Evolution of Patenting in GMOs and Innovation Appropriability: Implications for Agriculture Maria Ester Dal-Poz.-Faculty, School of Applied Sciences – University of Campinas – UNICAMP, José Maria Jardim Ferreira da Silveira-Faculty, Institute of Economics, UNICAMP. Vinicius Eduardo Ferrari.-Ph.D. Candidate, Institute of Economics– UNICAMP Fabio Kenji Masago -Researcher, M.Sc. Institute of Computer Sciences,– UNICAMP. Paper presented at the 17th ICABR Conference “Innovation and Policy for the Bioeconomy” Ravello (Italy): June , 2013

Goals and some hypothesis Mapping the technological trajectories on transgenic plants (TTP, from now on) applying a methodology based on network analysis.; identify firms and the strategies conducted in the environment of agriculture innovation systems (FUGLIE;SCHIMMELPFENING, 2010); TTPs identified by the methodology are related to the building of mechanisms of technological appropriability (DOSI, 1982); The firms that achieve successful strategies – a complex combination of the building of intangible complementary assets, protected by patenting, and a strong focus on market – have had gain market share, causing huge impacts of seed industry all over the world. (MOSCHINI;YEROKIN, 2007; MOSCHINI, 2010; LOPEZ, 2009).

Methodology : steps Step 1: Building the Network: Odissey’s robot (, OPCS, by Masago, 2013), based on complex queries; Main Network Indicators: a) number of patents from the search; density; b) k-neighbors by citation of the patents from the search; c) in-degree: frequency; Setp 2 Applying the HCHC criteria(high cited high connected): k-core-20, to build a sub-network of patents connected with at least degree 20 (Batagelj, 2003); Step 3 Identifying Patents with high in-degree (cited patents) with a strong path. Indicators: geodesical distance 1, higher centrality degrees and proximity prestige indicators in a directed network; Step 4 Back to the Step 1, load the ThomsonInnovation (trade mark) with the same patents to build the Themescape: patent lexicographical landscapes. Refining trajectories based on Themescape: plotting patents from Step 3 on themescape' maps: crossing patents, subjects and firms to identify competences and domains. (see Jackson, 2009; Goyal, 2006)

Search strategy: queries by selected promoters Network map: built by Patents from the search plus patents that are identified because they cited those patents from the search (derived patents); Initially search only on USPTO (patents granted); Derwent World Patent Index at the end the steps to refine the understanding of the technological trajectory. Patents with the key-words: 559 Derived patents: 2106 Number of vertex: 2665 Number of Arcs: 9756 Network density: 0, (1/1000 connections are done)

The challenge: identify trajectories from the original network

Returned Patents (with the key-words) by year:

The full network analysis Shows the 1990’s increasing efforts on GMOs leading to a intense patenting activity; From the 2000’: patenting activities declining, but M&A are intense involving firms that had patented in the 90’s; There is a changing in the nature of the patents in the 2000: they cited patents whose content is related to "enabling technologies", but they were closely related to Plant breeders rights; (see Graff, Zilberman and Benett, 2010, in Plant Science)

Sub-network with k-core 20: a thick net Vertex: 37 Arcs: 438 Density: Average degree: (forcefully over 20) Índices: Betweenness Centralization: 0, (very high) All Closeness Centralization: 0, See I the next slide, the timeline (red, returned patents; green, derived)

Results from the k-core 20 net High density indicators : mature technology; There is a group of central patents strongly connected; Closeness Indicators: the main patents are close in the sub- network and in the original (correspondence) ; The main returned patents (with key-words) were from the nineties; Main “enabling technologies”: insertion of genes, vectors of expression, plasmids, promoters, anti-sense, aiming HT, DR, Protein enrichment were protected during the period (filled and granted during this period). From the year 2000 to 2012, the majority are derived patents (with no key-words) Patents to protect GMO Maize Varieties (closer to the final market).

Monsanto Dekalb Calgene Rockefeller Univ Commonweal th & Lubrizol Monsanto Jefferson Richard Other Inventors Monsanto Dekalb

Refining TT: using themescape Graphic images (final steps of the methodology Legend: Green bullets: returned patents (with key-words) Circles: technology clusters

Glyphosate- resistant plants Promoters CaMV 35S; 35S OR ubiquitin

Monsanto Dekalb Calgene Rockefeller Univ Commonweal th & Lubrizol Monsanto Jefferson Richard Other Inventors Monsanto Dekalb

Refining TT Cluster A: Dna Transcription and expression of genes and processes Cluster B: Stability and fertility related to TH (RR Soy) Clusters C and D: Dna promoters: linked to A, because a genetic modified organism must be fertile and stable to generate a GMO variety. There is a cross citing activity between trajectories Bt genes are not dominant in the net. It means that these technologies rely on the enabling technologies, aiming the seed market diversification..

Schumpeterian Technologies: innovation and market power (Mark II?) Patents related to the Enabling Technologies ( ; ; ; ) show the higher index of closeness of the network; Patent : First GM Corn, 1996, cites the “key enabling patents”‘ and has been cited by GM corn patents from this year on; They are close to the patents of GM cultivars, granted recently to the leading companies (geodesic distance 1); From economic point of view, these linkages reveals deterrence in the GM seed market; (Tirole, 1988).. (see also Dasgupta and Stiglitz, 1980)