Intellectual property
and the U.S. economy:
Third edition
Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition
Andrew A. Toole, Ph.D., Chief Economist
Richard D. Miller, Ph.D., Economist
Nicholas Rada, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Economist
Contents
Executivesummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Whatistheissue?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Whatdidthestudyfind?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
Howwasthestudyconducted?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OutputandemploymentintheIP-intensiveindustries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharesofoutputandemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ExaminingIP-intensiveemployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employmentbyindustrialsector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employmenttrendsovertime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IP-intensivejobsbystate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CharacteristicsofjobsintheIP-intensiveindustries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Averageearnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Otheremploymentcharacteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Workercharacteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition i
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition ii
Executive summary
1 The current and previous reports on IP and the U.S. economy do not claim to assess a causal relationship between IP rights and
economic performance.
Introduction
In 2012, the Department of Commerce issued a
report titled “Intellectual Property and the U.S.
Economy: Industries in Focus” (hereafter, the
2012 report). The report identified the industries
that rely most heavily on intellectual property
(IP)—patents, trademarks, or copyrights—as
IP-intensive and estimated their contribution
to the U.S. economy. It generated considerable
interest and energized other agencies and
organizations to produce similar studies
investigating the use and impact of IP across
countries, industries, and companies. In 2016,
the United States Patent and Trademark Oce
(USPTO) issued an updated report that built on
the 2012 report, titled “Intellectual Property and
the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update.”
This new report builds on the 2012 and
2016 versions by providing an update on the
importance of IP-intensive industries to the U.S.
economy and a fresh look at the approach used
to measure those results.
1
The update continues
to focus on measuring the intensity of industrial
IP use and the IP-intensive industries’ persistent
relationship to economic indicators, such as
output, employment, and wages. The data are
more refined, improving precision in identifying
companies within industries and including new
industries in the report. While our methodology
does not permit us to attribute our findings
to IP alone, it provides a useful benchmark to
characterize the economic importance of those
industries that most intensively use IP protection
and to compare the results internationally.
What is the issue?
The use of tangible capital (measurable forms of
capital, such as machinery) has long been at the
center of creating economic growth. When the
agrarian economy dominated, plows and steam
engines helped farmers become more productive.
During the Industrial Revolution, machinery and
factories created new products and economic
opportunities. More recently, the digital
revolution has brought advanced computing
and communications equipment to increase
productivity, thereby stimulating economic
growth.
In the mid-1990s, spending by companies on
intangible capital (such as computer software and
brand development) began outpacing spending
on tangible capital assets in the United States.
Companies started investing more in research,
development, and the commercialization of
intangible assets, than in existing capital to spur
growth. IP rights help protect these intangible
assets and contribute to economic growth,
albeit in ways that are dicult to observe or
measure. This study investigates the industries
that have been intensive users of IP protections
and characterizes the IP-intensive industries’
contributions to total U.S. economic output and
employment as of 2019.
What did the study fnd?
Industries in the United States that intensively
use IP accounted for 41% of domestic economic
activity, or output, in 2019. Output in the
IP-intensive industries grew at roughly the same
rate as the entire domestic economy during the
previous five years, with the exception of the
copyright-intensive industries, where output
grew at a faster rate than the domestic economy.
Altogether, the IP-intensive industries
accounted for 63 million jobs, or 44% of all
U.S. employment in 2019. About 33%, or more
than 47 million jobs, were directly supported
by IP-intensive industries. They also indirectly
supported—through the supply of intermediate
goods and services—an additional 15.5 million
jobs, accounting for the remaining 11% of the
total.
States in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Upper
Midwest, and West Coast regions generally
have the highest concentrations of workers in
IP-intensive industries.
This report also finds that, relative to workers
in non-IP-intensive industries, workers in
IP-intensive industries are more likely to
• earn higher wages, with the highest earnings
in the copyright-intensive industries, followed
by earnings in the utility patent-intensive
industries, design patent-intensive industries,
and the trademark-intensive industries;
• work in larger companies (500 employees or
more);
• participate in employer-sponsored health
insurance;
• participate in employer-sponsored retirement
plans;
• have a bachelor’s or graduate degree; and
• be veterans.
Finally, the report finds dierences in the
composition of the workforces in the IP- and
non-IP-intensive industries with regard to race
and gender.
How was the study conducted?
In identifying IP-intensive industries, this study
considers the relative use across domestic
industries of four forms of IP protection:
utility patents, design patents, trademarks,
and copyrights. For the first three forms of IP
protection, we measure use at the industry level
as the number of IP rights (such as the number
of patents granted or trademarks registered)
obtained relative to industry employment. We
link each granted IP right to an industry by
matching registered domestic rights owners
to the National Establishment Time Series
(NETS) database, which contains detailed data
(including primary industry) on more than 60
million establishments and covers the time
period from 1989 to 2016. For each IP right, we
construct a measure of industry-level IP intensity
that is equal to the number of IP rights obtained
during the five-year period ending in 2016 per
1,000 employees. An industry is IP-intensive in a
particular IP right if its IP intensity is greater than
the IP intensity for the economy as a whole.
We identify copyright-intensive industries
by referencing the Guide on Surveying the
Economic Contribution of the Copyright-Based
Industries from the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO). We do not include
all industries identified in the WIPO report
because we use a narrower definition of
copyright-intensive industries than WIPO.
We define copyright-intensive industries as
those primarily responsible for the creation or
production of copyrighted materials and exclude
several industries, such as book and music
stores, associated with only the distribution of
copyrighted material.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition iii
1. Introduction
Throughout human history, the use of tangible
capital (measurable forms of physical capital,
such as machinery) has greatly contributed
to economic growth. Whether it was the
introduction of the plow and the steam engine
when agriculture dominated the economy,
machinery and factories at the end of the
19th century, or advanced computing and
communications equipment during the digital
revolution, businesses have used tangible capital
to increase productivity, thereby stimulating
economic growth.
2
In the mid-1990s, investments in intangible
capital (such as computer software and
brand development) overtook tangible
capital investments in the United States.
3
U.S.
companies are investing more in innovation—the
research, development, and commercialization of
intangible assets—than they are in the purchase
of existing equipment and machines to spur
growth.
IP rights provide incentives for organizations and
individuals to develop and pursue commercial
opportunities related to their intangible assets.
Patents grant the right to exclude others from
making, using, oering for sale, or selling the
invention throughout the United States or
importing the invention into the United States,
thereby giving the patentee the opportunity
to reap greater rewards from the underlying
innovation. This study considers utility and
design patents separately. Utility patents
protect useful processes, machines, articles
of manufacture, and compositions of matter.
