《歐洲專利局&EUIPO：2023專利、商標與初創企業融資研究報告（英文版）（61頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《歐洲專利局&EUIPO：2023專利、商標與初創企業融資研究報告（英文版）（61頁）.pdf（61頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、epo.orgPatents,trade marks and startup financeFunding and exit performance of European startupsOctober 2023PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|02Foreword In a set of joint studies carried out over the past ten years,our two organisations have highlighted the importance of intellectual pro

2、perty for the European economy,whether on the level of the entire economy,sectors or individual firms.The macro-level studies have shown that industries that use IP rights intensively account for a high and increasing share of Europes economic output,employment and trade.On the level of individual c

3、ompanies,ownership of patents,trade marks and designs is associated with superior performance in terms of job creation and productivity(as measured by revenue per employee).This relationship is even stronger when the IP rights registered by the company are European-level rights.The link between IP r

4、ights and company performance is especially clear in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs).We have also shown that companies that are active in the area of IP rights are more likely than other companies to experience high growth in subsequent years.The present study adds a further dim

5、ension to the body of knowledge on the importance of IP.It focuses on how newly started,innovative companies obtain the financing that allows them to develop their ideas into products in the marketplace.It also examines how IP rights facilitate successful exit of the providers of initial financing t

6、hrough sale to another company or a flotation on the stock market.The evidence adds up:IP rights are a crucial underpinning of the modern economy.Innovation,and the need to support it,will play an even more important role in the future.Europe is facing challenges from climate change,possible future

7、pandemics and strategic competition with other regions of the world,but at the same time needs to create future growth and jobs.IP rights facilitate this innovation by making it possible for the inventors and creators to protect their inventions and creations,helping them to access financing and lat

8、er earn their rewards through a successful exit.Europe still lags behind other regions,including the US,when it comes to financing innovative startups.The actions needed to meet this challenge are varied,but making the IP system more accessible to newly started,innovative companies is part of the so

9、lution.EU trade marks and European patents appear to be instrumental in this,and as of this year the Unitary Patent also paves the way for deep-tech ventures to scale up in a much larger market.Making IP even more accessible is also what drives the vision behind the strategic plans of both the EPO a

10、nd the EUIPO in their programmes to support SMEs,as well as initiatives such as the IP Action Plan of the European Commission.We hope that this report contributes to a better understanding of the role of IP in EUs society and economy,driving home the fundamental message that IP is for everyone.Antni

11、o Campinos President,European Patent OfficeJoo Negro Executive Director,the EUIPOTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|03AcknowledgementsThis report was prepared by a joint EPO-EUIPO team,led by Yann Mnire,Chief Economist of the EPO,and Natha

12、n Wajsman,Chief Economist of the EUIPO.Other members of the project team were Muzio Grilli,Ilja Rudyk and Karin Terzi of the EPO and Micha Kazimierczak of the EUIPO.The authors would like to thank Meindert Flikkema of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,Hanna Hottenrott of the Technical University of M

13、unich,and Eiman Maghsoodi and Delia Horst of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the report.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|04Table of contentsForeword 02 List of tables

14、 and figures.06List of abbreviations.07List of countries.081.Executive summary 092.Introduction 152.1 The challenges of startup funding and exit .152.2 Startups and IP rights .162.3 IP rights as a signal for investors .162.4 About this study .183.Data and methodology 193.1 Data on VC financing and e

15、xit .193.2 Data on IPR status of startups .203.3 Econometric estimations .203.4 Control variables .21CASE STUDY:OXEON 224.The IPR profile of European startups 244.1 Use of IPRs by European startups .244.2 Use of European IPRs by the startups .28CASE STUDY:MARINOMED 305.IPR and funding 325.1 Funding

16、record of European startups .335.2 IPR use at different funding stages .355.3 IPR use and odds of funding .39CASE STUDY:BLUBRAKE 43Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|056.IPR and exit performance 456.1 IPR use at exit .456.2 IPR use and odd

17、s of successful exit .507.Discussion 527.1 Limitations .52Annex 1 Additional details 54References 57Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|06List of tables and figuresTables Table 1 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variab

18、les(seed stage).39Table 2 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables.Focus on geographical scope of IPR(seed stage).40Table 3 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables(early stage).41Table 4 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables

19、.Focus on geographical scope of IPR(early stage).42Table 5 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables(exit).50Table 6 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables.Focus on geographical scope of IPR(exit).51FiguresFigure E.1 Share of startups with patents or

20、trade mark applications by sector.10Figure E.2 Share of startups with IPR at different stages of financing.11Figure E.3 Increase in odds of funding for startups with prior patent or trade mark applications.12Figure E.4 Increase in odds of funding for startups with European versus national patent or

21、trade mark applications.13Figure E.5 Increase in odds of exit for startups with prior patent or trade mark applications.14Figure 1 Share of startups filing IP rights per country.25Figure 2 Share of startups filing IP rights per sector.26Figure 3 Comparison of trade mark and patent use by sector.27Fi

22、gure 4 Comparison of patent intensity with share of European patents users.28Figure 5 Comparison of trade mark intensity with share of EUTM users.29Figure 6 Funding events in the dataset.33Figure 7 Participation of startups at different stages of financing.34Figure 8 Share of startups with IPR at di

23、fferent stages of financing.35Figure 9 Relationship between general patent intensity and share of European patent usage among patent users at the sectoral level.36Figure 10 Relationship between general trade mark intensity and share of EUTM usage among trade mark users at the sectoral level.37Figure

24、 11 Relationship between IPR status and amount of financing obtained at different stages of funding.38Figure 12 Startups with successful exit by sector.46Figure 13 Distribution of startups by IPR use in the initial sample and at exit.47Figure 14 Relationship between IPR intensity and share of firms

25、with successful exit at the sectoral level.48Figure 15 Relationship between IPR status and exit value.49Figure A1 Share of startups with IPR at different stages of financing.Sectors using patents intensively.54Figure A2 Share of startups with IPR at different stages of financing.Sectors using trade

26、marks intensively.55Figure A3 Share of startups with IPR at different stages of financing.Digital sectors.56Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|07List of abbreviationsEUIPO European Union Intellectual Property OfficeEPO European Patent Offi

27、ceEUTM European trade markFTO Freedom to operateIP Intellectual propertyIPO Initial public offeringIPR Intellectual property rightOEM Original equipment manufacturerPE Private equityR&D Research and developmentSME Small and medium-sized enterpriseTTE Time to eventTTO Technology transfer officeVC Ven

28、ture capitalTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|08List of countriesAL AlbaniaAT AustriaBE BelgiumBG BulgariaCH SwitzerlandCY CyprusCZ Czech RepublicDE GermanyDK DenmarkEE EstoniaES SpainFI FinlandFR FranceGB United KingdomGR GreeceHR Croati

29、aHU HungaryIE IrelandIS IcelandIT ItalyLI LiechtensteinLT LithuaniaLU LuxembourgLV LatviaME MontenegroMK North MacedoniaMT MaltaNL NetherlandsNO NorwayPL PolandPT PortugalRO RomaniaRS SerbiaSE SwedenSI SloveniaSK SlovakiaSM San MarinoTR TrkiyeTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|AnnexPATENTS,

30、TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|091.Executive summary The spectacular growth of the European startup ecosystem in recent years has been a major boost for the European economy.Startups are increasingly seen as engines of economic growth,with strong potential to address the key European challen

31、ges of digitalisation,sustainability and industry competitiveness through innovation.Nevertheless,Europe still faces significant challenges in bridging its funding gap with respect to the US.This study examines the role of intellectual property(IP)rights specifically patents and trade marks in facil

32、itating access to finance for European startups.To this end,it assesses the links between the filing of IPRs by startup firms and their success in raising venture capital(VC),as well as the signalling power of patents and trade marks as predictors of successful exit strategies for investors.These qu

33、estions are especially relevant today,after the shock of COVID-19 and the recent monetary policy tightening led to a decline in investment in European startups in 2022.As reduced VC spending and weaker growth forecasts are putting an end to an era of easy access to venture capital,IP rights deserve

34、strong attention as a means not only of capturing the value potential of their intellectual assets but also of signalling this value to investors.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|10Main findingsOn average,29%of European startups have fi

35、led for registered IP rights,though there are significant differences between industry sectors.Biotechnology is by far the most IP intensive sector,with nearly half of startups using patents or registered trade marks.Other IP-intensive sectors include science and engineering(with patent users at 25%

36、and trade mark users at 38%),healthcare(patent users at 20%and trade mark users at 40%)and manufacturing(patent users at 20%and trade mark users at 36%).Startups with registered IP rights exist in all sectors,with a stronger reliance on trade marks in sectors that are not IP-intensive,whereas startu

37、ps that use patents tend to be more concentrated in a smaller number of technology-related sectors.Share of startups with any patent50%40%30%20%10%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%Share of startups with any trademarkNote:The Figure compares shares of patent and trade mark applicants by sector in the initial sampl

38、e.The size of the circles represents the number of firms from the sector in the initial sample.Figure E1 Share of startups with patents or trade mark applications by sector Biotechnology Science and engineering Manufacturing Health care Artificial intelligence Data and analytics Food and beverage Fi

39、nancial services SoftwareTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|11Startups increasingly make use of IP rights as they grow,with a strong focus on European IP rights at all growth stages.While 10%of startups that were invested in by VCs in see

40、d stage rounds have filed a patent application,this proportion rises to 28%in the early growth stage and 44%in the late stage rounds(Series C and beyond).The share of trade mark users similarly increases from 28%in the seed stage rounds to 53%in the early stage rounds and 72%in the late stage rounds

41、.More than 80%of startups with a patent in the seed stage financial rounds have filed a European patent application.The share of startups with a trade mark that have filed for an EU trade mark increases from 47%in the seed stage rounds to 81%in the late stage rounds.Figure E2 Share of startups with

42、IPR at different stages of financing Uses TM Uses patent Uses TM and patent Note:The first panel presents the number of events in each stage of financial round.The second panel shows the share of startups having applied for various combinations of IPRs prior to the date of the financial round.The th

43、ird panel presents the share of startups within each category that applied for protection in the form of an EUTM,a European patent or both prior to the date of the financial round.Number of roundsSeedEarly stageLate stage020 00040 00060 000IPR users(overall)0%25%50%75%100%out of which European right

