【精品文档】42中英文双语外文文献翻译成品：探究研发投入以及进出口业绩对专利价值的影响

此文档是毕业设计外文翻译成品（ 含英文原文+中文翻译），无需调整复杂的格式！下载之后直接可用，方便快捷！本文价格不贵,也就几十块钱！一辈子也就一次的事！外文标题：Exploring Influence of R&D Investment, Import and Export Performances to Patent Value外文作者：CW Kuo ， HN Su文献出处:Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology , 2018 :1191-1199(如觉得年份太老，可改为近2年，毕竟很多毕业生都这样做)英文2178单词， 11897字符(字符就是印刷符)，中文3109汉字。Exploring Influence of R&D Investment, Import and Export Performances to Patent ValueAbstract-Patent valuation has been an important research topic in a globalized knowledge economy where intangible assets and internationalization plays crucial roles. The objective of this study is to understand how the two factors, which are 1) intangible assets: patenting activities and R&D investment, 2) tangible goods: international import and export, influence patent value. More specifically, several patent information, e.g. Number of Patent, Number of Inventors, Number of Patent Citation Received, charge and payment for the use of patent (from USPTO and World Bank), reflecting intangible asset, together with US import and export data (from UN-COMTRADE) reflecting globalized tangible goods are employed to test if the selected data have any explanatory power in estimating patent value. The results show that the correlation is positive and the explanatory power can be confirmed.1INTRODUCTIONIntellectual property rights have gradually became a popular issue in recent years. In several empirical studies, it has been demonstrated that there is a close association and considerable correlation between patent and economic performance in international markets.14 For instance, based on a time longitudinal analysis of those countries selected for this paper, demonstrated that patent explained import and export streams. More specically, this paper raises the question by means of whether export and import performance can be used as a bridge over macroeconomic performance and patent activity. Therefore, the overall aim of this study is to show whether different performance in import or export and R&D (Research and Development) investment have any explanatory power in estimating the patent value by observing the countries that have been selected in this paper. In addition, it can be expected that patents as an output indicator of research and development process are strongly related to the import and export performance of countries.There have many patent litigation issues in recent years because we are in a globalized knowledge economy. For example, companies that perform cross-border trade in different countries often sue each other for patent infringement in order to protect the product. According to the research for litigation patents5, which are considered more valuable patents than non-litigation patents, so this paper used litigation patents to be the main condition for searching data.2、 LITERATURE REVIEWA. Macroeconomic interaction with patentsWith the growing trend toward globalization of trade, different countries according to their internal factors may have significant impact on FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) 91011. International patent behavior may have intensive and positive effect in international trade and exports investment 3. Some studies have shown that macroeconomic patent statistics may rectify the influence generate from global knowledge4. In this study, we used the research method mainly cited from 1, discovered the relationship between macroeconomics performance and patent value.B Patent as the main analytical basis elementA large amount of research shows patents are valuable indicators 1215. In recent years, there are more and more transnational patent litigation issues emerging from development of globalization. In addition, litigation patents are more valuable patent has been proposed 5. In this topic, reference from 5, also investigate litigation patents, and discuss if there is value in litigation patents or not.C Globalization R&D activities with patent performanceIn the global knowledge economy, globalization R&D behavior surfaced in various countries frequently16. Some studies have shown that patenting activity is a direct product under R&D17, and have a standard intellectual property rights system can provide an appropriate surrounding for multinationals1819. In the globalized environment, the higher the technology has a better competitive advantage 20. In this study, we also used R&D performance to demonstrate the