Design patents protect the ornamental design
for an article of manufacture (which may relate to
its shape/configuration, surface ornamentation,
or both), thus allowing companies to further
dierentiate their products from those of
competitors and to improve the odds of
commercial success. Copyrights incentivize the
production of literary and other artistic works by
granting authors the exclusive right to engage in
the commercialization and distribution of these
works. Trademarks enhance the value of both
patented and unpatented innovations, as well as
reputation, by identifying a good’s or service’s
source of origin.
These IP rights protect intangible capital that
contribute to economic growth in ways that
are dicult to observe and measure.
4
However,
we can identify the industries that have been
intensive users of IP protections and assess
their contributions to U.S. economic output and
employment. We show that these IP-intensive
industries account for a large portion of economic
activity in the United States. Further, IP-intensive
industries account for not only a large number of
jobs but also jobs that provide a higher level of
compensation; workers in IP-intensive industries
tend to receive higher wages and have better
access to fringe benefits. These workers are also
more likely to have full-time positions, work at
large companies, and have a demographic profile
(e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, and veteran status)
that diers significantly from their counterparts
in non-IP-intensive industries.
2 See Schwab (2016). Schwab is the founder and executive chair of the World Economic Forum.
3 Intangible capital is made up of investments that are intended to increase future company productivity but that are not traditional or
tangible physical capital (e.g., intangible capital includes computer software, databases, research and development, design, training,
brand equity, and structural and eciency improvements to the company’s organization, as well as the creation of entertainment,
literary, or artistic originals) (Sichel 2008; Haskel and Westlake 2018). Corrado and Hulten (2010) show that the investment rate was
higher for tangible capital than intangible capital from 1973 to 1994. This relationship reversed so that the investment rate was higher for
intangible capital from 1995 to 2007. Lev (2018) extends the Corrado and Hulten assessment a decade, illustrating how the investment
rate for intangible capital remained higher than that of tangible capital through 2017. Spulber (2021, 43) finds that in 2018, “over 85
per cent of the value of the S&P 500 corporations is due to intangible assets.” In the United Kingdom, intangible capital investments
overtook tangible investments in the early 2000s. See Haskel and Westlake (2018, 24-25).
4 We do not include trade secrets in the report due to limited data on the use of trade secrets at the company or industry level.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 1
This report is the third in the “Intellectual
Property and the U.S. Economy” series. It updates
and expands on previous reports by including
design patents and using more comprehensive
company-level data than previously available to
the USPTO. Specifically, since the publication of
the 2016 report, we successfully matched the
vast majority of utility patents, design patents,
and trademark registrations granted to U.S.-
based entities to the National Establishment
Time Series (NETS) database. The NETS
database includes almost all U.S. business
establishments, representing both public and
private companies, as well as information on the
primary industry for each establishment, among
other measures. By linking the individual IP rights
with these company-level data, we now have
a direct match of IP rights to both public and
private companies.
5
To determine whether an industry is IP-intensive
in utility patents, design patents, or trademarks,
this study uses counts of granted IP rights
adjusted for industry size. Adjusting for
industry size is one way to make industries
comparable. For each industry, totals for granted
utility patents, design patents, and registered
trademarks were calculated during a five-year
period (2012-16).
6
These totals were divided by
the industry’s average employment during the
same time period to produce the ratio of IP rights
to employment. A particular industry is classified
as IP-intensive if its ratio is above the overall
average across all U.S. industries.
For instance, we identified 10,334 utility patents
that domestic companies in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry received from 2012
through 2016. Average employment in that
industry was 191,000 workers, yielding an
intensity of 54 utility patents per 1,000 workers.
Because this intensity is greater than the overall
average intensity of the industries considered
(roughly 4.25 patents per 1,000 workers), we
classify it as patent-intensive.
We identify design patent–intensive and
trademark-intensive industries using the same
method. In contrast, and consistent with prior
reports, copyright-intensive industries are a
subset of the industries identified in WIPO’s
Guide on Surveying the Economic Contribution of the
Copyright-Based Industries (WIPO 2003). Finally,
we classify an industry as IP-intensive if it is
intensive in any single category of IP rights.
7
See Appendix Table A1 for a list of the
IP-intensive industries. Out of 210 industries
considered, we find that 13 are copyright-
intensive, 70 are utility patent–intensive, 87 are
design patent–intensive, and 110 are trademark-
intensive. There is significant overlap across
the industry clusters. For instance, 68 of the
utility patent-intensive industries are intensive
in at least one other form of IP. The result is
similar for design patent–intensive industries,
where 81 of the 87 industries are intensive in at
least one other form of IP. Even for trademark-
intensive industries, nearly 80% (85 out of 110)
are intensive in one or more other forms of IP.
Overall, 127 industries are IP-intensive.
5 This approach is similar to the one employed by the USPTO to match trademark registrations to industries in previous reports (see ESA
and USPTO 2012, 2016). It is also similar to the approaches taken in recent studies by the European Patent Oce (EPO) and European
Union Intellectual Property Oce (EUIPO) and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Oce (UKIPO). The joint study by the EPO and
EUIPO (2019) matched IP rights owners to the Orbis database of European companies, and the UKIPO (2020) study matched rights
holders to the Fame database of British companies. Given the changes in matching individual IP rights to industries, we urge caution in
comparing the results of this report to those of the previous two reports.
6 The 2012-2016 time period reflects the availability of the establishment-level NETS database. Because the clusters of IP-intensive
industries are relatively stable over time, this time period should not unduly influence the findings presented.
7 For more on the methods, see section 2 of the online supplement at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oce-ip-economy-
supplement.pdf.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 2
$8
$7.76
$6.91
$7
~
$6
V,
C
$5
0
§
$4
CL
$3
0
l'.)
$2
$1
$0
Utility
Design
Trademark- Copyright-
IP-intensive
patent-intensive patent-intensive
intensive intensive
2. Output and employment in the IP-intensive industries
The IP-intensive industries play a significant
role in the U.S. economy in terms of both
output—measured as gross domestic product
(GDP)—and employment. GDP and employment
are two of the most important indicators of
overall economic performance. The level and
trend in GDP measure the volume and trajectory
of the country’s total domestic output of
goods and services. Higher GDP indicates U.S.
industries are producing more, while greater
employment means more Americans are
earning a living. In this section, we report on the
output and employment directly attributable to
IP-intensive industries.
8
2.1 Output
In 2019, the group of IP-intensive industries
accounted for $7.8 trillion in GDP (Figure 1).
9
By IP type, trademark-intensive industries
accounted for nearly $7.0 trillion, while the utility
patent–intensive and design patent–intensive
industries each accounted for nearly $4.5 trillion.
The copyright-intensive industries accounted
for a smaller portion of U.S. economic activity,
totaling a little under $1.3 trillion. Note that
many industries are intensive in more than one
type of IP. For this reason, the group total of $7.8
trillion in GDP is smaller than the sum across the
individual types of IP.