44、s users0%25%50%75%100%56 307 12 362 1 942 28%47%10%81%5%47%53%64%28%88%18%72%81%44%92%35%75%60%Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|12The filing of patent and trade mark applications in the seed or early growth stage is associated with a hi

45、gher likelihood of subsequent VC funding.This effect is particularly important in the early stage,with a 4.3 times higher likelihood of funding for startups that filed for trade marks,and a 6.4 times higher likelihood of funding for startups that filed for patents.Startups that filed for both trade

46、marks and patents show the highest likelihood of funding in both the seed and the early stage.1086420Only trade marksOnly patentsPatents and trade marks Seed stage Early stageFigure E3 Increase in odds of funding for startups with prior patent or trade mark applications2.54.32.96.43.510.2Table of co

47、ntents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|13The filing of European patent and trade mark applications is associated with an even higher likelihood of subsequent VC funding for startups.Although this result can already be observed in the seed stage,it is es

48、pecially strong in the early growth stage.Startups with an EU trade mark application have a 6.1 times higher likelihood of obtaining early-stage funding,compared to 2.8 times for those that only filed for a national trade mark.European patents are associated with a 5.3 times higher likelihood of ear

49、ly-stage funding,compared with 3.8 times for the relatively smaller number of startups that have only national patents.6420Trade markPatentTrade markPatentSeed stageEarly stage National EuropeanFigure E4 Increase in odds of funding for startups with European versus national patent or trade mark appl

50、ications2.22.82.42.73.85.32.86.1Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|14The filing of patent and/or trade mark applications is associated with a more than twice as high likelihood of successful exit for investors.The highest likelihood of in

51、itial public offering(IPO)or acquisition is observed for startups that filed for both patents and trade marks.A higher likelihood is also observed for startups that filed for European IP rights than for those that make use of national-level rights only.3210Only trade marksOnly patentsPatents and tra

52、de marksFigure E5 Increase in odds of exit for startups with prior patent or trade mark applications2.12.43.2Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|152.Introduction Recent years have seen a spectacular growth of the startup ecosystem in Europ

53、e with a venture capital(VC)deal value reaching EUR 110.8bn in 2021,compared to EUR 9.4bn in 2013(PitchBook,2023).A new generation of European ventures has emerged on the world stage as a result.This development,which resulted in the emergence of a more mature European VC industry,along with growing

54、 interest from non-European investors,has yielded a major boost for the European economy.Startups are viewed with growing interest by policymakers as engines of economic growth,with strong potential to address the key European challenges of digitalisation,sustainability and industry competitiveness

55、through innovation and the leveraging of cutting-edge technologies.As a result,various policy schemes have been established at the national and EU levels to further support this ecosystem.Nevertheless,Europe still faces significant challenges in bridging its funding gap as compared with the US.Besid

56、es a specific lack of support for university spin-offs and the persistent challenges of scaling up across European countries,the relative scarcity of funds large enough to support high-growth companies through their successive growth stages remains an important issue(Quas et al.,2022).Difficulties a

57、re compounded for so-called“deep-tech”startups that develop new technologies and engineering approaches.Indeed,such ventures typically have both a high R&D intensity and a high asset intensity.As a result,they require high amounts of long-term capital to bring novel technology to market,with few inv

58、estors being prepared to embrace such risks(EIC,2022;Hello Tomorrow and BCG,2021).Against this backdrop,this study assesses the role of intellectual property rights(IPRs)specifically patents and trade marks in facilitating access to finance for European startups.This question is especially relevant

59、today,after the shock of COVID-19 and the recent monetary policy tightening led to investment in European startups reverting in 2022 to its level in 2020(Sifted,2022).As reduced VC spending and weaker growth forecasts are putting an end to an era of easy access to venture capital,IP rights deserve s

60、trong attention as a means not only of capturing the value potential of their intellectual assets but also of signalling this value to investors.2.1 The challenges of startup funding and exit Because their lean organisation allows for creativity and agility,startups are particularly suited to innova

61、tion.However,they also face specific challenges in converting innovative ideas into market success.Their business models are riskier thus reducing their access to capital markets(Lee et al.,2015),both by limiting the scope of potential lenders and by increasing the cost of financing.Moreover,the int

62、angible assets developed by innovative startups are a source of information asymmetry with investors,making it all the more difficult for the traditional financial sector to value and support such innovative ventures(Lerner,2002;Colombo,2021).According to some estimates,only one in thousand achieve

63、successful financial exit for investors such as an initial public offering(IPO)or high-value acquisition(Catalini et al.,2019),but those that do achieve such an exit have a disproportionately high impact on the economy.Due to the higher risks and information asymmetries involved in their business ve

64、ntures,startups tend to rely more on equity finance from VC funds than on debt(Hall,2010).VC funds can be defined as equity-linked financial investments in private companies,where the investor performs an active advisory role in the management of the financed entity(Kortum and Lerner,2000).A deeper

65、insight into the strategy of financed firms,coupled with market expertise,allows VC investors to reduce information asymmetry gaps and enables them to provide finance for ventures that may be too risky for other investors(Lerner,1995).They can also reduce the risks related with early-stage investmen

66、ts by remaining actively involved in the management of the financed company(Lerner,2002)and facilitating access to key complementary assets(Park and Steensma,2012)to increase the odds of subsequent innovation(Arqu-Castells,2012)and its implementation(Kortum and Lerner,2000).Only a small fraction of

67、startups reach maturity with the original founder still exerting control over the company.Entrepreneurial exit through an initial public offering(IPO)or acquisition may be the best solution for further growth of the company by providing funds for R&D investments and market expansion.In some sectors,

68、due to prohibitive costs of placing new products on the market,exit is the only viable option for small-scale Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|16startups to further finance innovation(Renko et al.,2022)while offering liquidity and freei

69、ng up resources that the entrepreneurial founder can use for other innovative ventures(Aggarwal and Hsu,2014).As such,a successful exit is a key indicator of entrepreneurial success,and is of vital importance not only for the entrepreneurial founder but also for investors.2.2 Startups and IP rights

70、Small innovating firms typically have few assets early on in their lives,apart from their foundational intellectual assets.In particular they lack complementary assets,such as expertise and infrastructure for product development,manufacturing,legal matters,sales,distribution and customer service act

71、ivities(Arora et al.,2001).In this context,decisions regarding intangible assets and related IPRs may be key drivers of the entrepreneurs success and exit options in the longer term.There are various ways in which formal IPRs such as patents and trade marks can support the development of innovative

72、startups.Patents give the right to prevent others from using the invented technologies,while trade marks are a legal safeguard for investment in intangibles and unique product characteristics appealing to consumers.The protection that patents and trade marks confer is primarily needed to secure the

73、exclusive exploitation of innovative ideas in the market,thereby enabling the startup to generate sufficient returns on risky investments(Arora et al.,2008).Results from surveys of European patent applicants show,for instance,that“commercial exploitation”and the“prevention of imitation”are the two k

74、ey motives for filing a patent,and that these two motives are even more important for small and medium-sized enterprises(Torrisi et al.,2016;EUIPO,2016;EPO,2019;EPO/EIB,2022).Importantly,IPRs also help ensure freedom to operate(FTO)by protecting ongoing or future development and providing a lever to

75、 negotiate cross-licensing agreements in the case of infringement of third-party IPRs(Torrisi et al.,2016;Walsh et al,2016).Besides these fundamental functions,well-managed IPRs can generate an even wider range of benefits,such as setting up collaborations and licensing arrangements,securing investm

76、ent and facilitating technology transactions(Brant and Lohse,2013;Castaldi,2019;de Rassenfosse et al.,2016).These benefits are particularly significant for innovative startups,as a means to compensate for their resource constraints.Engaging in collaborations with other companies or research organisa

77、tions is a way for startups to leverage their strengths while using their partners assets to fill gaps in expertise and resources(Park et al.,2002;Lee et al.,2010;Zeng et al.,2010;Hsu and Ziedonis,2013).IPRs play a pivotal role in this.Besides protecting the intellectual assets initially contributed

78、 by the parties,they are used to organise the exploitation of joint results and to share the associated benefits.Licensing out IPRs is likewise an effective means for small businesses to leverage the partners assets and expertise with a view to rapidly scaling up their activities,reaching out to new

79、 markets and generating additional revenues from innovation(Arora and Ceccagnoli,2008).Available evidence indicates,for instance,that European SMEs are willing to license up to 48%of their patented inventions,as compared with 16%for large companies,and that they actually license about a third of the

80、se inventions,while large companies license only 9%of theirs(Gambardella et al.,2005).Appropriating a startups intellectual assets and leveraging them to seize growth opportunities requires a proactive and resource-effective approach to IPR management(EPO,2017).Rather than focusing on the short term

81、,a startup must anticipate the interplay between IP management and commercial success in order to formulate an effective IP strategy early on(Neuhusler,2012).Failure to do so can create problems subsequently,such as foreclosing partnership or funding opportunities,or exposing the startup to litigati

82、on risks.Developing an IPR strategy is especially challenging for smaller firms that are scaling up their activities beyond their domestic market(OECD,2010;Hall et al.,2013).To secure effective protection in future strategic markets,firms must indeed be prepared to invest significant resources in bu

83、ilding an international IPR portfolio at an early stage of their development process.2.3 IP rights as a signal for investors IP rights play an important role in facilitating access to finance for innovative startups.Public information on IPRs granted by independent authorities conveys valuable infor

84、mation about technological and marketing activities of a startup(Long,2002),thus reducing information asymmetries between the innovative entrepreneur,business partners and the prospective financiers(Veugelers and Schneider,2018).As a result,early investment in securing IP protection may constitute a

85、 credible signal of otherwise unobservable value to VC Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|171 Such companies are defined in the academic literature as those that have passed the seed and series A stages and are ready for the series B stag

86、e or higher stages (Durufl et al.2017)managers and investors(Colombo,2021;Spence,1973),helping them make decisions under uncertainty(Long,2002;Hottenrott et al.,2016;Farre-Mensa et al.,2016).IPRs help secure higher returns for investors by reducing competitive pressures,achieving price premiums over