effect between cross-border trade and litigation patents18.3、 RESEARCH METHODIn this section, US litigation patents are used as the main condition 5and the US is selected as the target country21,22 this gives an expression how to explore the influence of these three factors: 1) R&D Investment17, 2326, 2) Import and Export Performances, 3) Patent Indicators, to patent value because of these reasons: First, the US is one of the major markets in the world.27 Second, the USPTO has sufficient quantity to collect patents around the world, with various fields that have high technical coverage. Third and also the most important factor is that litigation patents have been proved to be a more valuable type of patent than non-litigation patents in previous studies5.This study first downloads all USPTO utility patents issued from 1976 to 2013 (4,667,855 utility patents in total), then selected the top twenty countries annually cited by litigation patents from the US. The reason why this study selected those twenty countries is that this study wants to know the globalized knowledge economy mainly associated with the US, and from the results, these countries are (Korea, Rep. , Israel, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Australia, Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong SAR, Ireland, Taiwan, China, Netherlands, Switzerland, France, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Japan, United States) respectively, where vertical axis is number of litigation patents and horizontal axis is country. Through observation the number of litigation patents shows that only US has more than ten thousand patents citing from US litigation patents, and top five cited from US litigation patent countries are ( US, Japan, Germany, Canada and UK) respectively. Furthermore, US is the country that most likely to cite the US litigation patent.In order to explore the influence of R&D performance and cross-border trade to patent value, this paper also used some statistic methods like correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis to demonstrate the relationship of those countries that this study chose.4、 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThis study compared some of those twenty countries in Fig. 2 to explore the linkage between intangible assets and tangible assets. First, this study used UN-COMTRADE database to select the US cross-border trade data with the world (all trade partners in the world), which illustrates that the US total trade volume has been on an upward trend since 1996, but it suddenly dropped in 2009, this could be attributed to the recession around the world.2829 Apparently, the US had a high trade deficit, this implies that US economy mainly depended on import and the difference was larger over the years, the US needed more commodities from other countries to satisfy its demands. Furthermore, in order to know whether the R&D performance has been indirectly effected we need to explore whether the patent has value or not, this paper used the information which from World Bank database (comprises a number of R&D and intellectual property fee30), then this paper chose the top seven ranking countries that cited US litigation patents using the years between 2005 and 2011. We will begin our discussion by reviewing the empirical findings, and then turn to the general theoretical issues. These results may be explained by considering the globalized knowledge economy, because we are faced with the globalization of the trade environment in recent years. Accordingly, our analysis was designed to interpret the influence between intangible assets (litigation patents value) and tangible assets (international trade and R&D investment). Our research suggests, albeit tentatively, two potentially important influences of the globalization of economic performance on the use of examining patent values, are international trade and R&D investment respectively. The results of this study partially support the notion that international trade and R&D performance has explanatory power in exploring patent value. Having acknowledged the limitations of the globalization performance observation data, we can nevertheless confirm that certain performance seems to have a particular set of structural features. Furthermore, patent value could probably estimate other tangible assets in the future.REFERENCES1R. Frietsch, P. Neuhusler, T. Jung, and B. Van Looy, “Patent indicators for macroeconomic growththe value of patents estimated by export volume,” Technovation, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 546558, Sep. 2014.2T. Ushijima, “Patent rights protection and Japanese foreign direct investment,” Res. Policy, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 738748, Apr. 2013.3C.