After adjusting GDP for general price increases
(i.e., inflation) in the 2014-2019 period, GDP
attributable to the IP-intensive industries
increased by roughly 12%, or by an annual rate of
2.3%.
10
Copyright-intensive industries outpaced
other IP-intensive industries with respect to
GDP growth since 2014—rising by 4.2%. Output
in the design patent–intensive, utility patent–
intensive, and trademark-intensive industries
grew at annual rates of between 2.2% and 2.6%.
11
For comparison purposes, GDP grew by 2.4% per
annum between 2014 and 2019, which means
Figure 1: GDP of the IP-intensive industries, 2019
Note: Individual industry values do not sum to the total value because some industries are cross-classified.
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
8 Although IP rights can contribute to higher GDP and employment by stimulating investment and innovation (see Verspagen 2006; Park
2007), we do not capture the increased output these innovations may spur in other non-IP-intensive industries.
9 See section 3.1 of the online supplement for a description of how we estimate total output attributed to the IP-intensive industries. Note
that individual IP types do not sum to the aggregate IP total because of companies cross-classifying as IP-intensive in the use of multiple
types.
10 In constant 2019 dollars, the GDP attributable to the IP-intensive industries was $6.92 trillion in 2014.
11 In constant 2019 dollars, the GDP attributable to utility patent–intensive industries was $3.91 trillion in 2014, to design patent–intensive
industries was $4.00 trillion in 2014, to trademark-intensive industries was $6.15 trillion in 2014, and to copyright-intensive industries
was $1.05 trillion in 2014.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 3
70
,,..._
60
~
Indirect employment
VJ
C
■
Direct employment
0
50
E
+-'
40
C
O.J
30
E
>,
9.94
_Q
20
0.
E
10
w
1.91
0
18.22 6.59
Utility Design
Trademark- Copyright-
IP-intensive
patent-intensive patent-intensive
intensive intensive
Figure 2: Total employment supported by IP-intensive industries, 2019
Note: Individual industry values do not sum to the total value because some industries are cross-classified.
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
that the share of total output accounted for by
the copyright-intensive industries was the only
share that grew significantly during this period.
12
Before detailing those shares, we will highlight
employment in the IP-intensive industries.
2.2 Employment
The IP-intensive industries are an important
source of employment for the U.S. economy. We
measure total employment in these industries
as both direct and indirect employment. Direct
employment captures all workers in IP-intensive
industries, whereas indirect employment
captures the employees working in non-IP-
intensive industries that depend, at least
partially, on final sales in IP-intensive industries.
13
As illustrated by the dark portions of the bars in
Figure 2, direct employment in the IP-intensive
industries totaled 47.2 million jobs in 2019. Direct
employment across these industries grew by
about 7% since 2014. Relative to the U.S. labor
market, the share of direct employment in the
IP-intensive industries remained stable at 33%
between 2014 and 2019.
Similar to earlier reports in this series, this
report finds that trademark-intensive industries
contributed the most to direct employment—41.6
million jobs in 2019 (up from 38.8 million in
2014), or 88% of all IP-intensive jobs. Copyright-
intensive industries accounted for 6.6 million
jobs (compared to 5.7 million in 2014). Design
patent–intensive industries directly accounted for
21.6 million jobs, which represents an increase of
1.0 million jobs from 2014.
Utility patent–intensive industries directly
accounted for 18.2 million jobs in 2019, also
a 1-million-job increase over the previous five
years.
14
The 2019 result implies a 13% share of
direct employment for the utility patent–intensive
industries, which is comparable to the 10% of
direct employment reported by the European IP
oces (EUIPO and EPO, 2019).
15
12 Notably, the utility patent–intensive industries grew at the economy-wide average despite the uncertainty created by court rulings on
subject matter eligibility and certain provisions of the America Invents Act, which some contend diminished patent rights.
13 See section 3.2 of the online supplement for a description of how we estimate indirect employment.
14 Our finding that design patent–intensive industries employ more individuals than utility patent–intensive industries does not imply
that design patents are more important to the U.S. economy than utility patents. Simply put, we find more industries to be design
patent–intensive. For example, 61 industries are both design patent– and utility patent–intensive, which accounts for 87% of the utility
patent–intensive industries but only 70% of the design patent–intensive industries.
15
Our employment result for utility patent–intensive industries is much higher than in previous USPTO reports because of the new
approach that links utility patents to industries through the companies that own them.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 4
70%
■
GDP shares
60%
50%
~
Employment shares
40%
30%
24%
20%
10%
0%
Utility
Design
patent-intensive patent-intensive
37%
Trademark-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
IP-intensive
Non-
IP-intensive
IP-intensive industries also helped to indirectly
support an additional 15.5 million jobs. These
jobs are in non-IP-intensive industries that supply
goods and services (i.e., the supply chain) as
intermediate inputs to IP-intensive industries.
When combined with directly supported
employment, IP-intensive industries provide 63
million jobs, or 44% of national employment.
Just as trademark-intensive industries account
for the largest contribution to GDP, they are also
the largest employers, supporting more than 56
million jobs, or 90% of all jobs supported by the
group of IP-intensive industries. Jobs in design
patent–intensive and utility patent–intensive
industries each hovered around 30 million, and
the copyright-intensive industries supported 8.5
million jobs.
2.3 Shares of output and employment
To help place the output (i.e., GDP) and
employment numbers attributable to each
IP-intensive industry cluster in perspective,
we estimate their shares of total U.S. GDP and
employment. For instance, as shown in Figure 3,
the trademark-intensive industries accounted
for 37% of all U.S. domestic output, whereas
the copyright-intensive industries accounted for
7%. Notably, IP-intensive industries account for
a larger share of national output than national
employment, suggesting a high level of labor
productivity in these industries.
The output and employment shares are
comparable with those of the most recent
EUIPO and EPO study (2019). For instance, we
attribute 33% of total employment in the United
States to IP-intensive industries, whereas the
2019 EUIPO/EPO study found a 29% share for
European Union employment. The U.S. GDP
share is slightly smaller, 41% versus their 45%,
but still comparable. Individually, we find slightly
higher shares in the design patent–intensive,
utility patent–intensive, and trademark-intensive
industries than the EUIPO/EPO reported and
a slightly lower share for copyright-intensive
industries.
Figure 3: GDP and employment shares of IP-intensive industries, 2019
Note: Individual industry values do not sum to the total value because some industries are cross-classified.
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 5
- -
- -
3. Examining IP-intensive employment
IP-intensive industries directly support one-
third of all jobs in the U.S. economy.