87、 the competitors or increasing revenue through licensing agreements(Hsu and Ziedonis,2013).Recent research on US startups concludes,for instance,that a patent grant generates on average 55%higher employment growth and 80%higher sales growth five years later,and that the patent owner also pursues mor

88、e,and higher-quality,follow-on innovation.(Farre-Mensa et al.,2020).Available evidence from Europe likewise points to a higher turnover(EPO/EUIPO,2021;OHIM,2015)and higher chances of achieving(high)growth(EPO/EUIPO,2019)for small firms owning IP rights.A proprietary product or technology for which a

89、 startup has an exclusive right may thus be a key argument for a VC to invest in a company or to get the best exit terms.Control over critical IPR may also increase the bargaining power of startups for securing the financial resources necessary for their business plan implementation and help them ge

90、tting access to such resources.Patents have also been found to be associated with a reduction in time to IPO for startups(Stuart et al.,1999).Conversely,lack of patent protection over crucial technologies may be seen as an important limiting factor,reducing startup odds of market success in the futu

91、re(Lerner,2002).Patents and trade marks play different but complementary roles in this context.Patent filings are effective indicators of the technical capabilities of the firms and their employees,which can facilitate access to finance for both small and large firms(Hottenrott et al.,2016).Once gra

92、nted,patents certify the novelty and scope of the invention,as well as giving it legal protection.They may involve significant costs but also lengthen the time needed to market new products,thus lending credibility to the founders claims about the long-term growth prospects of their ventures(Kleiner

93、t,2023).A number of studies provide consistent evidence of the effectiveness of such signals in attracting VC investors in Europe(Hussler et al.,2012:Colombo et al.,2023),the US(Hsu and Ziedonis,2013;Hoenig and Henkel,2015;Farre-Mensa et al.,2016),China(Chen et al.,2018;Zhang et al.,2019)and Israel(

94、Conti et al.,2013;Colombo et al.,2023).The use of patents as a protection mechanism and a signal mainly concerns high technology startups,in sectors such as the life sciences,medical devices,semi-conductors and information and communication technologies,although patented inventions also may prove pa

95、rticularly valuable assets in sectors where they are usually scant.Recent evidence underlines the active role of VC investors in exploiting patent information,with the most experienced funds being better able to deal at an early stage with radical inventions,both with more earning potential and more

96、 risks(Colombo et al.,2023).Trade mark protection,due to its relatively lower costs,is especially attractive to small firms,including startups.It provides information on the commercial potential of startups(Renko et al.,2022;Gruber,2004),while demonstrating their founders awareness of the importance

97、 of marketing assets protection(Block et al.,2014).Trade marks reinforce the benefits from other forms of formal and informal IP protection,such as the first mover advantage or trade secrets.Like patents,they are signals of innovativeness(Flikkema et al.,2014),especially in sectors where patents and

98、 other IPR protection mechanisms have limited use,such as services(Schmoch,2003;Block et al.,2014).New trade mark filings may be particularly strong signals of the maturity of“scale-up”companies which have overcome the exploratory phase of their development,found suitable market niches and are ready

99、 to scale up their activities.1Importantly,both patents and trade marks survive beyond bankruptcy,therefore providing further security to investors and lenders(de Rassenfosse and Fischer,2016).Available evidence shows that in the US,patent-secured venture debt was used to finance 36%of technology st

100、artups in the sectors of computer software,semiconductors and medical devices,and that startups with patent-backed loans tend to raise more equity capital than those without(Hochberg et al.,2018).Another study finds that almost 70%of patents from failed US startups have been sold(Serrano and Ziedoni

101、s,2018),thus highlighting the need for a market for IPRs to enable IPR-backed loans for startups.Another recent study focusing on France finds that firms from diverse industries use selected trade marks(72%)and patents(26%)as collateral assets to secure loans,with large positive effects on debt fina

102、ncing,in particular for small,Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|18financially constrained firms,and a positive impact on firm-level growth(Ciaramella et al.2022).Studies also found that venture capitalists are more likely to fund,or valu

103、e highly,those ventures that could already claim(plans for)the commercialisation of their product through trade mark ownership(Block et al.,2014;Zhou et al.,2016).Against this background,Hussler et al.(2012)find that having at least one patent application reduces the time span from application to th

104、e first VC investment.In addition,startups with higher patent quality appear to receive financing faster than other ventures.Previous studies have confirmed that firm governance choices at birth,including decisions on IPR protection strategies,are indicative of the underlying quality of the firm,and

105、 thus are related to the probability of obtaining VC finance and equity growth(Catalini et al.,2019).Patents were also found to matter more for startups that do not have alternative means for demonstrating their quality,and in earlier stages of financing(Hsu and Ziedonis,2013).However,Block et al.(2

106、014)find that trade marks may be an even better predictor of VC financing than patent application stocks,as pending patent applications do not yet secure legal exclusivity.2.4 About this study In the present report,the signalling value of the IPR portfolio for bridging information gaps between entre

107、preneurial founders and the financial market will be tested empirically.The main purpose of the study is to examine whether there is a link between the filing of patent and trade mark applications by startup firms and:access to finance,in particular through investment vehicles(venture capital funds,

108、corporate venture funds,etc.)successful exit strategies of innovative startupsThis study complements our previous reports,which focused on the relationship between IPR behaviour on one hand with turnover and growth on the other.Those performance metrics are less relevant in case of technologically o

109、riented startups,as the most successful startups are often acquired or go public even before they break even or achieve substantial sales(Renko et al.,2022).The IP rights considered in this study are patents and trade marks,both at the national level and the European level.The literature summarised

110、above has shown that these two IP rights are good indicators of innovation and are often complementary,with patents signalling technological innovation and trade marks indicating the development of new products and services as well as the likelihood of entry into new markets.It is those characterist

111、ics of a startup that are of interest to providers of financing.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|193.Data and methodologyThe purpose of this study is to investigate the link between the filing for IP rights by startups and their access

112、to finance.To that end,data on patent and trade mark applications are combined with data on startup financing at their seed,early(Series A or B)or late(Series C and beyond)funding stages.2The link between IPR and financing is explored using descriptive statistics as well as econometric analysis.This

113、 section explains the data sources and the methodology used.3.1 Data on VC financing and exitBasic demographic and financial information about startups was sourced from Crunchbase.3 Crunchbase is a commercial database that provides data on startups of potential interest for financiers or acquirers.A

114、 distinctive feature of Crunchbase is the inclusion of information about startups funding and subsequent public listings or acquisitions.However,only a fraction of firms available in Crunchbase participated in any financial rounds or experienced acquisition or IPO.Crunchbase data is generated by an

115、active community of contributors,including the venture capital community,with more than 4 000 members,and subsequently verified by Crunchbase staff.4 The funding information in Crunchbase includes the type of financial round which a startup participated in and the date on which the financial round w

116、as announced and,in some cases,the amount of finance obtained by the startup.Crunchbase also provides information about acquisitions and initial public offerings(IPOs),with the date on which the exit events were announced and,in some cases,the exit value of a firm.Crunchbase classes a firm in one or

117、 several sectors.This classification is unique to Crunchbase and does not follow standard industry classifications used by Eurostat or other statistical offices.5 Crunchbase covers firms active in all countries of the world.The final sample of startups used in this study is restricted to firms avail

118、able in Crunchbase that were founded after 1999 and have a registered office in one of the member states of the European Patent Organisation.Overall,the project sample includes information on 298 665 firms meeting those criteria.The final sample used in econometric models includes both firms that pa

119、rticipated in financial rounds or experienced exit and firms that did not experience such events.Previous research suggests that the signalling power of IPR is most effective at the initial stages of startup development.Hsu and Ziedonis(2013)have shown that the importance of patents as a signal of s

120、tartup quality diminishes over time.Block et al.(2014)established the same pattern for trade mark signalling.IPRs play a more important role in earlier funding rounds when the information asymmetries between founders and VCs are most pronounced.In subsequent rounds,more information about the startup

121、s prospects is revealed via other mechanisms.In fact,staged financing rounds have been institutionalised to reduce the uncertainty around the performance of the company being financed.At earlier stages the financial resources involved are relatively low.The amount of financing rises in subsequent ro

122、unds as the startup gains experience and a track record,making for greater availability of information related to its prospects(Stuart et al.,1999).Additionally,the seed and early-stage financial rounds are more numerous than later-stage events.As seen in Figure 6,the data set used in this study con

123、tains many more observations for seed and early-stage financial rounds than for later stage rounds.Therefore,seed and early-stage financial rounds are one of the two focus areas of the present study.However,since a successful transition from startup to a self-sustaining business often involves an ex

124、it event such as an IPO or the sale of the company,exit is the other focus area for the analysis in section 5.2 See section 5 for a more detailed description of the funding stages.3 For more information,see https:/ Although the inclusion of firms in the Crunchbase database is a rigorous process and

125、the data quality is frequently monitored,the subset of newly founded firms that are added to this repository may not be complete and the criteria used for adding new firms are not fully transparent.The database coverage may therefore differ depending on the country of registered office and sector.Ne

126、vertheless,a comprehensive assessment of Crunchbase performed by the OECD has shown that aggregate statistics on VC funding“tend to be reasonably similar to the same figures produced with an alternative and more established source”(Dalle et al.,2017).Crunchbase data have been used as a source of dat

127、a on startups in numerous academic papers in recent years.5 A full description of sector classification in Crunchbase is available at https:/ of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|203.2 Data on IPR status of startupsThe two IP rights whose relatio

128、nship to funding is analysed in this study are patents and trade marks.Hussler et al.(2012)argue that due to the length of the examination process,VCs may be willing to base their decisions on patent applications rather than on patent grants.VCs often have access to the documentation delivered by pa

129、tent attorneys and have the expertise allowing them to assess the probability of patent grant.Due to the skewed distribution of patents values,patent quality assessment ability is crucial for the VCs investing in high-technology sectors.This was confirmed by Hussler et al.(2012),who found that VCs a

130、re able to detect high-quality patent applications even before the availability of additional information,such as forward citations or a positive examination result.The grant event does not contribute to the probability of obtaining VC financing,as the pertinent information has already been accounte

131、d for by VCs(Hussler et al.,2012).Given these arguments,in the present study,the IPR activity of startups is measured by applications for patent and trade mark protection at national IP offices,the European Patent Office and the European Union Intellectual Property Office.The EPOs patent databases w