-H. Yang and N.-F. Kuo, “Trade-related influences, foreign intellectual property rights and outbound international patenting,” Res. Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 446459, Apr. 2008.4H. Grupp and U. Schmoch, “Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 377396, Apr. 1999.5H.-N. Su, C. M.-L. Chen, and P.-C. Lee, “Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010,” Scientometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 181195,Apr. 2012.6H. Choe, D. H. Lee, I. W. Seo, and H. D. Kim, “Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: Country, institution, and technology field,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 26, pp. 492505, Oct. 2013.7V. Dequiedt and B. Versaevel, “Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives,” Int. Rev. Law Econ., vol. 36, pp. 5969, Oct. 2013.8A. G. Hu, “The Regionalization of Knowledge Flows in East Asia: Evidence from Patent Citations Data,” World Dev., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 14651477, Sep. 2009.9J. Hsu and Y.-E. Tiao, “Patent rights protection and foreign direct investment in Asian countries,” Econ. Model., vol. 44, pp. 16, Jan. 2015.10T. O. Awokuse and H. Yin, “Intellectual property rights protection and the surge in FDI in China,” J. Comp. Econ., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 217224, Jun. 2010.11J. Du, Y. Lu, and Z. Tao, “Economic institutions and FDI location choice: Evidence from US multinationals in China,” J. Comp. Econ., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 412429, Sep. 2008.12M. Grimaldi, L. Cricelli, M. Di Giovanni, and F. Rogo, “The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.13T. Fischer and J. Leidinger, “Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent valueAn empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions,” Res. Policy, no. 0.14D. Harhoff, K. Hoisl, B. Reichl, and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, “Patent validation at the country levelThe role of fees and translation costs,” Res. Policy, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 14231437, Nov. 2009.15D. H. McQueen, “Growth of software related patents in different countries,” Technovation, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 657671, Jun. 2005.16P. Athukorala and A. Kohpaiboon, “Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises,” Res. Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 13351347, Dec. 2010.17M.-H. Huang, H.-R. Dong, and D.-Z. Chen, “Globalization of collaborative creativity through cross-border patent activities,” J. Informetr., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 226236, Apr. 2012.18D. Yang, “The development of intellectual property in China,” World Pat. Inf., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 131142, Jun. 2003.19T. O. Awokuse and H. Yin, “Does Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Protection Induce More Bilateral Trade? Evidence from Chinas Imports,” World Dev., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 10941104, Aug. 2010.20A. Bohnstedt, C. Schwarz, and J. Suedekum, “Globalization and strategic research investments,” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1323, Feb. 2012.21E. L.-C. Lai and I. K. M. Yan, “Would global patent protection be too weak without international coordination?,” J. Int. Econ., vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 4254, Jan. 2013.22B. Seyoum, “US trade preferences and export performance of developing countries: Evidence from the generalized system of preferences,” Int. Bus. Rev., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 6883, Feb. 2006.23C.-W. Hsu, Y.