16
In this
section, we use the newly available company-
level data to take a closer look at employment
by considering how the dierent IP-intensive
industry clusters dier by industrial sector. We
also consider how employment in these industry
clusters has grown over time, and we compare
that growth with employment growth in the non-
IP-intensive industries. We find that, outside the
copyright-intensive industries, employment in
the IP-intensive industries has grown more slowly
than overall national employment. Lastly, we
show how the IP-intensive shares of employment
dier across U.S. states.
3.1 Employment by industrial sector
Examining industry employment data at the
sector level provides a refined assessment of
how dispersed IP-intensive employment is across
the economy (see Table 1). Some sectors, such
as manufacturing, have long been recognized
Table 1: Distribution of IP-intensive employment across industrial sectors, 2019 (percent)
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
IP-intensive
Non-
IP-intensive
~ in percent ~
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Hunting
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.7
Mining, Utilities, and
Construction
1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.5
Manufacturing 44.1 46.0 18.4 0.0 22.6 2.6
Wholesale and Retail Trade 7.1 36.1 27. 2 0.0 24.0 11.5
Transportation and
Warehousing
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1
Information 11.9 4.4 6.4 29.6 6.4 0.0
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate, and Leasing
5.2 3.7 10.6 0.0 9.4 5.3
Professional, Technical,
Management, and
Administrative Services
19.0 9.1 24.3 63.0 21.4 13.9
Education and
Health Care Services
10.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 8.7 22.1
Arts, Entertainment
and Recreation
0.7 0.0 2.9 7.4 2.6 1.8
Accommodation and
Food Services
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0
Other Services 0.0 0.6 4.6 0.0 4.1 5.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Labor Productivity and Costs Program.
16 In the sections that follow, we consider only the employment directly attributable to the IP-intensive industries.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 6
°'
80%
CX)
°'
■
Utility
patent-intensive
.-i
Q)
u
■
Design patent-intensive
C
60%
·.;;
,:;
■
Trademark-intensive
>
~
■
Copyright-intensive
c
40%
Q)
■
IP-intensive
E
>,
■
Non IP-intensive
0
20%
0.
E
Q)
C
Q)
0%
t>()
C
<1l
..c
u
-20%
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
as important sources of IP-related jobs. Other
sectors are also important for certain types of IP.
Indeed, the sector that contributed the most to
IP-intensive employment was in the trademark-
intensive industries—the wholesale and retail
trade sector (11.3 million jobs).
17
Beyond the manufacturing and the wholesale
and retail trade sectors, the professional
services sector also has a high concentration
of IP-intensive employment. Altogether, these
three sectors combine to account for 68% of all
IP-intensive employment, compared to 28% of all
employment in the non-IP-intensive industries.
The heavy emphasis on manufacturing is
especially pronounced in the utility patent–
intensive and design patent–intensive industries,
whereas there is a heavy emphasis on the
wholesale and retail trade sector in the design
patent–intensive and trademark-intensive
industries.
The distribution of employees in the copyright-
intensive industries is markedly dierent from
the distributions in the other IP-intensive
industries. Of these employees, 63% work in
professional service industries, such as computer
systems design, specialized design services,
and advertising. Another 30% work in the
information sector in such fields as publishing,
software development, broadcasting, and motion
picture and video production.
18
3.2 Employment trends over time
Since 1989, employment in IP-intensive
industries may be characterized by three phases
of growth (Figure 4). First, in 1989-2000,
employment grew by roughly 14% to reach an
initial peak in 2000. The next decade brought
both the “dot-com” collapse and the 2008
financial crisis, and IP-intensive employment fell
back nearly to its 1989 level. The 2010s brought
better economic fortune, and IP-intensive
employment grew again by 14%, gaining back
all the ground it had lost in the previous decade.
Job growth was most rapid during this time in
the copyright-intensive industries, adding nearly
30% more jobs and far outstripping the 18% gain
made by the non-IP-intensive industries.
Figure 4: Indexed employment in IP-intensive industries, 1989-2019
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Labor Productivity and Costs Program.
17 In 2019, there were 41.63 million employees in the trademark-intensive industries. Of those jobs, 27% (or 11.3 million) were in the
wholesale and retail trade sector.
18 Perhaps surprisingly, less than 10% of employees in the copyright-intensive industries work in the arts and entertainment
sector. However, both motion picture and music production fall under the information sector, which at least partially explains
this counterintuitive result. Reassigning these industries (which account for 8% of copyright-intensive employment) to the arts,
entertainment, and recreation sector would increase its share to more than 15.0% and decrease the information sector share to 21.5%.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 7
Compared
to
national average (33.6%)
■
6
-51
% above
■
3-
6%
above
D
0-3%
above
D Below
Figure 5: IP-intensive industries’ share of private sector employment by state, 2019
Note: At the national level, 33.6% of private sector employees work in IP-intensive industries. The states with the highest IP-intensive
employment shares are shaded in dark blue. Each of these states exceeds the national average by at least 6%. For instance, Utah, with
a 37% IP-intensive employment share, exceeds that national average by [(37-33.6)/33.6]=10.1%. The states shaded in the lighter
shades of blue also exceed the national average, but by a smaller amount.
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
3.3 IP-intensive jobs by state
West Coast. The top five states in 2019 were
Utah (37.0%), Washington (36.7%), New York
In recent years, policymakers have been
(35.8%), Massachusetts (35.7%), and Illinois
interested in promoting geographic diversity
(35.5%).
20
These states were among those
in innovation.
19
As illustrated in Figure 5,
with an above-average employment share in
employment in IP-intensive industries varies
IP-intensive industries in 2014. Other states with
widely across the United States. Sixteen states
IP-intensive employment of more than 3% above
along with the District of Columbia exceeded
the national average include New Hampshire,
the national average of 33.6% of private sector
California, Michigan, and Wisconsin. For state
employment in IP-intensive industries. With a
rankings in each IP-intensive industry cluster,
few exceptions, IP-intensive employment clusters
please refer to Appendix Table A2.
in New England, the upper Midwest, and the
19 See division B, title II of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (S. 1260).
20 The District of Columbia had the highest share of private sector employment in IP-intensive industries at 50.7%.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 8
$2500
~
$2104
-....,
$2000
"'
0()
$1517
C
E
$1500
"'
Q)
>,
$1000
$947
::'2
-
Q)
Q)
:;!
$500
Q)
0()
l':
Q)
0
>
<(
Utility
Design
Trademark- Copyright- Non-
pate nt-i nte
ns
ive patent-intensive
intensive intensive
IP-intensive
IP-intensive
4. Characteristics of jobs in the IP-intensive industries
Job creation is important for policymakers. So
too is creating jobs that help raise standards
of living by providing workers with suitable
compensation. For example, jobs that earn higher
incomes and are accompanied by fringe benefits,
such as retirement and healthcare, provide higher
levels of compensation, on average, than jobs
with lower incomes or no benefits. Therefore,
we explore dierences in earnings and fringe
benefits across the IP-intensive industry clusters
and compare these earnings to those in the
non-IP-intensive industries. We also explore
dierences in other employment characteristics
such as employer size and employment type. On
average, we find jobs provided by the IP-intensive
industries provide higher levels of total
compensation than those found in the non-IP-
intensive industries. Jobs in the two groups also
dier across the other characteristics considered.