132、ere the principal source of data on national and European patents.Information on national patent status includes the first patent application filed in any national office,including offices located outside Europe.The EUIPOs trade mark register was the source of data on European Union trade mark(EUTM)

133、applications filed by startups.Information on national trade mark applications was sourced from TMview records.6 Since the data stored in TMview is limited in scope,the project team was able to examine startup filings at national offices only in the country where the startup in question is registere

134、d.The main variables of interest in this study relate to a startups record of patent and trade mark applications or“IPR status”at a given point in time.This is determined by the date of filing of the first patent or trade mark application,distinguishing between national and European filings.The IPR

135、databases were matched with the Crunchbase database in order to obtain as complete a picture as possible of the IPR activity of and the financing obtained by the startups in the sample.3.3 Econometric estimationsThe data gathered for the present study contains not only information on whether a start

136、up participated in a financing round or underwent a successful exit,but also includes information about the exact timing of those events.Such data are best analysed using the“time-to-event”(TTE)family of models.The Cox Proportional Hazard model(Cox,1972;Fox and Weisberg,2002)is the most popular time

137、-to-event regression model,capable of analysing associations between the event incidence and a set of background variables.In the traditional proportional hazard model,the variables of interest are set at the baseline time and do not change during the observation period.However,the IPR variables in

138、our dataset are time-dependent.Most often firms start as non-owners of IPR,and apply for IPR protection at different stages of their development.Thus,during the observation period,they may change their IPR status several times.There are extensions to the basic Cox model that are able to handle such

139、cases(Therneau et al.,2017).In the present report,all the Cox regression models are based on time-variant IPR status.7 The proportional hazard model takes the following form:h(t|X)=h0(t)exp(X)(1)where h(t|X)is the hazard function(the probability function of a funding or exit event)at time t given th

140、e matrix of background variables X,and h0(t)is the baseline hazard function.is the vector with estimated regression coefficients.In all such models,the IPR variables of interest are dichotomous variables,denoting the IPR activity of a startup.The model coefficients can be interpreted as measuring th

141、e increases in the odds of the“hazard”related to IPR activity in comparison to firms that are not IPR-active.In this context,the“hazard”is interpreted as the likelihood of participation in a financial round or a successful exit(through sale of the 6 TMview is a database maintained by the EUIPO that

142、contains trade mark information on more than 114 million trade marks filed in Europe and beyond.For more detail,see:https:/www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome#/tmview.7 In the case of IPR applicants,the period of observation is divided into sub-periods related to changes in IPR status.Each sub-period is tre

143、ated as a new observation in the dataset,with its start and end related to IPR application events.A firm that has been financed or has experienced exit is observed until participation in a financial round or exit.In such cases the value of the variable status is updated to 1.For the majority of firm

144、s in the sample that did not experience such events,the end of observation is associated with the date of the last information update in Crunchbase.In such cases,the value of the variable status remains 0 throughout the whole period from founding to the last update in Crunchbase.Table of contents|Ex

145、ecutive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|21company or an IPO).The hazard function is capable of gauging the strength of the tendency to change a status(obtaining finance or undergoing a successful exit)at any time point given the characteristics of the startup,inc

146、luding its IPR status,at that time point(Tuts and Schmid,2016).Therefore,it is a tool that is capable of capturing the underlying dynamics of interplay between IPR activity,the odds of obtaining finance and the odds of a successful exit.Some startups might have participated in several financing roun

147、ds of the same type,or they may have been subjected to more than one acquisition.The standard proportional hazard models are not able to handle multiple events.There are alternative models that are able to handle such cases.However,since the number of such cases in the dataset is relatively low,the

148、decision was taken to consider only the first event of a particular type for each startup,and to estimate the models using Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables.3.4 Control variablesIn a regression analysis,it is necessary to take into account additional variables besides

149、the variables of principal interest(in this case,IPR status of the startup).Such control variables,when specified correctly,allow the effect of the variable of interest on the dependent variable to be isolated.In this study,the main control variables are the sector in which the startup operates and

150、the country in which it is based.As seen in Figure 2 in section 4,the different sectors are not equally represented in the dataset.Also,the IPR profiles of firms differ considerably,depending on their sectors of activity.Figure 7 and Figure 12 illustrate that firms propensity to participate in vario

151、us stages of financing and firms probability of exit may be determined to a large extent by the firms sectors of activity.The presence of venture capital,the availability of funds and the strength of the capital market are also characteristics that vary across the countries present in the dataset.Th

152、erefore,controls for the sector of activity and for the country where the startup is registered are important aspects of the analysis.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|22Case study:OXEONCompany:Oxeon AB Locations:Bors,Sweden Founded:2003

153、No.of employees:34 Products:Tape-woven textiles,weaving technologies TEXTREME spread tow carbon fabricsTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|23“Securing patent protection allowed us to have several options when developing our business.”Nanda

154、n Khokar,R&D manager and main inventor,OxeonOxeon,a startup co-founded by Dr Nandan Khokar in 2003,has revolutionised the textile industry with its innovative weaving technology.Recognised as Swedens fastest-growing company in 2010,Oxeons success is rooted in the patented tape-weaving technologies a

155、cquired from Tape Weaving Sweden,a holding company for the patents.This acquisition allowed Oxeon to license the required IP,forming the basis of their unique tape-woven textiles.These textiles,designed for extreme conditions,have found applications in a wide range of markets and industries,includin

156、g sports,industrial and aerospace sectors.Revitalising the textile industryWeaving and textile industries have almost vanished in many advanced economies,since these activities are often outsourced to emerging nations.Oxeon emerged from the ashes of the 19th-century Swedish textile capital Bors,deve

157、loping 21st-century textiles using carbon fibres.The companys unique“spread tow”technologies offer better mechanical performance,very low areal weight and ease of fabric handling.They can employ different types of fibres and tapes in the production process,resulting in a variety of products for diff

158、erent industries.Initially,sports equipment was seen as a good market segment,open to experimentation.This strategy has paid off in the long run Oxeons TEXTREME fabric is now used to reinforce the rotor blades and other parts of Ingenuity,NASAs first Mars helicopter.Innovation through intellectual p

159、ropertyOxeons IP strategy has been instrumental to its growth and success.The company has several patented inventions,reflecting the continued development of its technologies.The firms broad patent portfolio protects its production methods as well as its unique tape-woven materials.The company has a

160、lso registered the trade mark TEXTREME for its materials.This trade mark is registered mainly as a word trade mark for different classes of goods and services in many countries,including Australia,China,Japan,Russia,Turkey and the US,as well as in the EU.Trade mark protection is important for consum

161、er goods,for example for sporting equipment,where TEXTREME is visible and contributes to brand recognition.Driving innovation through licensingOxeons business model includes both licensing and product sales in different market segments.This hybrid business model has allowed Oxeon to handle its paten

162、ted technologies as a portfolio of commercial opportunities to support business growth through different development phases.The early evaluation of selling machinery led to the idea of licensing the process technology as a parallel commercial avenue.This early licence agreement became a good source

163、of revenue for Oxeon,enabling the co-financing of technology and business development in other application areas.Benefitting from the local innovation ecosystemOxeons creation was not managed by a university technology transfer office(TTO).Instead,the firm benefited from other structures within the

164、Chalmers University innovation ecosystem,including the Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship(CSE)for business development support and Chalmersinvest(now Chalmers Ventures)for financial investment.A holistic approach to IPOxeon follows a strategic approach when it develops its IP portfolio.It always co

165、nsiders different options,analysing the pros and cons and choosing the most suitable IP rights.In some cases,Oxeon has chosen not to patent certain inventions and instead keep them as trade secrets.This strategy is typically used for some manufacturing processes that are difficult to reverse-enginee

166、r from end products and for which infringement is difficult to detect and prove.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|248 See,for example,EPO/EUIPO,2021.9”Any”refers to the fact that both national and European IP rights are considered.4.The

167、IPR profile of European startupsThis section presents statistics on the filing of trade mark and patent applications by our sample of European startups.While other studies have shown that in general,only a small fraction(about 9%)of European SMEs own IP rights,8 the proportion is significantly highe

168、r for the startups in the Crunchbase database,since the focus of Crunchbase is on innovative firms aiming to set up and validate a scalable business model,and such firms have a greater need to protect their innovations by registering IPR.4.1 Use of IPRs by European startupsTable 1 presents the sampl

169、e used for the present study by country.The first column shows the number of startups from each country,while the subsequent columns show the percentages of filers of any9 IP right,any trade mark,any patent,or a bundle of trade marks and patents.In the entire sample,29%of the startups applied for a

170、patent or a trade mark at some point,with 27%having applied for trade marks,6%having filed patent applications and 2%having filed both patent and trade mark applications.However,there is significant variation among the countries in the sample,as shown in the table.Startups based in Austria,Switzerla

171、nd,the Czech Republic,Germany,Denmark,Finland,France,Italy,Luxembourg,Norway and Sweden are more likely than average to have applied for any IP right.Companies from those countries are also the most likely to file trade mark and patent applications,and to bundle the two IP rights.This is especially

172、true for startups from Austria,Switzerland,France and the Nordic countries.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|25Figure 1 Share of start-ups filing IP rights per country NAny IPRAny TMAny patentIPR bundleALATBEBGCHCYCZDEDKEEESFIFRGBGRHRHUI

173、EISITLILTLULVMEMKMTNLNOPLPTRORSSESISKSMTR50 000 100 000 20%40%60%20%40%60%5%10%15%20%5%10%15%20%21%986 2971 22713 7051 0552 92830 9696 2482 15321 0904 47529 17981 4841 4958052 0715 51248412 274791 2598897282312245333 6304 4565 2303 1332 97372411 4209091 27265 26521%0%0%8%5%1%6%1%2%6%6%2%2%10%6%3%0%1

174、%1%3%2%5%0%1%2%2%0%0%0%1%6%2%2%1%1%6%3%1%0%0%12%7%3%10%1%3%8%9%3%4%15%8%5%3%2%4%6%10%8%5%2%4%3%0%0%1%3%9%4%3%1%2%9%5%2%0%1%36%25%12%28%16%29%37%30%20%21%37%40%26%14%18%18%13%9%36%14%27%31%25%13%1%24%13%33%27%20%20%8%31%20%23%50%13%40%28%14%32%16%31%40%34%22%23%42%42%28%16%18%21%17%17%39%19%28%33%26%

