Identifying Regional IP Clusters 3D Printing Case Study Janet Harrah Senior Director, CEAD Stephanie Hughes, Ph.D. SuperH, Northern Kentucky University Richard Hughes, Ph.D. SuperH; Ohio State University

Why IP matters “The effect of patents on growth is roughly equal to that of having a highly educated workforce. A low-patenting metro area could gain $4,300 more per worker over a decade’s time, if it became a high-patenting metro area.” Brookings Institute, Patenting Prosperity: Invention and Economic Performance in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas Cincinnati MSA: equals $4.6 billion

Current statistical system designed to track industries not technologies NAICS do not exist for: Bio Health 3D Printing or Additive manufacturing Nanosensors Recyclable thermoset plastics

Super-H and CEAD Identify regional clusters based on technological innovation Patents Grants Publications Currently over 2 billion global scientific and technical publications on-boarded All geo located Expert identification by topical field of research-ranked by proprietary Super-h index

3D Printing is the next disruptive technology in manufacturing What is the market potential for 3D Printing? Which metros are leading in 3D Printing IP activity? Which markets are translating IP into economic activity as measured by start-ups?

What did we find? There is correlation between 3D Printing Start-ups and: IP density Talent Financing

3D Printing Market is Big and Getting Bigger…. 3D printing will expand globally at a 27% compound annual growth rate through 2019 The industry generated approximately $11 billion in 2015 This number will balloon to $26.7 billion by 2019 It is expected that the West European, Asian and United States markets will primarily drive the growth Data source: International Data Corporation (IDC)

U.S. Leads in 3D Printing Startups

Top Metros in 3D Printing IP Rank Minneapolis 1 Austin 17 Jacksonville 33 Boston 2 Cleveland Fort Collins 34 Los Angeles 3 Cincinnati 19 Youngstown New York 4 Phoenix Greensboro, NC San Francisco 5 Orlando 21 Fargo Washington DC 6 Indianapolis New Orleans San Jose 7 Houston 23 Colorado Springs Chicago 8 Dallas-Fort Worth 24 Albuquerque Portland 9 Madison 25 Davenport Pittsburgh 10 Ithaca 26 Eugene Seattle 11 Knoxville Moscow San Diego 12 Salt Lake City 28 Chattanooga 44 Atlanta Sacramento Kansas City Philadelphia 14 Denver 30 North Platte Detroit 15 Miami 31 Santa Maria Columbus 16 Champaign Rutland   Walla Walla

Top Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro's Rank by Grants (1= TOP RANK) Fargo New York

Top Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro's Rank by Publications (1=TOP RANK) Greensboro, NC New York

Top Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro's Rank by Patents (1=TOP RANK) Chattanooga Fargo

Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro's IP Density Rank (1=TOP RANK) Chattanooga Fargo

Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro’s Advanced Degrees Conferred Rank (1=TOP RANK)

Top Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro’s Venture Capital Rank (1=TOP RANK)

Top Metros Ranked by Number of Start-ups VS Metro’s IP Ranks (1=TOP RANK)

Additional Data For each IP Cluster Super-H/CEAD can identify a regions’ Top IP researchers Top IP institutions Degree of collaboration Abstracts of relevant publications, grants, and patents

Next Steps This analysis shows that there is clearly a correlation between IP intensity and start-ups Question: what are the relative weights of IP activities and support structures (talent, VC, demand) to level of economic activity? Question: are the correlations and weights similar across technologies?