-C. Lien, and H. Chen, “R&D internationalization and innovation performance,” Int. Bus. Rev.24A. Gerybadze and G. Reger, “Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 23, pp. 251274, Mar. 1999.25S. Kurokawa, S. Iwata, and E. B. Roberts, “Global R&D activities of Japanese MNCs in the US: A triangulation approach,” Res. Policy, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 336, Feb. 2007.26X. Diao, T. Roe, and E. Yeldan, “Strategic policies and growth: an applied model of R&D-driven endogenous growth,” J. Dev. Econ., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 343380, Dec. 1999.27D. Liu and C. M. Meissner, “Market Potential and the Rise of US Productivity Leadership,” J. Int. Econ.28R. Jagannathan, M. Kapoor, and E. Schaumburg, “Causes of the great recession of 20072009: The financial crisis was the symptom not the disease!,” J. Financ. Intermediation, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 429, Jan. 2013.29S. Yamamoto, “Transmission of US financial and trade shocks to Asian economies: Implications for spillover of the 20072009 US financial crisis,探究研发投入以及进出口业绩对专利价值的影响摘要-在无形资产和国际化上起着至关重要作用的全球化知识经济中，专利评估一直是一个重要研究课题。 本次研究的目的是为了了解这两个因素：1）无形资产：专利活动和研发投入; 2）有形商品：国际进出口、影响专利价值。 更具体地说，一些专利信息，例如反映无形资产的专利数量、发明人数量、收到的专利引用数量、专利使用费用（来自美国专利商标局和世界银行数据），以及反映全球化有形商品的美国进出口数据（来自UN-COMTRADE）被用来测试所选数据在估计专利价值时是否具有说服力。 结果表明其相关性为正，说服力得以确定。一、引言近年来，知识产权逐渐成为一个流行的问题。在一些实证研究中，已经证明了在国际市场上专利与经济表现之间存在密切的联系和相关性1 - 4。例如，根据本文选定的那些国家的时间纵向分析，证明了专利可以解释进出口数据流。更具体地说，本文通过出口和进口业绩是否可以用作宏观经济业绩和专利活动的桥梁来提出这个问题。因此，本研究的总体目标是通过观察本文选择的国家来显示进口或出口和研发（研发）投资的不同表现在评估专利价值方面是否具有说服力。此外，可以预计到专利 - 作为研究和开发过程的产出指标 - 与各国的进出口业绩密切相关。近年来有许多专利诉讼案件，因为我们都处于全球化的知识经济时代。 例如，在不同国家进行跨境贸易的公司经常为了保护产品而互相侵犯专利权。 根据对诉讼专利的研究5，认为专利比非诉讼专利更有价值，因此本文将诉讼专利作为数据检索的主要条件。二、文献综述A.宏观经济与专利之间的互动随着贸易全球化趋势的不断增强，不同国家根据其内部因素可能会对FDI（境外直接投资）产生重大影响9 10 11。 国际上的专利行动可能会对国际贸易和出口投资产生深远的积极影响3。 一些研究表明，宏观经济专利统计可能会纠正来自全球知识经济产生的影响4。 在这项研究中，我们主要采用了引用的研究方法，去发现了宏观经济表现与专利价值之间的关系。B专利作为主要分析基础元素大量的研究表明专利是有价值的指标12 - 15。 近年来，随着全球化的发展，越来越多的跨国专利诉讼问题出现了。 另外，诉讼专利是更具价值的专利这一观点已提出5。 在这个话题中，参考文献5也调查诉讼专利，并讨论诉讼专利是否有价值。C全球化研发活动中的专利表现在全球知识经济中，全球化研发行为经常出现在各国 16。 一些研究表明，专利活动是研发活动中的直接产品17，并且拥有标准的知识产权制度可以为跨国公司提供适当的环境18 19。 在全球化的环境中，技术越高，竞争优势越好20。 在这项研究中，我们还利用研发表现来展示跨境贸易与诉讼专利之间的作用18。三，研究方法在本节中，主要说道美国诉讼专利的情况5，美国被选定为目标国21，22来表述如何探索这三个因素的影响：1）研发投入 17，23 - 26，2）进口和出口业绩，3）专利指标，考虑这些专利价值的因素是有以下这些原因：首先，美国是世界主要市场之一。 其次，USPTO在世界各地收集专利的数量很多，在各个领域拥有高技术覆盖率。 第三，也是最重要的因素是诉讼专利在以前的研究中已被证明是比非诉讼专利更有价值的专利类型5。本次研究首先下载了美国专利商标局1976年至2013年发布的的所有实用新型专利（共466 8855份实用专利），然后选择每年引用美国诉讼专利的前20个国家。本研究之所以选择这20个国家，是因为本研究想要了解主要与美国相关的全球化知识经济，从结果来看，这些国家是（韩国，瑞典，以色列，意大利，瑞典，芬兰，澳大利亚，新加坡，丹麦，香港特别行政区，爱尔兰，台湾，中国，荷兰，瑞士，法国，英国，加拿大，德国，日本，美国），纵轴为诉讼专利数，横轴是国家。通过观察，诉讼专利的数量显示，仅美国有1万余件专利来源于美国诉讼专利，美国诉讼专利引用的前5个国家分别是（美国，日本，德国，加拿大和英国）。此外，美国是最可能引用美国诉讼专利的国家。为了探讨研发表现和跨境贸易对专利价值的影响，本文还采用相关系数和多元回归分析等统计方法来展示本研究所选国家之间的关系。四、结果与探讨这项研究比较了图中20个国家中的一些国家，以探究无形资产与有形资产之间的关联。 首先，本研究使用UN-COMTRADE数据库来选择美国与全球（全球所有贸易伙伴）跨境贸易的数据，这说明美国自1996年以来的总贸易量一直呈上升趋势，但它突然间 在2009年下降，这可能归因于世界各地的经济衰退。28 29很显然，美国的贸易逆差很高，这意味着美国经济主要依靠进口，而且多年来差距越来越大，美国需要更多的其他国家的商品来满足其需求。此外，为了了解研发表现是否受到间接影响，我们需要探讨专利是否有价值，本文使用世界银行数据库提供的信息（包括一系列研发和知识产权费用30） ，那么本文选择2005年至2011年间引用美国诉讼专利的排名前七位的国家。我们将通过回顾实证研究结果来开启我们的讨论，然后转向一般的理论问题。由于我们近年来面临着贸易环境的全球化，这些结果可以通过考虑全球化的知识经济来进行解释。 因此，我们的分析旨在解释无形资产（诉讼专利价值）与有形资产（国际贸易与研发投资）之间的影响。我们的研究虽然具有实验性，但表明经济表现的全球化对使用审查专利价值有两个潜在的重要影响，分别是国际贸易和研发投入。 本研究的结果部分支持了国际贸易和研发表现在探索专利价值方面具有说服力的观点。 在承认了全球化表现观测数据的局限性之后，我们仍然可以确认某些全球化表现似乎具有一组特定的结构特征。 此外，专利价值可能可以评估未来其他的有形资产。REFERENCES1R. Frietsch, P. Neuhusler, T. Jung, and B. Van Looy, “Patent indicators for macroeconomic growththe value of patents estimated by export volume,” Technovation, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 546558, Sep. 2014.2T. Ushijima, “Patent rights protection and Japanese foreign direct investment,” Res. Policy, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 738748, Apr. 2013.3C.-H. Yang and N.-F. Kuo, “Trade-related influences, foreign intellectual property rights and outbound international patenting,” Res. Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 446459, Apr. 2008.4H. Grupp and U. Schmoch, “Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 377396, Apr. 1999.5H.-N. Su, C. M.-L. Chen, and P.-C. Lee, “Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010,” Scientometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 181195,Apr. 2012.6H. Choe, D. H. Lee, I. W. Seo, and H. D. Kim, “Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: Country, institution, and technology field,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 26, pp. 492505, Oct. 2013.7V. Dequiedt and B. Versaevel, “Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives,” Int. Rev. Law Econ., vol. 36, pp. 5969, Oct. 2013.8A. G. Hu, “The Regionalization of Knowledge Flows in East Asia: Evidence from Patent Citations Data,” World Dev., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 14651477, Sep. 2009.9J. Hsu and Y.-E. Tiao, “Patent rights protection and foreign direct investment in Asian countries,” Econ. Model., vol. 44, pp. 16, Ja