175、13%1%24%14%37%29%21%21%9%34%22%24%50%13%2 545In addition to the variation across countries,there is also great variation among sectors of economic activity with regard to IPR application propensity,as shown in Table 2.As in Table 1,the first column shows the number of startups in the sample from eac

176、h sector,while the subsequent columns show the number of IPR applications filed by startups from that sector.In terms of presence in the sample,the three sectors with the most startups are software,information technology and internet services.Other digital economy sectors,as well as service sectors

177、such as commerce,finance and media and entertainment,are also well represented.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|26Figure 2 Share of start-ups filing IP rights per sectorNAny IPRAny TMAny patentIPR bundleAdministrative servicesAdvertisin

178、gAgriculture and farmingAppsArtificial intelligenceBiotechnologyClothing and apparelCommerce and shoppingCommunity and lifestyleConsumer electronicsConsumer goodsContent and publishingData and analyticsDesignEducationEnergyEventsFinancial servicesFood and beverageGamingGovernment and militaryHardwar

179、eHealth careInformation technologyInternet servicesLending and investmentsManufacturingMedia and entertainmentMessaging and telecom.MobileMusic and audioNatural resourcesNavigation and mappingOtherPaymentsPlatformsPrivacy and securityProfessional servicesReal estateSales and marketingScience and eng

180、ineeringSoftwareSportsSustainabilityTransportationTravel and tourismVideo50 000 100 000 40%80%20%40%60%20%40%60%20%40%Note:This Figure is based on the industry classification established by Crunchbase.13 12128%27%2%2%1%11%2%8%31%1%1%2%9%3%1%6%2%1%12%1%1%4%3%4%8%13%3%2%1%13%2%3%4%4%11%8%3%3%2%5%1%3%1

181、%16%4%4%11%6%1%3%1%16%4%12%48%2%2%2%14%4%2%9%3%2%19%1%2%5%3%6%13%20%5%3%2%21%3%5%7%6%18%11%4%4%4%7%2%4%2%25%6%6%17%8%2%5%20%36%27%36%47%23%23%25%30%24%20%32%19%26%36%24%30%34%30%29%30%39%28%25%29%36%22%27%29%25%35%30%27%32%23%30%26%26%21%38%29%30%37%33%26%25%21%41%29%40%65%24%24%25%35%26%21%35%21%27

182、%43%24%30%36%31%32%35%46%30%26%30%43%23%28%32%27%42%34%29%33%25%32%27%28%22%47%31%31%43%36%27%26%28 1032 40215 2697 6486 4677 43344 85012 18212 97711 87413 63919 98133 08113 9278 6145 73430 3239 1924 9101 85531 58422 07561 91048 1468 20719 22039 3653 48315 9473 7454 4461 59135 5895 0243 3048 56846 2

183、4817 68252 14823 82891 7226 9658 44113 3277 3086 988Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|27Differences among sectors when it comes to firms propensity to apply for IP rights are driven partly by the inherent characteristics of each sector,a

184、nd partly by the patentability of the innovations generated by the startups in that sector.While all products and services can be branded,and those brands can be protected by trade mark registration,there are many sectors,particularly in services,whose innovations are not patentable.The IPR intensit

185、ies defined here as the share of startups that have been filing for registered IP rights of different sectors are reported graphically in Figure 3.The sectors whose startups use patents and trade marks most intensively are highlighted in the Figure.The biotechnology sector is the most intensive user

186、 of both patents and trade marks,with close to half of the startups in that sector applying for one or both of those IP rights.Other sectors intensive in their use of both rights are manufacturing,health care,artificial intelligence,and data and analytics.Software,food and beverages,and financial se

187、rvices are not patent-intensive,but the startups from those sectors make intensive use of trade marks.Startups from the highlighted IPR-intensive sectors are the subject of the in-depth analysis in sections 5 and 6.Share of startups with any patent50%40%30%20%10%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%Share of startups

188、with any trademarkNote:The size of each circle represents the number of firms in the sector in the initial sample.Figure 3 Comparison of trade mark and patent use by sector Biotechnology Science and engineering Manufacturing Health care Artificial intelligence Data and analytics Food and beverage Fi

189、nancial services SoftwareTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|284.2 Use of IPRs by European startupsWhile section 4.1 considered any patent or any trade mark(national or European),in Figures 4 and 5 the focus is on European-level rights.Loo

190、king first at patents(Figure 4),the biotechnology,science and engineering,health care and manufacturing sectors have high propensities to use patents in general,and European patents in particular.Share of startups with European patent50%40%30%20%10%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%Share of startups with any paten

191、tNote:The Figure compares general patent intensity of a sector with its European patent intensity.The size of the circles reflects the size of each sector in the initial sample.Figure 4 Comparison of patent intensity with share of European patents users Biotechnology Science and engineering Manufact

192、uring Health care Artificial intelligence Data and analytics Food and beverage Financial services SoftwareTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|29Figure 5 shows the corresponding information for trade marks.A difference in behaviour compared

193、 to patenting emerges.While the most patent-intensive sectors in Figure 4 have roughly equal propensities to apply for national and European patents,in Figure 5 the trademark-intensive sectors have relatively lower rates of EUTM activity.For example,36%of manufacturing startups have applied for a tr

194、ade mark,but only about 17%have applied for an EUTM.In the same sector,21%of startups have applied for a patent,compared to about 17%that have applied for a European patent,a much smaller difference.Share of startups with EUTM40%30%20%10%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%Share of startups with any trade markNote:T

195、he Figure compares general trade mark intensity of a sector with its EUTM intensity.The size of the circles reflects the size of each sector in the initial sample.Figure 5 Comparison of trade mark intensity with share of EUTM users Biotechnology Science and engineeringManufacturing Health care Artif

196、icial intelligence Data and analytics Food and beverage Financial services SoftwareTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|30Case study:MARINOMEDCompany:Marinomed Biotech AG Locations:Vienna,Austria Founded:2006No.of employees:25 Products:Anti

197、-viral and immunological treatmentsMarinomed develops therapies against respiratory diseases based on an anti-viral respiratory technology platform.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|31“Marinomed is an IP-driven company.It is vital that w

198、e own and manage the IP associated with our products.”Andreas Grassauer,CEO,MarinomedMarinomed is a biopharmaceutical spin-off from the Veterinary University of Vienna.The company was founded in 2006 to commercialise a proprietary technology platform based on Carragelose.This natural polymer is isol

199、ated from red algae and is used in various therapies against respiratory diseases.Drug discovery companies like Marinomed rely heavily on IP rights to protect their technology and to secure vital funding to bridge the gap between research and commercialisation.Sea of possibilityDerived from red alga

200、e,Carragelose works by forming a protective barrier that prevents viruses from infecting mucosal cells.It is used in treatments such as throat sprays,nasal sprays and lozenges,making it easy and convenient for patients to use.While these over-the-counter products are subject to shorter regulatory ap

201、proval processes,it can still take around three to five years and cost several million euros before they can be marketed.The initial research was funded with public money and conducted at the university.When the company was spun out,it set up an agreement under which Marinomed would retain all IP ri

202、ghts and award the university a share in the business.Marinomeds patent portfolio is built upon three core inventions:the main patent family which relates to the use of Carragelose against cold-causing rhinoviruses,a second family to cover the use of the compound against other respiratory viruses,an

203、d a third related to a different polymer.Global coverageThe three key patents are validated in almost 100 countries and supported by a trade mark registered in more than 30 countries.Marinomed has chosen such broad coverage for several reasons.Medical compounds are relatively easy to copy and patent

204、s can be effective in fending off generic producers or copycats.While Marinomed has experienced patent infringement,it was able to resolve these cases without lengthy and costly court battles.The firms IP portfolio has helped it to establish two distinct business models:licensing and distribution pa

205、rtnerships.Marinomed offers a classical licence agreement which gives licensees the rights to produce,market and distribute the product in certain countries.In addition,their distribution deals enable partners to purchase Marinomed products and sell these in defined geographical territories.The prod

206、ucts can be tailored to only include the partners name and logo.Marinomed owns a trade mark for Carragelose and its licensing partners have their own trade marks.While these partners do not need the Carragelose mark,under the distribution partnership,the licences for the patents are sometimes combin

207、ed with a trade mark licence.This enables partners to capitalise on the international use of the brand.The decision to file for a trade mark is based on a cost/benefit analysis,taking into account the needs of the partners.IP portfolio reviewThe company has invested heavily in its IP portfolio and c

208、arefully manages the intellectual assets included.In cooperation with the business development unit,the management team reviews the portfolio at least once each year,and adjusts its IP strategy to streamline patent-related expenditure.For example,the firm may abandon a patent in countries where it i

209、s no longer needed,or abandon a patent altogether.Licensing and distribution partners are included in these decisions and,to retain patent protection,may agree to bear the costs.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|325.IPR and fundingThis s

210、ection explores the relationship between the ability of startups to obtain financing and their IPR profile,as evidenced by their filings of patent and trade mark applications.As the previous section showed,one can observe a strong correlation at the sectoral level between the use of trade marks and

211、patents,suggesting a strong complementarity between the two IP rights.Funding of startups usually occurs through successive financing rounds.Seed funding refers to the money raised by a startup in the very initial stages of development,when the company does not yet have a track record.The goal of se

212、ed funding is to help the startup develop its business plans and refine its ideas to the point of being able to attract larger sums from investors in subsequent funding rounds.Early-stage funding(Series A and Series B)is sought by startups that have already established themselves with viable product

213、s/services and business models,and that now need funds to scale up their operations and achieve sustainable growth.While seed capital may come from private sources or from the founders themselves,Series A/B funding will typically come from VC or private equity(PE)investors.The amounts invested will

214、also be considerably larger than those invested at the seed stage.In the late-stage funding rounds,known as Series C,D,E,and later(although Series D and beyond are quite rare),the objective is to provide funds for the already successful business to expand into new markets or to develop new products.

215、Finally,the investors in the earlier funding rounds will seek a successful exit from their investment,usually through an IPO or the sale of the startup to another company.This stage of the life cycle of a startup is crucial,since the investors in the funding rounds described above would be reluctant

216、 to provide funding without the prospect of realising gains on their investment.The relationship between IPR and successful exit events is the subject of section 6.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|335.1 Funding record of European startu

217、psFigure 6 shows the number of funding events in the sample at different funding stages,grouped into seed,early-stage and late-stage funding.The chart includes only those startups that obtained funding at each specific stage.By far the most frequent type of funding in the sample is seed financing,wi

218、th more than 56 000 observations.Within that category,the most common category is seed funding,with almost 36 000 events.There are 12 000 early-stage financing rounds,with Series A funding being the most frequent type.Only a relatively small number of startups make it to the late stage;in our sample

219、 there are just under 2 000 late stage rounds,with funding rounds beyond Series C being quite infrequent.In Figure 7,the information on funding of startups is presented by sector.The first columns show the total number of startups in the sample by sector,while the subsequent columns show the proport

220、ion of startups in each sector that obtained the respective funding round financing.The sectors in which startups were most successful in obtaining seed financing include artificial intelligence(41%of startups in this sector received such funding),biotechnology(27%),data and analytics(27%),navigatio

221、n and mapping(26%)and payment services(26%).However,in subsequent funding rounds the most successful sector is biotechnology,with 10%of biotech startups obtaining early-stage financing and more than 3%going on to late-stage financing.Other sectors with startups relatively successful in obtaining ear

222、ly-stage and late-stage financing include health care,artificial intelligence,payments,and science and engineering.Figure 6 Funding events in the dataset TotalSeedEarly stageLate stage020 00040 00060 000By typeAngelConvertible noteEquity crowdfundingPre-seedProduct crowdfundingSeedSeries ASeries BSe

223、ries CSeries DSeries ESeries FSeries GSeries HSeries I010 00020 00030 00040 000 56 307 12 362 1 9424 2391 7753 11611 06029935 8189 0243 3381 2714371455124113Note:The first panel presents the total number of funding events by stage of funding.The second panel presents the distribution of funding even

224、ts by specific funding types within each of the three categories.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|34Figure 7 Participation of startups at different stages of financingNSeedEarly stageLate stageAdministrative servicesAdvertisingAgricultu

225、re and farmingAppsArtificial intelligenceBiotechnologyClothing and apparelCommerce and shoppingCommunity and lifestyleConsumer electronicsConsumer goodsContent and publishingData and analyticsDesignEducationEnergyEventsFinancial servicesFood and beverageGamingGovernment and militaryHardwareHealth ca

226、reInformation technologyInternet servicesLending and investmentsManufacturingMedia and entertainmentMessaging and telecommunicationsMobileMusic and audioNatural resourcesNavigation and mappingOtherPaymentsPlatformsPrivacy and securityProfessional servicesReal estateSales and marketingScience and eng

227、ineeringSoftwareSportsSustainabilityTransportationTravel and tourismVideo 50 000 100 000 20%40%60%10%20%2%4%Note:The first panel shows the number of startups in the initial sample by sector.Subsequent panels present the shares of startups in the initial sample that obtained financing in each stage o

228、f funding rounds.10.53%2.23%0.27%0.12%0.54%0.42%0.78%3.31%0.35%0.44%0.25%0.67%0.29%0.15%0.63%0.15%0.12%0.74%0.30%0.62%0.47%0.33%0.16%0.66%1.32%0.31%0.41%0.78%0.45%0.25%0.49%0.80%0.40%0.63%0.69%0.33%1.53%0.18%0.53%0.17%0.20%0.15%1.40%0.49%0.24%0.86%0.89%0.51%0.36%1.22%5.91%3.44%10.20%16.10%2.25%2.72%

229、2.87%3.99%2.09%1.83%6.88%1.20%1.87%4.42%1.62%4.11%3.56%4.42%1.94%4.22%7.60%2.75%3.22%4.12%3.19%2.11%4.05%5.24%3.34%3.62%6.41%2.81%7.74%3.06%3.84%1.37%2.44%1.34%8.96%4.20%3.09%5.14%5.17%3.94%3.08%4.75%22.69%20.13%41.20%26.95%11.68%11.77%16.20%13.46%8.32%8.78%26.66%5.64%11.80%12.42%10.31%14.60%20.80%2

230、1.24%9.00%14.20%20.56%10.68%13.88%12.89%9.58%10.44%14.27%22.04%16.98%9.87%26.15%12.18%26.15%15.68%11.61%5.83%10.21%5.66%23.32%17.48%18.46%17.69%17.60%20.03%12.42%13 12128 1032 40215 2697 6486 4677 43344 85012 18212 97711 87413 63919 98133 08113 9278 6145 73430 3239 1924 9101 85531 58422 07561 91048

231、1468 20719 22039 3653 48315 9473 7454 4461 59135 5895 0243 3048 56846 24817 68252 14823 82891 7226 9658 44113 3277 3086 988Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|355.2 IPR use at different funding stagesOn average,only about a third of all st

232、artups file IPRs before the seed stages.In most of these cases,the firms have applied for a trade mark before these funding rounds(28%),while only 10%have already filed a patent.The proportion of startups that file patents increases significantly during the series A and B stages,reaching about 45%by

233、 the late stages.The same pattern can be observed for trade marks,which have been filed for by 70 to 80%of startups at late stages.The more frequent use of patents and trade marks by relatively mature startups probably reflects their progress in developing technologies and products that qualify for

234、IPR protection.Among those startups that apply for IPR prior to each funding round,the percentage that applied for European rights is shown in the last panel of the Figure.In this respect,there is a difference between trade mark and patent users.Of the 28%of seed funding recipients that had filed fo

235、r a trade mark before the funding event,47%had filed for an EUTM.In the case of patents,81%of the patent filings were at the European level already at this early stage.By the late-stage funding rounds,92%of patent filers had filed for a European patent,compared to 81%of trade mark filers that had fi

236、led an EUTM application.Figure 8 Share of startups with IPR at different stages of financingNumber of roundsSeedEarly stageLate stage020 00040 00060 000IPR users(overall)0%25%50%75%100%out of which European rights users0%25%50%75%100%56 307 12 362 1 942 28%47%10%81%5%47%53%64%28%88%18%72%81%44%92%35

237、%75%60%Uses TM Uses patent Uses TM and patent Note:The first panel presents the number of events in each stage of financial rounds.The second panel shows the share of startups having applied for various combinations of IPR prior to the date of that financing round.The third panel presents the share

238、of startups within each category that applied for protection of EUTM,a European patent or both prior to the date of the relevant financing round.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|36Additional charts showing the distribution of IP rights

239、in each funding round by sector and by IP rights is shown in Annex A.Figures 9 and 10 present scatterplots showing the correlations between applications for patents(Figure 9)and trade marks(Figure 10),and European patents and EUTMs,respectively,at each of the three funding stages.While,for both IPR

240、types,the proportion of startups with both trade mark and patent filings increases as firms progress through the funding rounds,there are significant differences among sectors.These differences mean that in the econometric analyses in the next sections,the sector of activity of the startup must be t

241、aken into account.Figure 9 Relationship between general patent intensity and share of European patent usage among patent users at the sectoral levelSeedEarly stageLate stageShare of European patent users among patent users100%90%80%70%60%50%0%25%50%75%100%0%25%50%75%100%0%25%50%75%100%Share of paten

242、t users among startupsNote:The Figure compares general patent intensities of sectors with the share of patent users that have filed for at least one European patent.Biotechnology Science and engineering Manufacturing Health careData and analytics Food and beverage Financial services SoftwareArtifici

243、al intelligence Biotechnology Health careManufacturingScience and engineering Food and beverageArtificial intelligenceData and analytics Software Financial services Biotechnology Health careScience&engineering SoftwareData and analyticsArtificial intelligenceFinancial services Food and beverageManuf

244、acturingTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|37Figure 10 Relationship between general trade mark intensity and share of EUTM usage among trade mark users at the sectoral levelSeedEarly stageLate stageShare of EUTM users among trade mark use

245、rs100%80%60%40%0%25%50%75%100%0%25%50%75%100%0%25%50%75%100%Share of trade mark users among startupsNote:The Figure compares general trade mark intensities of sectors with the shares of trade mark users that have filed for at least one EUTM.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,T

246、RADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|38Finally,Figure 11 shows the amount of funding received by the median startup in each funding round,by the IPR status of the company.Among the startups that received seed financing,those that had applied for either a trade mark or a patent prior to funding rece

247、ived considerably higher sums than those that had not applied for either IP right.Those startups that had applied for both a patent and a trade mark received the highest amount of seed funding,more than EUR 900 000.The same pattern holds for early-stage financing,while in late-stage financing rounds

248、 trade mark users receive the most funding,perhaps reflecting the fact that companies at this stage are already quite successful and their value(hence also their funding)is more driven by marketing success than by technological innovation at this point.Figure 11 Relationship between IPR status and a

249、mount of financing obtained at different stages of fundingMedianNNo IPRSeedUses patent onlyUses TM and patentUses TM onlyNo IPR Early stageUses patent only Uses TM and patentUses TM onlyNo IPRLate stageUses patent onlyUses TM and patentUses TM only020 000 00040 000 00060 000 0000 10 00020 00030 000N

250、ote:Panels present median values and the number of financing events by stage of financial round and type of IPR use.263 435 590 007 912 475 649 101 4 282 023 5 271 093 7 429 765 6 454 723 16 213 614 16 675 940 20 222 637 40 048 777 26 457 2 117 2 028 9 535 3 599 1 084 1 879 3 708 326 154 604 643Tabl

251、e of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|395.3 IPR use and odds of fundingIn section 5.2,a descriptive analysis of the relationship between IPR and funding was presented.Significant differences were found among sectors and funding rounds,calling fo

252、r an econometric analysis of the impact of prior IPR use on the likelihood of funding while controlling for relevant factors,in particular the country in which the startup is based and the sector in which it is active.This analysis is presented below for the seed and early-stage funding rounds,while

253、 section 6 considers the exit events.The methodology of the econometric analysis is described in sections 3.3 and 3.4 above.In all cases,the dependent variable is the occurrence of a funding event at a given point in time,and the main independent variables are variables indicating whether or not the

254、 startup has applied for the IP right indicated.Control variables are used for the startups respective countries and sectors(the corresponding coefficients have no intrinsic interest and are therefore omitted in the Tables).Tables 1 and 2 show the regression results for the seed funding rounds.The c

255、oefficients can be interpreted as the increase in the odds of obtaining funding(compared to a startup that has not filed any IPR application).The first column in Table 1 shows that a startup that has applied for an IPR has 2.6 times higher odds of obtaining seed funding than a startup that has not a

256、pplied for any IPR.The second column repeats this analysis,now distinguishing between the two types of IPR and a combination of them.The analysis shows that the odds of obtaining funding increase significantly for startups with trade marks,but even more so for startups with patents.Startups with bot

257、h patents and trade marks experience the highest increase in odds of obtaining seed funding.Table 1 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables(seed stage)(1)(2)Uses any IPR2.614*p=0.000Uses only TM2.463*p=0.000Uses only patent2.916*p=0.000Bundles TMs with patents3.464*p=0.000Co

258、untry controls Sector controlsYesYesYesYesObservations R2Log likelihoodWald testLR testScore(logrank)test383,363 0.064366,887.80028,113.220*(df=86)25,415.670*(df=86)32,454.060*(df=86)383,363 0.064366,835.600 28,344.670*(df=88)25,520.210*(df=88)32,863.650*(df=88)Note:*p0.1;*p0.05;*p0.01Original coeff

259、icients exponentiated to represent odds of getting finance as compared to reference valueTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|40In Table 2,the analysis focuses on whether the IP rights applied for by the startup are national or European-lev

260、el rights.The first column shows that while patent filings increase the odds of funding,the increase is more pronounced when the startup has filed for a European patent.The same is true for trade marks:as shown in the second column,filing for an EUTM is associated with a significantly higher increas

261、e in odds of seed funding than filing for a national trade mark application.It appears that seed investors value a startups intention to expand internationally,as evidenced by its trade mark and patent filings.Table 2 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables.Focus on geograph

262、ical scope of IPR(seed stage)(1)(2)Uses national patent only2.436*p=0.000Uses European patent2.651*p=0.000Uses national TM only2.191*p=0.000Uses EUTM2.816*p=0.000Country controls Sector controlsYesYesYesYesObservations R2Log likelihoodWald test(df=87)LR test(df=87)Score(logrank)test(df=87)383,363 0.

263、057368,292.70025,046.790*22,606,000*28,907.050*383,363 0.062367,390.000 27,156.730*24,411.300*31,320.700*Note:*p0.1;*p0.05;*p0.01Original coefficients exponentiated to represent odds of getting finance as compared to reference valueTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARK

264、S AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|41Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the analysis of the odds of early-stage(Series A and B)funding.The increase in odds of a successful funding round associated with IPR activity is much greater than was the case in the seed funding models.For example,a startup that bun

265、dles patents with trade marks has a ten-fold increase in the odds of obtaining early-stage funding,compared to a tripling of the odds of obtaining seed funding.The same is true when analysing the differential impact of European versus national-level rights in Table 4.Here,the increase in odds of fun

266、ding associated with European-level rights is significantly higher than the corresponding increase seen in Table 2 for seed funding.Investors in early-stage financing seem to value international expansion prospects even more than do investors in the seed funding stages.It should also be noted that a

267、ll estimated coefficients are statistically significant at the 99%confidence level.In addition,three test statistics confirm the overall validity of the models(by rejecting the hypothesis that all the coefficients in the model are zero):the Wald test,the likelihood ratio(LR)test and the score logran

268、k test.Table 3 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables(early stage)(1)(2)Uses any IPR5.200*p=0.000Uses only TM4.349*p=0.000Uses only patent6.410*p=0.000Bundles TMs with patents10.188*p=0.000Country controls Sector controlsYesYesYesYesObservations R2Log likelihoodWald test LR

269、 testScore(logrank)test 394,249 0.03498,849.18014,742.910*(df=86)13,646.400*(df=86)20,004.540*(df=86)394,249 0.03598,594.580 16,053.760*(df=88)14,155.620*(df=88)23,511.240*(df=88)Note:*p0.1;*p0.05;*p0.01Original coefficients exponentiated to represent odds of getting finance as compared to reference

270、 valueTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|42Table 4 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables.Focus on geographical scope of IPR(early stage)(1)(2)Uses national patent only3.826*p=0.000Uses European patent5.267*p=0.0

271、00Uses national TM only2.808*p=0.000Uses EUTM6.091*p=0.000Country controls Sector controlsYesYesYesYesObservations R2Log likelihoodWald test(df=87)LR test(df=87)Score(logrank)test(df=87)394,249 0.028100,051.60014,344.070*11,241.570*19,665.710*394,249 0.03299,229.180 15,255.690*12,886.410*20,667.950*

272、Note:*p0.1;*p0.05;*p0.01Original coefficients exponentiated to represent odds of getting finance as compared to reference valueTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|43Case study:BLUBRAKECompany:Blubrake Locations:Milan,ItalyFounded:2015No.of

273、 employees:32 Products:Integrated ABS system for e-bikesBlubrakes integrated ABS system for e-bikes an e-cargosTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|44“IP is important in two main respects.Firstly,it helps to attract investors when companies

274、 are mature enough to grow.Secondly,it is important for exit purposes as it increases corporate value.”Fabio Todeschini,co-founder and general manager,BlubrakeBlubrake is an Italian scale-up that develops and produces advanced braking systems for the growing global e-bike and e-cargo bike industry.T

275、he company was founded through a collaboration between researchers at Politecnico di Milano(Polimi)and e-Novia,a startup accelerator that supports companies in robotics,artificial intelligence and mobility.Blubrakes open-platform ABS solutions can be integrated with third-party braking systems and b

276、attery kits,meeting the needs of the original equipment manufacturers(OEMs).The company both sells its ABS systems to OEMs,and provides them with a technology platform that enables Blubrake systems to be adapted to specific needs and bike models.Kickstarting the innovation cycleIn 2015,a group of en

277、trepreneurs established e-Novia to scale up promising technologies.Once they had identified a potential breakthrough,e-Novia combined IP,expertise and financial resources to establish spin-offs that had the potential to achieve international success.In this business model,company creation follows a

278、clear path from idea(generating innovation)to invention(transforming innovation)to enterprises(transferring innovation).At around the same time,Polimi Professor Sergio Matteo Savaresi and his research group had been working on braking control systems for vehicles.Some of the groups researchers began

279、 collaborating with e-Novia to develop braking systems for light electric vehicles.This collaboration led to Savaresi and Fabio Todeschini co-founding Blubrake.IP laid the foundation for the company through unorthodox university-based technology transfer.Ordinarily,universities will file for a paten

280、t as a prerequisite for testing technology and enabling scientific publications.Blubrake was created from the outset around a specific unique selling point and market.The firms solutions were developed with IP in mind,with the team identifying and using various methods to protect new inventions earl

281、y on.The company initially relied on trade secrets,with Blubrake and Polimi filing for the first jointly owned patent on a control system for e bikes,ABS,in 2016.In 2019,the company registered the Blubrake trade mark in Italy and the UK,with further registrations at the EUIPO and in Japan and the US

282、 in 2020 and 2021.Funding the journeyFor deep-tech startups,early funding is essential as it supports R&D and,in the case of Blubrake,enabled the new company to thoroughly test its technology to meet stringent safety standards.E-Novia helped attract financing,negotiated with early backers and fundin

283、g the filing and maintenance fees for patent applications.In return for this support,e-Novia was given a majority share in Blubrake.In addition to funding from e-Novia and other early investors,Blubrake was supported by a grant from the European Commissions Executive Agency for Small and Medium-size

284、d Enterprises.Towards the end of 2020,the company raised EUR 5.2 million from private investors.This investment was used to develop the second generation of ABS a miniaturised system that can be fully integrated into the bike frame.In their due diligence,the investors emphasised the importance of pr

285、oprietary technology,IP protection and a technical roadmap that was matched by parallel patent protection.Beyond financing,Blubrakes IP portfolio ensures that it is recognised as a skilled technology player.Since the firms solutions are open-ended,IP here enables the company to retain control of its

286、 technology while collaborating with partners and reinforcing its bargaining position in global supply chains.Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|456.IPR and exit performanceThis section presents statistics on the interplay between the fil

287、ing of trade mark and patent applications by European startups and the odds of successful exit for their investors.Taking the perspective of the VC funds,a“success”is defined as the occurrence of an initial public offering(IPO)or acquisition.The assumption underlying this section is that filing for

288、IP rights denotes a specific focus of the startups on the development and protection of intellectual assets,which may in turn be associated with higher odds of success.Accordingly,the purpose of the analysis is to determine whether the prior filing of IP rights can be exploited by investors as a pre

289、dictor of the future chances of success of the startups.Importantly,this prediction effect should not be interpreted as a direct causal one:the mere filing for an IP right does not ensure a successful exit,but it may signal a startups stronger ability to achieve a successful exit through the creatio

290、n,protection and exploitation of intellectual assets.6.1 IPR use at exitFigure 12 presents the population of startups that have achieved exit,across sectors of economic activity.The first column shows the total number of startups for each sector.The subsequent columns present the percentages of thos

291、e startups that successfully exited through either an acquisition(second column)or an IPO(third column).In the entire sample,7.32%of the startups report a successful exit,most often through acquisitions(6.53%).Biotechnology stands out with high exit rates with respect to both acquisitions(10.62%)and

292、 IPOs(4.25%).Natural resources,energy,gaming and health care also report compounded shares of exiting startups above 10%.Other IP-intensive sectors should be noted which show above-average exit rates,including manufacturing(9.55%),science and engineering(9.25%),or food and beverages(7.92%).Table of

293、contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|46Figure 12 Startups with successful exit by sectorNAcquisitionIPOAdministrative servicesAdvertisingAgriculture and farmingAppsArtificial intelligenceBiotechnologyClothing and apparelCommerce and shoppingCommunit

294、y and lifestyleConsumer electronicsConsumer goodsContent and publishingData and analyticsDesignEducationEnergyEventsFinancial servicesFood and beverageGamingGovernment and militaryHardwareHealth careInformation technologyInternet servicesLending and investmentsManufacturingMedia and entertainmentMes

