Innovation: From Top to Bottom, Patent-Wise

So here's what amounts to a bar bet: Name the five top states in the U.S. in terms of innovation. Sure, naming two of the five is easy, and I'll give you that--California and Massachusetts. But what are the other three?

Before spilling the beans, here's a related bar bet: Name the five U.S. states at the bottom of the innovation scrap heap? No, I'm not going to fall into that trap of saying "that's easy." I get enough irate e-mail as it is.

But the question you're probably asking right now is "by what set of metrics are we measuring 'top' and 'bottom'?" That's a fair question. The metric the Kauffman Foundation used in its study entitled U.S.-Based Global Intellectual Property Creation to come up with rankings is by the number of international patent applications filed. More specifically, the state rankings are based on the total percentage of international patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) per 100,000 workers for the years 1998 and 2006.

So what are they? According to the report Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, California, and Connecticut are tops in innovation, at least in terms of international patents. At the other end of the spectrum? In reverse order, they're South Dakota, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, and Mississippi.

It is important to note, say researchers, that while Delaware did not produce a very high number of patents in absolute terms, the state's small workforce generated the highest number of patents per 100,000 workers. Minnesota with its moderate-sized workforce produced twice the average of patents per 100,000 workers. The presence of Minnesota-based 3M and Delaware-based DuPont clearly plays a role.

The study also found that most U.S. PCT applications were filed by companies, while the University of California (followed by MIT) led in filings by educational institutions. Moreover, companies filed more applications in the electronic and personal medical-care arenas, while universities applied for more patents in biological-, testing- and chemical-related categories fields.

-- Jonathan Erickson
jerickson@ddj.com

Posted by Jon Erickson at 06:27 PM  Permalink