4.1 Average earnings
In 2019, the average weekly earnings of $1,517
for workers across all IP-intensive industries was
60% higher than weekly earnings for workers in
other industries (see Figure 6). Economists refer
to this dierence as the “earnings premium” for
workers in IP-intensive industries. For example,
whereas workers in non-IP-intensive industries
earned an average of $947 per week in 2019,
those in utility patent-intensive industries earned
$1,869 per week, yielding an earnings premium
of 97% for utility patent-intensive employees.
Workers in trademark-intensive industries
earned less on average than those in other
IP-intensive industry clusters—but still 60%
more than workers in non-IP-intensive industries.
Earnings premiums of IP-intensive jobs, and
especially copyright-intensive jobs, have been
rising since 1990 (Figure 7). In 2009, the
earnings premium in IP-intensive industries
stood at 50%, and it grew steadily to reach 60%
in 2019. Given that so many of the IP-intensive
industries are trademark-intensive, the earnings
premium for workers in the trademark-intensive
industries has followed a very similar trend
over time. Likewise, the design patent–intensive
industries tend to have a slightly higher earnings
premium than the trademark-intensive industries
but have followed a trend over time similar to the
aggregate measure.
Figure 6: Average weekly earnings of private wage and salary workers in IP-intensive industries, 2019
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 9
■
Utilit atent-intensive
120%
--
~====~===
-------------------------------------
----==
--
--
110%
__
,.
■
c;
D
c,
e
,.,
s,,,i
5!.n'--"'ae,l,eeccnlo:-ccin!..Cte"'n"'s'-'-iv,,_,e
'-
-------------------------------------,
~-,,::C
'--------
lOOo/o
--
"'
■
c..2
T
"'
ra
e,
d
,.,
e
,.,_
m
'--'
a
"-'
r
-"
k
'-"
-i
-'-'
nt
"'
e
"-
n
'-"
s
'-'
iv
_,,
e
______
,,...eo,
..-
-------------------
-----,
--
=-
----------
40%
30%
--
- = -
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2006
2007
2008 2009 2010
2011
2012 2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 7: Average weekly earnings premiums of workers in IP-intensive industries relative to
non-IP-intensive industries, 1990-2019
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
Historically, the earnings premiums enjoyed
by workers in the utility patent- and copyright-
intensive industries have been higher than those
in the other two IP-intensive industries. By the
end of the 1990s, the premium for workers in
the utility patent-intensive industries relative to
non-IP-intensive industries stood at more than
80%. The bursting of the dot-com bubble led to
a retreat in the premium in the early years of the
2000s, but it has since grown steadily (except for
the period around the financial crisis) and stood
at 97% in 2019.
The earnings premium in the copyright-intensive
industries experienced a more extreme version of
the trends in the utility patent-intensive industries.
After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, earnings
in these industries relative to non-IP-intensive
industries fell such that the premium stood at
“only” 80% in 2004. However, relative earnings
have recovered in the past 15 years so that
the earnings premium stood at 122% in 2019.
Notably, the earnings premiums for the utility
patent–intensive, design patent–intensive, and
copyright-intensive industries were higher in 2019
than at any time during the previous three decades.
4.2 Other employment characteristics
Beyond earnings, other aspects of employment
include fringe benefits, such as retirement plans
and health insurance, and employment status,
such as full-time versus part-time, and self-
employment. Full-time employment is typically
an indicator of higher job stability and the
availability of fringe benefits.
21
Self-employed
individuals have more freedom in the type of
work they do and when they do it, but they also
potentially face unstable income flows and are
typically not eligible for fringe benefits.
22
We also consider employer size. Larger
employers typically have more resources to oer
richer fringe benefit packages while also oering
greater job security and better opportunities for
formal training, among other benefits. In this way,
employer size can be thought of as a proxy for
the other forms of nonwage compensation that
we do not specifically include in the analysis.
23
As
illustrated in Table 2, these job characteristics
vary substantially between IP-intensive and non-
IP-intensive industries.
24
21 For example, Buchmeuller (1999) finds that employers that oer richer benefits packages to full-time workers make greater use of part-
time workers for tasks that require lower levels of skill, so as to avoid providing the same benefits to lower-skilled workers.
22 See Krueger (2018).
23 This is not to discount the benefits of working for a small or medium-sized enterprise. Such companies can oer opportunities (such as
increased responsibilities) that larger companies sometimes do not. Whether one prefers the benefits of larger or smaller companies, it
is enlightening to see how employment in such environments diers across industries.
24 See section 3.3 of the online supplement for more information on the data and methods used for the analyses in this section.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 10
- -
- -
Table 2: Characteristics of employment in IP-intensive and non-IP-intensive industries, 2019 (percent)
Characteristic
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
IP-intensive
Non-
IP-Intensive
~ in percent ~
Employer Size
Less than 100 employees
22.6 35.5 42.3 44.0 37.4 44.2
100 to 499 employees
15.8 15.5 13.7 14.5 13.6 12.8
500 or more employees
61.5 49.0 44.0 41.5 49.0 43.1
Share Self-Employed 3.3 8.6 12.0 13.5 10.2 7.9
Share Full-Time 86.3 87. 3 81.3 83.3 80.8 74.0
Share health insurance 81.6 75.9 73.8 78.5 74.9 62.7
Share retirement plan 49.9 41.9 39.3 38.2 42.1 36.9
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the 2019 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Utility patent–intensive and design patent–
intensive industries have the highest shares of
employees working for large enterprises (i.e.,
500 or more employees). This is especially true
in the utility patent–intensive industries, where
more than 60% of employees work for large
employers. The employer size distributions
for workers in the trademark- and copyright-
intensive industries are similar to the distribution
observed for the non-IP-intensive industries.
Overall, a little under 9% of the workforce in
the United States was self-employed in 2019.
Notably, the prevalence of self-employment
varies considerably across the IP-intensive
industries. The percentage of self-employed
workers in the patent-intensive industries is
far less than in the trademark- and copyright-
intensive industries. In fact, the self-employment
rate among workers in the copyright-intensive
industries is 50% higher than in the economy
at a whole. Many jobs in the creative and
performing arts are performed under contract
rather than payroll employment, which likely
reflects the nature of artistic and creative work as
more individualistic and expressive.