295、saging and telecommunicationsMobileMusic and audioNatural resourcesNavigation and mappingOtherPaymentsPlatformsPrivacy and securityProfessional servicesReal estateSales and marketingScience and engineeringSoftwareSportsSustainabilityTransportationTravel and tourismVideo0 50 000 100 000 0%4%8%12%0%3%

296、6%Note:The first panel presents the number of startups in the initial sample by sector.Subsequent panels present the shares of startups in the initial sample that achieve successful exit by type of exit.13 12128 1032 40215 2697 6486 4677 43344 85012 18212 97711 87413 63919 98133 08113 9278 6145 7343

297、0 3239 1924 9101 85531 58422 07561 91048 1468 20719 22039 3653 48315 9473 7454 4461 59135 5895 0243 3048 56846 24817 68252 14823 82891 7226 9658 44113 3277 3086 9884.57%0.35%0.19%1.54%0.22%0.33%4.25%0.39%0.33%0.34%0.55%0.37%0.29%0.31%0.18%0.17%3.38%0.19%1.50%0.89%1.24%0.54%0.62%1.71%0.35%0.30%1.82%1

298、.34%0.37%0.43%0.46%0.51%5.87%0.50%0.49%0.62%0.15%0.44%0.33%1.79%0.21%1.65%0.29%0.43%1.95%1.18%0.62%0.57%3.73%3.71%4.40%6.49%10.62%2.88%4.22%4.46%6.80%3.30%4.22%7.03%2.04%3.51%8.21%3.09%6.24%7.03%10.04%3.83%7.05%8.82%6.22%5.54%4.64%8.21%4.74%6.57%7.20%5.05%8.64%6.91%5.02%7.86%6.78%6.77%4.21%4.59%3.60

299、%7.60%6.23%4.81%5.39%7.12%7.48%6.08%Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|47The proportions of IP rights users among the startups that successfully exited is in turn reported in Figure 13.Those proportions are larger for trade mark users(39%

300、for exits through acquisition,40%for exits through an IPO)than for patent users(13%and 21%respectively).The shares are in all cases significantly larger than the shares of trade mark and patent owners in the entire population of European startups(27%and 6%respectively).Compared with other startups t

301、hat filed for IP rights,those that exited also have an above-average share of European IP rights,and they rely more frequently on a bundle of patents and trade marks.Interestingly,the relatively small number of startups that exited via an IPO show the highest score with respect to all indicators of

302、IPR intensity.Figure 13 Distribution of startups by IPR use in the initial sample and at exitInitial sample (N=298 665)Exit sample Acquisition(N=18 169)Exit sample IPO(N=2 268)Uses any IPRUses any TMUses EUTMUses any patentUses European patentUses TM and patentUses EU bundle0%25%50%0%25%50%0%25%50%2

303、9%44%46%27%39%40%12%21%26%6%13%21%5%11%19%4%8%15%2%5%11%Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|48Figure 14 provides a high-level view of the correlation between the proportion of patents and trade mark applicants at the sectoral level and the

304、 share of exits at the sectoral level.This comparison reveals a clear correlation between the frequency of acquisitions in a sector and the proportion of patent users in that sector.While patent users tend to be concentrated in technology-oriented sectors,trade mark users are more evenly distributed

305、 across sectors.As a result,there is no clear correlation between trade mark intensity and the frequency of exit at the sectoral level.Further analysis is thus needed to uncover such correlations at the firm level within given sectors.Figure 14 Relationship between IPR intensity and share of firms w

306、ith successful exit at the sectoral levelPatentsTrade marksShare of IPR users in a sector80%60%40%20%0%0%5%10%15%20%0%5%10%15%20%Share of startups with successful exit Biotechnology Science and engineering ManufacturingHealth careData and analytics Food and beverageFinancial services SoftwareArtific

307、ial intelligence Biotechnology Science and engineeringHealth careArtificial intelligence ManufacturingFinancial services Software Food and beverageData and analyticsTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|49The Crunchbase data offer further in

308、teresting insights into the exit value of startups.However,they should be interpreted with caution,due to missing observations and potential selection biases.The first column of Figure 15 shows the median exit value of startups as a function of their IPR profile,with the number of corresponding obse

309、rvations reported in the second column.It reveals higher median values for startups that own patents or trade marks prior to exit,compared to those without any IP rights.Interestingly,the reported median values are particularly large for startups that bundle patents and trade marks up to two to thre

310、e times higher than for those that own only one category of IP rights.Figure 15 Relationship between IPR status and exit valueMedianNNo IPRAcquisitionUses TM onlyUses patent onlyUses TM and patentNo IPRIPOUses TM onlyUses patent onlyUses TM and patent0200 000 000400 000 000600 000 0000 1 0002 000Not

311、e:The panels present median values and the number of exits by exit type and by the type of IPR use.15 955 5231 32086620936793106319450 069 53148 780 48899 851 46184 731 401109 508 880207 253 886384 678 318Table of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.or

312、g|506.2 IPR use and odds of successful exitThis section presents further empirical analyses on the potential value of IP rights as a signal of increased chances of successful exit.The results complement the descriptive analyses of the previous section with an econometric estimation of the signalling

313、 effect of IPRs at the firm level.The predictive power of IPRs as a signal of likely exit was assessed using the Cox Proportional Hazard model introduced in section 3.Therefore,the dependent variable of interest is the occurrence of an exit at a given point in time.In line with the econometric resul

314、ts reported in section 5,different regression models are estimated to account for different types of IP rights or bundles thereof,taking into account the time at which the patent or trade mark applications took place.Besides those IPR variables,the estimated model takes into account other factors th

315、at may influence the chances of exit,including the sector and country in which the startups operate(the corresponding coefficients have no intrinsic interest and are therefore omitted in the Tables).The two model estimations reported in Table 5 make it possible to assess the reliability of any IP ri

316、ght(model 1)or of specific categories of IP rights(model 2)as a signal of their owners chances of exit.They show,in all cases,a positive and significant effect of IP ownership on the odds of exit.In model 1,filing for any registered IPR is associated with 2.265 higher odds of exit in periods,compare

317、d with startups without IPR applications.The results of model 2 make it possible to further decompose that effect.The filing of trade mark applications only is associated with an increase of the odds of exit by a factor of 2.112.Patent applications are in turn associated with a 2.408 increase in the

318、 odds of exit.The bundling of trade marks and patents yields the largest effect,with an increase of the odds of exit by a factor of 3.156.Table 5 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables(exit)(1)(2)Uses any IPR2.265*p=0.000Uses only TM2.112*p=0.000Uses only patent2.408*p=0.00

319、0Bundles TMs with patents3.156*p=0.000Observations R2Log likelihoodWald test LR test Score(logrank)test 394,874 0.028229,536.90010,493.530*(df=86)11,373.490*(df=86)11,544.190*(df=86)394,874 0.029229,445.600 10,885.120*(df=88)11.556.090*(df=88)12,201.670*(df=88)Country controls Sector controlsYesYesY

320、esYesNote:*p0.1;*p0.05;*p0.01Original coefficients exponentiated to represent odds of exit as compared to reference valueTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|51The models reported in Table 6 in turn compare the effect of national versus Eur

321、opean IP rights as predictors of increased chances of future exit.Model 1 focuses on patents and shows a positive effect of both national and European patents,with odds of exit increased by,respectively,a factor of 1.985 and a factor of 2.301,compared to startups that do not own any patent.The effec

322、t is significantly stronger for European patents.Model 2 shows similar results in the case of trade marks.Both national and European trade marks are associated with a significant increase in the odds of exit(by a factor of 1.627 and a factor of 2.860,respectively).The effect is particularly strong i

323、n the case of EU trade marks,which are usually filed for less frequently and later than for national trade marks.Econometric estimations therefore point to a strong signalling effect of both European patents and EU trade marks,reflecting the broader market potential of startups that are filing for s

324、uch European IP rights.Table 6 Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent IPR variables.Focus on geographical scope of IPR(exit)(1)(2)Uses national patent only1.985*p=0.000Uses European patent2.301*p=0.000Uses national TM only1.627*p=0.000Uses EUTM2.860*p=0.000Country controls Sector control

325、sYesYesYesYesObservations R2Log likelihoodWald test(df=87)LR test(df=87)Score(logrank)test(df=87)394,874 0.024 230,385.400 9,038.690*(df=86)9,676.335*(df=86)10,101.170*(df=86)394,874 0.029229,485.000 11,017.140*11,477.180*12,321.010*Note:*p0.1;*p0.05;*p0.01Original coefficients exponentiated to repr

326、esent odds of exit as compared to reference valueTable of contents|Executive summary|Content|Annex PATENTS,TRADE MARKS AND STARTUP FINANCEepo.org|527.DiscussionIn the EPO/EUIPO(2019)study of high-growth firms,a strong correlation was found between an SMEs use of IP rights and its subsequent growth p

327、erformance.This relationship was especially strong for firms that registered not only national but also European-level rights,and for firms that bundled patents and trade marks.The study of high-growth firms did not delve into the mechanisms through which IP rights could contribute to enhance a firm

328、s growth prospects;it merely found that such a correlation exists.The present study goes one step further and looks at one possible mechanism:the registration of patents and trade marks by a startup increases the odds of obtaining financing.The study has indeed shown that startups that register IP r

329、ights are considerably more likely than other startups to obtain seed and early-stage financing,and are also more likely to reward the early investors through a successful exit via an IPO or a sale to another company.The odds of obtaining seed financing and achieving a successful exit rise even more

330、 for startups that apply for European-level rights and those that bundle patents and trade marks.Such activity is a signal to potential financiers that the company has created one or more intellectual assets that are eligible for formal IPR protection,and that the firm intends to legally protect and

331、 exploit those intellectual assets in the marketplace.A patent is an indication that the startup has created a technological innovation,and trade mark registration signals the intent and ability to bring new products and services to the marketplace.Registering those rights on the European level sign

332、als to investors that the startup plans to expand outside its home country,further enhancing its growth prospects and increasing its attractiveness to the venture capital community.The implication for startups is then that IPR protection choices have an impact on their future prospects,both in terms

333、 of access to finance and value harvesting through successful exit.European policymakers have established the goal to decarbonise the continent by 2050,while at the same time creating growth and jobs to ensure continued prosperity for European citizens.Many of the startups that are the subject of the present study contribute to these objectives through their innovation and subsequent growth.But in