Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Organizations and individuals may express their capacity for innovation through patents for new products and services. This study examines one region’s recent history of innovation. How do Indiana’s metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) compare with other MSAs when measuring patent productivity? Some Indiana MSAs reflect a capacity for innovation, whereas others show less patent activity. Some Indiana MSAs look better nationally when measured in terms of patents per 10,000 employees. Indiana MSAs demonstrate strengths in pharmaceuticals and medical systems, electrical and electronic components, automobiles, and computers. The diffusion of patent volumes among Indiana MSAs varies with distance from Indianapolis. When compared with three MSAs with strengths in the life sciences (Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, and San Francisco), the Indianapolis MSA lags in annual patent production. Life science patents from these three MSAs grew substantially in the late 1990s, whereas the Indianapolis MSA’s life science patent output dropped each year.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acs, Z. J. , & Audretsch, D. (1989). Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos, 42 (2), 171-180.

Atkinson, R. D. , & Gottlieb, P. D. (2001). The metropolitan new economy index: Benchmarking economic transformation in the nation’s metropolitan areas. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Audretsch, D. B. , & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86 (3), 630-640.

Baptista, R. (1998). Clusters, innovation, and growth: A survey of the literature. In G.M.P. Swann , M. Prevezer , & D. Stout (Eds.), The dynamics of industrial clustering: International comparisons in computing and biotechnology (pp. 13-51). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baptista, R. , & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27(5), 525-540.

Castells, M. , & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of 21st century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.

Eli Lilly and Company . (2000a, November 15). Lilly to receive six additional months of Prozac market exclusivity (press release). Indianapolis, IN: Author.

Eli Lilly and Company . (2000b). 1999 annual report. Retrieved from http://www.lilly.com/about/investor/99report/english/index.html

Eli Lilly and Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 222 F. 3d 973 (Cir. 2000). 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19021, 55 U.S.P.Q. 2D (BNA) 1609, August 9, 2000.

10.

Held, J. R. (1996). Clusters as an economic development tool: Beyond the pitfalls. Economic Development Quarterly, 10, 249-262.

11.

Knox, P. , & Agnew, J. (1998). The geography of the world economy (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

12.

Nunn, S. (2001, March). Patterns of built investment in central Indiana, 1990-1999 (issue brief). Indianapolis: Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment.

13.

O’Brien, S. (2000, November 16). Lilly plans 1Q filing for sepsis drug. Available from: http://cbs.marketwatch.com

14.

Ó hUallacháin, B. (1999). Patent places: Size matters. Journal of Regional Science, 39(4), 613-636.

15.

Reuveny, R. (2001, May). The new economy: A guide for Indiana (issue paper). Indianapolis: Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment.

16.

Sternberg, E. (1991). The sectoral cluster in economic development policy: Lessons from Rochester and Buffalo, New York. Economic Development Quarterly, 5, 342-357.

17.

Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford.

18.

Thurow, L. C. (1999). Building Wealth: The new rules for individuals, companies, and nations in a knowledge-based economy. New York: HarperCollins.

19.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics . (2001, February 11). Local area unemployment statistics. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm

20.

U.S. Census Bureau . (2001, February 9). Geographic changes for census 2000 + glossary. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html

21.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . (1999, April). United States patent grants by state, county, and metropolitan area (utility patents 1990-1998). Available from: ftp://ftp.uspto/gov/pub/taf/county/pdf

22.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . (2000, June 1). Patenting in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas of the United States: Breakout by technology class 1995-1999: Utility patent grants. Retrieved February 13, 2001, from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/mclsstc/mregions.htm

23.

Worgan, A. , & Nunn, S. (2002). Exploring a complicated labyrinth: Some tips on using patent data to measure urban and regional innovation. Economic Development Quarterly, 16, 229-236.

Spaces of Innovation: Patent Activity in Indiana Metropolitan Areas,1990 to 1998

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References