement seems to be confirmed by the results commented above. Only 40% of non-beneficiary public science and technology institutions applied for a patent, a percentage that drops to 30% in the case of SMEs and legal persons. 41 Inventions, public subsidies and market launch... / D. Milesi, C. Aggio, V. Verre this may increase when the projects that are still at an early stage of their development reach commercial exploitation. In this step, there is a need to think of strategies to extend the support for projects in order to improve their chances of making an effective contribution to society through the commercial exploitation of patented inventions. Currently, this phase is not contemplated in ANR Patentes, but it is an instance whose concretion is crucial to give real meaning to the effort involved in supporting the patenting of inventions. This entails the consideration of patenting as part of the innovation process, avoiding the patent becoming an end in itself, and pursuing the goal of reaching the market. To this end, it is suggested that two fundamental issues be addressed. Firstly, the evaluation of support mechanisms and/or actions to continue with the maturation process of the patented invention (development, prototyping, manufacturing, regulatory approval, etc.). Secondly, facilitation of the encounter between supply and demand for inventions. The former entails a need to articulate ANR Patentes with: i) instruments for other phases of the innovation process, ii) programs aimed at entrepreneurship, iii) sources of financing for productive development and iv) support for regulatory aspects (a need detected in several of the projects). A niche instrument, with a demanding ex-ante evaluation, would increae its impact as long as subsequent support to reach the market is also provided. The latter involves generating spaces and instances to guarantee the proper dissemination of inventions and potential licensees. A small-scale instrument, where 60% of beneficiaries are legal persons or public institutions, would benefit from the identification of a bank of potential licensees, which could strengthen the selection phase and facilitate the market exploitation. In this regard, it should be noted that the vast majority of the beneficiaries have not had access to other public support instruments, so there is an important space for articulating this instrument with others, based on a path that leads from the project idea to its application. REFERENCES Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., and Schmoch, U. (2006). “Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany”. Research Policy, 35(5), 655-672. Blind, K., Cremers, K., and Mueller, E. (2009). “The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios”. Research Policy, 38(2), 428-436. Buisseret, T., Cameron, H. and Georghiou, L. (1995) “What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms”. International Journal of Technology Management, 10 (4/5/6), 587-600 Cohen, W., Nelson, R. and Walsh, J. (2000) “Protecting Their Intellectual 42 Estudios de Economía, Vol.51 - Nº 1 Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why Us Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)”, Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research. De Rassenfosse, G. (2012). “How SMEs exploit their intellectual property assets: evidence from survey data”. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 437-452. Georghiou, L. (2002). “Impact and Additionality of Innovation Policy”, Innovation Policy and Sustainable Development, IWT Studies, 40, 5765. Giuri, P., Mariani, M., Brusoni, S., Crespi, G., Francoz, D., Gambardella, A and Verspagen, B. (2006). “Everything you always wanted to know about inventors (but never asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU survey”. Centre for Economic Policy Research. Griliches, Z. (1990), “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey”. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661-1707. Holgersson, M. and Grandstrand, O. (2017), “Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation”, Management Decision, 55(6), 12651284. Lei Z, Sun Z, Wright B (2013) Are Chinese patent applications politically driven? “Evidence from China’s domestic patent applications. Fung Institute Berkley Innovation Seminar paper” (downloaded on 10 Sep 2023 from https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/4-3-Lei-Sun-Wright. pdf) Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S., Gilbert, R. and Griliches, Z. (1987), “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, v. 1987, n.3, 783-831. Li, X (2012). “Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: an institutional view”. Research Policy, 41 (1):236–249. Mansfield, E. (1986), “Patents and Innovation: an empirical study”. Management Science, 32(2): 173-181. OECD (2009), OECD Patent Statistics Manual, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056442-en. Petelski, N., Milesi, D. and Verre, V. (2020) “Patentamiento estratégico: rol de las patentes en las estrategias de las Pymes industriales argentinas”, in Federico, J., Minetti, A., Rodriguez, M., Cahais, H. and Roitter, S. (eds) “Redes y conocimientos que impulsan la innovación y el desarrollo productivo y social”, Asociación Civil Red Pymes, 480-493. The Economist (2010) “Innovation in China: patents yes, ideas maybe”. The Economist, 14 Oct. Verre, V., Aggio, C., Milesi, D. and Lengyel, M. (2020). “Apoyo a la innovación: