以專利指標衡量台灣平面顯示器產業之創新能力

Abstract

專利在本質上的定義就與發明及創新相近，因此自80年代起便有許多經濟學者投入以專利指標作為創新能力衡量之研究。發展到現在，許多的文獻及研究皆將專利資料視為最接近創新的代理指標，而在經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)、美國CHI Research公司所設計的創新衡量模式中，亦包含專利指標於其創新衡量指標之中。本研究參考OECD以及CHI所建立之創新專利指標，針對目前台灣現存的產業創新評估問題，建構一個能反應專利「質」與「量」的產業創新能力衡量機制，以瞭解目前產業發展的現況。 本研究的研究方法是以專利分析工具初步檢索USPTO之專利資料，並將專利資料投入本研究所引用的專利指標，然後利用這些專利指標的結果來分析目前平面顯示器產業(Flat Panel Display Industry)的創新發展情形，並針對台灣、日本、南韓三個國家進行比較，試圖分析三個國家在平面顯示器產業的技術強度、專利現況，以及在不同顯示技術領域的創新能力。 研究的結果顯示，在技術強度指標上，三個國家依序為日本(755)、南韓(302)、台灣(55)，日本之創新能力遙遙領先。產業之平均技術循環時間約為5.5年，相較於其他產業(農業10.2年、生物科技7.7年、半導體與電子6年)，平面顯示器產業之技術更新速度較快。南韓近幾年正全力強化其平面顯示器產業之創新能力，不僅在專利核准件數上大幅成長，在專利質量上亦有所提昇，尤其是TFT-LCD領域的創新能力，南韓近三年的專利表現出色。 從引證來源分析，台灣在平面顯示器產業的創新來源主要還是來自日本及美國 (48%與24%)。就比較優勢而言，台灣在LTPS方面之RTA值大於1，表示在專利申請上相對具有競爭優勢，如果朝此領域進行專利佈局，則較易取得專利。近幾年台灣在此產業的專利核准件數大幅成長，截至2003年五月，台灣平面顯示器產業的專利佔有率為3.57%。但相較於日本與南韓，台灣仍需不斷投入新技術領域的研發，積極加強專利品質及數量。

Patents and patent statistics are by definition related to inventiveness and innovativeness. Since the early 1980’s, many economists began to study the feasible measures of innovative capabilities by using patent indicators. Up to now, the patent data is regarded as the most related proxies for innovation in many studies. It is also employed as the prime indicators in the OECD and CHI research for assessing innovation. This thesis is referred to the patent indicators established by OECD and CHI Research, and focused on the existing issues about the industrial innovation assessment in Taiwan. It constructs an innovative capability methodology reflecting both “quantity” and “quality” of patents in order to better understand the competitive situation of current industry. This thesis uses the patent analysis tools to analyze the patent data from USPTO, and then uses those patent statistics to calculate several patent indicators. Those indicators are further used to analyze innovative development of “flat panel display” (FPD) industry. It also compares three major countries of FPD industry, including Japan, Taiwan and Korea, with the technology strength, with regard to patent status and innovative capability in different display technology field. The result shows that, ranking by technology strength, Japan with a figure of 755, which is far ahead of others, followed by Korea (302), and Taiwan (55). The averaged technology cycle time of the industry is about 5.5 years. Compared with other industries (Agriculture 10.2 years, Biotechnology 7.7 years, Semiconductors and Electronics 6 years), FPD industry’s companies tend to be more innovating at a fast rate. Korea in the past few years has made lots of efforts in enhancing its innovative capability in FPD industry. It is not only the number of granted patents but also the quality of patents, especially in the TFT-LCD field; Korea has reached outstanding achievements in patents for the last 3 years. The innovation sources of Taiwan’s FPD industry are mainly from Japan and USA, with the citation rate 48% and 24%, respectively. Taiwan has a RTA value higher than 1 in the LTPS TFT-LCD field, which means Taiwan has relative advantages for its patents, and it also reveals that if Taiwan has better chance in terms of obtaining the patents of this field. In recent years, Taiwan has rapid growth in the number of granted patents. Until May 2003, Taiwan owns 3.57% USPTO patents. However, compared to Japan and Korea’s achievements, Taiwan needs to add more research and development in pertinent areas, and constructively enhance the quality and quantities of patents in the FPD industry.