25
A larger share of workers in the IP-intensive
industries are employed full-time (35 or
more hours per week) and are covered by
employer-provided group health insurance
than in non-IP-intensive industries. Likewise,
more workers in the IP-intensive industries are
covered by employer-provided pensions or other
comparable retirement plans. Those working in
the utility patent–intensive industries had the
highest percentages in each of these categories:
86% worked full-time, 82% were covered by an
employer-sponsored group health plan, and 50%
participated in a retirement plan at work. The
additional fringe benefits (e.g., health insurance
coverage and retirement plans) that employees
in the IP-intensive industries receive widen the
gap in total compensation between themselves
and their counterparts in the non-IP-intensive
industries, who are less likely to receive fringe
benefits and typically earn less in the form of
wage or salary income.
25 See WIPO (2015), page 40, and Henry et al. (2021)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 11
- -
- -
5. Worker characteristics
The employment characteristics in the previous
section describe jobs but not workers. In recent
years, there has been a growing interest in the
representation of various socioeconomic groups
and their production and ownership of IP. To this
end, the USPTO has published two reports on
the use of the U.S. patent system by women.
26
Identifying active participation in the U.S. IP
system for other socioeconomic groups has
proven more challenging. The USPTO presently
does not collect information from inventors on
any socioeconomic characteristics, including
gender. For this analysis, we draw on annual
employee survey data to determine if there are
dierences in the socioeconomic composition of
workers in the IP-intensive and non-IP-intensive
industries. We also assess if such dierences
exist among the dierent IP-intensive industry
clusters (Table 3).
In 2019, women made up a smaller share of the
workforce in IP-intensive industries (43.7%)
than in non-IP-intensive industries (54%).
This gap was most pronounced in the design
patent– and utility patent–intensive industries
and could be linked to the fact that significant
portions of workers in those industries are
employed in manufacturing. The relatively higher
share of women working in the non-IP-intensive
industries is likely driven by, among other things,
the significant share of workers in the healthcare
and educational services sectors.
27
Table 3: Characteristics of workers in IP-intensive and non-IP-intensive industries, 2019 (percent)
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
IP-intensive
Non-
IP-intensive
~ in percent ~
Female 37.0 34.3 44.3 40.9 43.7 54.0
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 66.3 69.5 67.4 66.7 67.6 58.4
Black, Non-Hispanic 9.2 8.1 8.7 7.7 8.9 13.9
Asian, Non-Hispanic 11.0 6.7 8.4 14.5 8.3 5.6
Other, Non-Hispanic 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.6
Hispanic 11.4 13.8 13.3 8.6 13.0 19.5
Veteran Status 6.1 6.3 5.3 5.4 5.3 4.4
Education Level
Less than high school 3.4 5.5 3.7 0.8 3.6 8.2
High school diploma 18.5 25.9 19.3 9.1 19.4 28.2
Some college or
associate degree
21.8 26.3 24.0 19.8 23.4 27.0
Bachelor degree 32.4 30.3 34.0 47.7 32.2 22.2
Graduate degree 23.9 12.1 19.0 22.6 21.4 14.4
Note: Race/ethnicity categories are adopted from the CPS survey. The “Other, Non-Hispanic” race/ethnicity category includes non-Hispanic
individuals who identified themselves as an American Indian or Alaskan Native, a Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or as a mixed-race individual.
Source: USPTO estimates using data from the 2019 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
26 Toole, Myers et al. (2019), and Toole, Saksena et al. (2020) found that, although women continue to be underrepresented with regard to
utility patent grants, more women are entering and staying active in the patent system than ever before. In addition, all of the measures
for female participation, including the shares of utility patents with at least one female inventor and all utility patent grantees who are
women, have increased in recent years.
27 The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, in 2019, 30% of workers in the manufacturing sector were women. Meanwhile, women
accounted for 75% of the workforce in the education and health care services sector. See www.bls.gov/cps/aa2019/cpsaat17.pdf.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 12
Roughly two-thirds of the workers in the
IP-intensive industries are White, a fifth of them
are of Asian or Hispanic descent, and a tenth
are Black or another race. Representation of
Asians and Whites tends to be higher in the
IP-intensive industries than outside of them.
Asian representation is relatively high in the
utility patent–intensive and copyright-intensive
industries, where Asians make up 11% and 14.5%
of all employees, respectively. Hispanic and Black
representation is highest in the non-IP-intensive
industries.
Veterans make up a larger share of workers in
IP-intensive industries than in non-IP-intensive
industries, accounting for 5.3% of all IP-intensive
workers. The share of workers who are veterans
is highest in the utility patent–intensive and
design patent–intensive industries, where it
exceeds 6% in each.
Given that workers in IP-intensive industries
generally earn more than their counterparts
6. Conclusions
This report highlights the contributions
of IP-intensive industries to output and
employment. In 2019, IP-intensive industries
accounted for nearly 41% of U.S. GDP
and directly accounted for 33% of all U.S.
employment. These industries also indirectly
accounted for an additional 11% of U.S.
employment. Among the IP industry clusters
analyzed, trademark-intensive industries
contributed the most to national output and
employment, followed by the design patent– and
utility patent–intensive industries. Employment
in IP-intensive industries tended to track with
economy-wide upturns and downturns. Notably,
by 2019, IP-intensive industries appeared to have
recovered employment losses resulting from the
dot-com collapse and the Great Recession.
in the non-IP-intensive industries, and in light
of the strong positive relationship between
educational attainment and subsequent
earnings, we would expect that the distribution
of educational attainment would dier between
the IP-intensive and non-IP-intensive sectors.
Our findings confirm these expectations.
We see that a larger share of workers in the
IP-intensive industries completed at least a
four-year undergraduate program (53.6% vs.
36.6%).
28
The share of workers with four-year
degrees among those in the copyright-intensive
industries is particularly high at more than 70%,
while more than half of the workers in the utility
patent-intensive industries completed four-year
degrees. Workers in the design patent–intensive
industries are less likely to have graduated from
college (roughly 43% did so), but workers in
these industries are still more likely to have a
four-year degree than those in non-IP-intensive
industries.
Both the types of jobs and nature of the workforce
tend to dier between IP-intensive and non-IP-
intensive industries. Employers in IP-intensive
industries tend to be large companies, pay
higher wages, and are more likely to oer fringe
benefits such as retirement and healthcare plans.
In terms of workforce composition, women and
minorities, except for those of Asian descent,
are underrepresented in IP-intensive industries.
Notably, veterans make up a larger percentage
of workers in IP-intensive industries (5.3%)
compared to in non-IP-intensive industries (4.4%).
Although the industry-level analysis presented in
this report provides a broad perspective on the
relative importance of IP-intensive industries,
additional research and analysis at the company-
level would help to build an understanding of the
28 To generate these numbers, we combine the shares of workers whose highest level of educational attainment is a bachelor’s degree or a
graduate degree.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 13
microeconomic foundations that drive the use of
IP and how IP impacts output and employment.
For instance, company-level analyses can
model and characterize the decisions to seek IP
protection more completely. This type of analysis
References
Buchmueller, Thomas. 1999. “Fringe Benefits and
the Demand for Part-Time Workers.” Applied
Economics 31(5): 551-563.
Corrado, Carol, and Charles Hulten. 2010. “How
Do You Measure a ‘Technological Revolution’?”
American Economic Review 100 (2): 99-104.
ESA and USPTO (Economic and Statistics
Administration and United States Patent and
Trademark Oce). 2012. “Intellectual Property
and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus.”
U.S. Department of Commerce. www.uspto.
gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/
IP_Report_March_2012.pdf.
ESA and USPTO (Economic and Statistics
Administration and United States Patent and
Trademark Oce). 2016. “Intellectual Property
and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update.” www.
uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
IPandtheUSEconomySept2016.pdf.
EPO and EUIPO (European Patent Oce and
European Union Intellectual Property Oce).
2019. IPR-Intensive Industries and Economic
Performance in the European Union: Industry-
Level Analysis Report. Munich, Germany, and
Alicante, Spain: EPO and EUIPO. https://
euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/
guest/document_library/observatory/
documents/IPContributionStudy/IPR-
intensive_industries_and_economicin_EU/
WEB_IPR_intensive_Report_2019.pdf.
Haskel, Jonathan, and Stan Westlake. 2018.
Capitalism without Capital: The Rise of the
Intangible Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
may, for example, shed light on the reasons for
observing a persistent and growing earnings
premium for workers in IP-intensive industries.
Henry, Nick, Victoria Barker, Paul Sissons, Kevin
Broughton, Peter Dickinson, Jordan Lazell,
and Tim Angus (2021). “Creating Value in
Place: Understanding the Role, Contribution
and Challenges of Creative Freelance Work.”
Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre
Discussion Paper 2021/05. www.pec.ac.uk/
assets/publications/Creating-Value-in-Place_-
Understanding-the-Role-Contribution-and-
Challenges-of-Creative-Freelance-Work.pdf.
Krueger, Alan B. 2018. “Independent Workers:
What Role for Public Policy?” The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
675(1): 8-25.
Lev, Baruch. 2018. “Intangibles.” Unpublished
manuscript. Available at https://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3218586.
Park, Walter G. 2007. “Chapter 9: Intellectual
Property Rights and International Innovation.” In
Intellectual Property, Growth, and Trade (Frontiers
of Economics and Globalization, Vol. 2), ed. Keith E.
Maskus. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Schwab, Klaus. 2016. “The Fourth Industrial
Revolution: What It Means, How to Respond.”
World Economic Forum Global Agenda, January
14, 2016. www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/
the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-
and-how-to-respond/.
Sichel, Daniel E. 2008. “Intangible Capital.”
In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,
ed. S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume, 391-92.
London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.
org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2304-1.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 14
- -
- -
Spulber, Daniel. 2021. “Antitrust and Innovation
Competition.” Unpublished manuscript.
Toole, Andrew, Amanda Myers, Charles
deGrazia, Stefano Breschi, Edoardo Ferrucci,
Francesco Lisson, Ernest Miguelez, Valerio Sterzi,
and Gianluca Tarasconi. 2019. “Progress and
Potential: A Profile of Women Inventors on U.S.
Patents.” USPTO Oce of the Chief Economist
IP Data Highlights, No. 2. www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/Progress-and-
Potential-2019.pdf.
Toole, Andrew, Michelle Saksena, Charles
deGrazia, Katherine Black, Francesco Lisson,
Ernest Miguelez, and Gianluca Tarasconi. 2020.
“Progress and Potential: 2020 Update on U.S.
Women Inventor-Patentees.” USPTO Oce of
the Chief Economist IP Data Highlights, No. 4.
www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
OCE-DH-Progress-Potential-2020.pdf.
UKIPO (United Kingdom Intellectual Property
Oce). 2020. “Use of Intellectual Property
Rights across UK Industries.” www.gov.uk/
government/publications/use-of-intellectual-
property-rights-across-uk-industries/
use-of-intellectual-property-rights-across-uk-
industries.
Verspagen, Bart. 2006. “Innovation and
Economic Growth.” In The Oxford Handbook
of Innovation, ed. Jan Fagerberg and David C.
Mowery. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization). 2003. Guide on Surveying the
Economic Contribution of the Copyright-Based
Industries. Geneva: WIPO.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization). 2015. Guide on Surveying the
Economic Contribution of the Copyright-Based
Industries. Geneva: WIPO. www.wipo.int/edocs/
pubdocs/en/copyright/893/wipo_pub_893.pdf.
Appendix
Table A1: IP-intensive industries, 2012–2016
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
Fishing, hunting, and trapping
Support activities for mining
Animal food manufacturing
Grain and oilseed milling
Sugar and confectionery product
manufacturing
Fruit and vegetable preserving and
specialty food manufacturing
Dairy product manufacturing
Seafood product preparation and
packaging
Other food manufacturing
Beverage manufacturing
Tobacco manufacturing
Fiber, yarn, and thread mills
Fabric mills
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 15
- -
- -
Table A1: IP-intensive industries, 2012–2016 (continued)
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
Textile and fabric finishing and
fabric coating mills
Textile furnishings mills
Other textile product mills
Apparel manufacturing
Leather and allied product manufacturing
Other wood product manufacturing
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills
Converted paper product manufacturing
Petroleum and coal products
manufacturing
Basic chemical manufacturing
Resin, synthetic rubber, and artificial
synthetic fibers and filaments
manufacturing
Pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural
chemical manufacturing
Pharmaceutical and medicine
manufacturing
Paint, coating, and adhesive manufacturing
Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet
preparation manufacturing
Other chemical product and preparation
manufacturing
Plastics product manufacturing
Rubber product manufacturing
Clay product and refractory manufacturing
Glass and glass product manufacturing
Cement and concrete product
manufacturing
Lime and gypsum product manufacturing
Other nonmetallic mineral product
manufacturing
Alumina and aluminum production
and processing
Nonferrous metal (except aluminum)
production and processing
Forging and stamping
Cutlery and hand tool manufacturing
Architectural and structural metals
manufacturing
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 16
- -
- -
Table A1: IP-intensive industries, 2012–2016 (continued)
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
Boiler, tank, and shipping container
manufacturing
Hardware manufacturing
Spring and wire product manufacturing
Other fabricated metal product
manufacturing
Agriculture, construction, and mining
machinery manufacturing
Industrial machinery manufacturing
Commercial and service industry
machinery manufacturing
Ventilation, heating, air-conditioning,
and commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturing
Metalworking machinery manufacturing
Engine, turbine, and power transmission
equipment manufacturing
Other general purpose machinery
manufacturing
Computer and peripheral equipment
manufacturing
Communications equipment
manufacturing
Audio and video equipment manufacturing
Semiconductor and other electronic
component manufacturing
Navigational, measuring, electro-medical,
and control instruments manufacturing
Manufacturing and reproducing magnetic
and optical media
Electric lighting equipment manufacturing
Household appliance manufacturing
Electrical equipment manufacturing
Other electrical equipment and component
manufacturing
Motor vehicle manufacturing
Motor vehicle parts manufacturing
Aerospace product and parts
manufacturing
Railroad rolling stock manufacturing
Ship and boat building
Other transportation equipment
manufacturing
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 17
- -
- -
Table A1: IP-intensive industries, 2012–2016 (continued)
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
Household and institutional furniture and
kitchen cabinet manufacturing
Oce furniture (including fixtures)
manufacturing
Other furniture related product
manufacturing
Medical equipment and supplies
manufacturing
Other miscellaneous manufacturing
Motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts and
supplies merchant wholesalers
Professional and commercial equipment
and supplies merchant wholesalers
Electrical and electronic goods merchant
wholesalers
Machinery, equipment, and supplies
merchant wholesalers
Other durable goods merchant wholesalers
Drugs and druggists' sundries merchant
wholesalers
Grocery and related product wholesalers
Petroleum and petroleum products
merchant wholesalers
Other nondurable goods merchant
wholesalers
Health and personal care stores
Clothing and clothing accessories stores
Non-store retailers
All other retail
Newspaper, periodical, book, and directory
publishers
Software publishers
Motion picture and video industries
Sound recording industries
Radio and television broadcasting
Cable and other subscription programming
Wired and wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite)
Data processing, hosting, and related
services
Other information services
Nondepository credit intermediation and
related activities
Other financial investment activities
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 18
- -
- -
Table A1: IP-intensive industries, 2012–2016 (continued)
Sector
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
Securities and commodity contracts
intermediation and brokerage
Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles
Housing and other real estate
Machinery and equipment rental and
leasing
Lessors of nonfinancial intangible assets
Legal services
Specialized design services
Computer systems design and related
services
Management and technical consulting
services
Scientific research and development
services
Advertising and related services
Other professional and technical services
Oce administrative services
Business support services
Travel arrangement and reservation
services
Other support services
Junior colleges, colleges, universities, and
professional schools
Other educational services
Oces of other health practitioners
Performing arts companies
Spectator sports
Independent artists, writers, and
performers
Promoters of performing arts and sports
and agents for public figures
Museums, historical sites, zoos, and parks
Gambling industries
Electronic and precision equipment repair
and maintenance
Other personal services
Grantmaking, giving, and social advocacy
organizations
Civic, social, professional, and similar
organizations
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 19
- -
- -
Table A2: Shares of private sector workers in IP-intensive industries in 2019, by state
State
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
IP-
intensive
~ in percent ~
National Average 13.6 16.1 29.7 4.4 33.6
Alabama 14.0 18.7 25.7 3.1 31.6
Alaska 6.1 5.8 22.2 1.5 25.3
Arizona 11.6 13.5 28.1 3.5 31.0
Arkansas 10.4 15.7 24.4 2.3 27.5
California 14.4 15.9 31.9 6.4 35.1
Colorado 13.8 15.0 31.9 5.9 34.5
Connecticut 14.8 16.7 27. 2 4.3 33.2
Delaware 11.7 10.2 28.6 2.4 29.7
District of Columbia 15.8 6.6 44.5 10.8 50.7
Florida 8.8 11.8 28.4 3.6 30.5
Georgia 12.7 16.0 29.2 4.8 32.3
Hawaii 4.0 6.5 22.4 2.6 23.4
Idaho 9.0 14.6 28.1 3.0 30.2
Illinois 14.2 17.1 31.8 4.3 35.5
Indiana 17.0 21.5 27. 5 2.5 34.5
Iowa 13.2 18.5 27. 6 2.7 31.2
Kansas 13.6 18.2 27. 3 3.1 32.5
Kentucky 14.5 18.6 25.7 2.3 32.2
Louisiana 10.9 13.2 24.8 2.2 28.4
Maine 9.3 13.5 25.1 2.8 29.0
Maryland 12.
9 11.9 29.8 5.6 31.7
Massachusetts 17. 3 16.3 31.2 6.0 35.7
Michigan 17. 3 21.0 27.7 3.6 35.3
Minnesota 13.1 17.4 29.8 3.9 32.4
Mississippi 11.0 17.5 23.9 1.6 28.8
Missouri 13.6 16.8 28.0 3.7 32.4
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 20
- -
- -
Table A2: Shares of private sector workers in IP-intensive industries in 2019, by state (continued)
State
Utility
patent
-
intensive
Design
patent-
intensive
Trademark
-
intensive
Copyright-
intensive
IP-
intensive
~ in percent ~
National Average 13.6 16.1 29.7 4.4 33.6
Montana 6.7 10.8 24.0 2.9 25.6
Nebraska 10.8 14.5 26.7 3.6 29.5
Nevada 7.6 10.0 24.1 2.8 25.1
New Hampshire 16.3 18.3 31.3 4.3 34.8
New Jersey 12.4 14.9 31.4 4.2 33.0
New Mexico 12.1 12.3 24.6 2.3 28.2
New York 11.7 13.1 31.9 6.1 35.8
North Carolina 14.3 18.6 30.5 3.5 33.7
North Dakota 10.2 13.8 23.0 2.4 29.4
Ohio 15.6 19.2 28.2 3.2 33.6
Oklahoma 13.0 15.5 24.9 2.2 30.3
Oregon 11.0 16.3 28.4 3.9 30.6
Pennsylvania 13.8 15.5 27.1 3.4 31.8
Rhode Island 11.3 11.9 24.9 3.4 29.5
South Carolina 15.1 18.4 27.9 2.8 32.5
South Dakota 11.3 16.1 27. 2 2.3 29.7
Tennessee 14.4 18.8 28.4 3.0 33.6
Te xa s 13.6 15.5 29.7 3.8 33.7
Utah 15.7 18.0 33.4 5.8 37.0
Vermont 11.0 13.6 27.1 3.9 30.5
Virginia 14.
0 12.7 31.6 7.6 34.5
Washington 15.9 19.8 31.1 6.9 36.7
West Virginia 8.8 10.8 20.8 2.2 24.5
Wisconsin 16.3 22.0 31.0 3.1 35.2
Wyoming 9.2 10.0 19.7 2.0 25.3
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce | Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Third edition 21
U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce
600 Dulany Street • Alexandria, Virginia, 22314 • www.uspto.gov
