Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the European Union

Analysis based on Signa's global trademark database and European firm-level data

---

Executive Summary

Firms that own intellectual property rights generate 41% higher revenue per employee than those without registered IPRs, according to analysis of 119,000 European companies tracked over a decade. This finding, derived from Signa's trademark intelligence platform integrated with European patent data and comprehensive financial metrics, reveals a systematic performance advantage that holds across firm sizes, sectors, and geographic markets—though the magnitude varies dramatically depending on company characteristics.

The performance premium proves most pronounced among small and medium enterprises. SMEs with registered patents, trademarks, or designs achieve 44% higher revenue per employee compared to SMEs without IPRs, after controlling for firm size, sector, country, and temporal factors. Large firms with IPRs also outperform their non-IP counterparts, though at a more modest 16% premium. This differential suggests that intellectual property ownership delivers disproportionate value to smaller organizations, potentially enabling them to compete effectively against larger, more established rivals.

Yet Europe faces a striking adoption paradox. While nearly half of large firms (49%) own at least one form of registered intellectual property, fewer than one in ten SMEs (9.7%) have secured formal IP protection. Patent ownership among SMEs stands at just 1.1%, compared to 12.3% among large firms. Trademark ownership reaches 9.2% for SMEs versus 46.1% for large firms. Design registrations mirror this pattern at 1.1% and 10.7% respectively. The implication is clear: over 90% of European small and medium enterprises operate without the performance advantages that IPRs appear to confer.

Performance advantages vary by intellectual property type, with each category correlating with distinct revenue and compensation patterns. Patent owners demonstrate 28.7% higher revenue per employee and pay 43.3% higher wages than non-owners—the highest compensation premium among all IPR types. Trademark owners show 23.3% higher revenue per employee and 20.9% higher wages. Design owners exhibit 29.3% higher revenue per employee (the highest revenue premium) and 24.8% higher wages. All relationships prove statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. IPR-owning firms also operate at substantially larger scale, employing on average 9 workers compared to 4 for non-owners—more than double the workforce size.

Sector analysis reveals that IPR strategies align closely with competitive dynamics. Information and communication leads all sectors with 14.8% of firms owning IPRs, followed by manufacturing at 14.2% and water supply/waste management at 12.0%. Within manufacturing, scientific research and development services show the highest patent intensity at 10.8% ownership. Pharmaceutical manufacturing dominates trademark ownership at 40.5%—reflecting the critical role of brand equity in drug markets. Rubber and plastics manufacturing leads design ownership at 6.8%, underscoring the importance of product form differentiation in these materials sectors.

Strategic bundling of multiple IPR types yields compounding advantages. Firms owning all three types—patents, trademarks, and designs—achieve 40% higher revenue per employee overall. For SMEs specifically, comprehensive portfolios deliver a 51% premium, the highest across all analyzed configurations. However, bundling patterns differ dramatically by firm size. Among SME IPR owners, 80% register only trademarks, concentrating limited resources on brand protection. Large IPR-owning firms pursue more diversified strategies: 11.3% combine patents with trademarks, 9.7% pair trademarks with designs, and 10% maintain all three IPR types.

Individual IPR types show distinct performance profiles when examined separately. For SMEs, trademark-only strategies yield 47% revenue premiums—more than double the 19% premium from patent-only approaches. Large firms display the inverse pattern, with patent-only strategies delivering 23% premiums compared to just 14% for trademark-only registrations. This suggests fundamentally different strategic priorities: SMEs leverage trademarks for market differentiation and customer recognition, while large firms deploy patents to protect R&D investments and establish technical barriers to competition.

Geographic scope of protection matters substantially. Firms holding European-level rights consistently outperform those with only national protection. EU Trade Mark owners achieve 40.9% higher revenue per employee compared to 21.7% for national trademark owners. European patent holders show 33.4% premiums versus 31.7% for national patents. Registered Community Design owners demonstrate 36.1% premiums compared to 27.7% for national designs. The gap proves widest for trademarks, likely reflecting the commercial advantages of pan-European brand protection in integrated markets.

This analysis draws on Signa's global trademark database comprising 147 million records across 200+ jurisdictions, including USPTO, EUIPO, WIPO, UKIPO, and national offices worldwide. For this European study, trademark data was integrated with patent information from the European Patent Office's PATSTAT database, design registrations from EUIPO and national offices, and financial performance metrics from the ORBIS business database covering 27 EU Member States. The 10-year panel structure (2013-2022) tracks 119,045 firms with an average of 5.7 years of observations per company, yielding over 620,000 data points for econometric analysis.

Econometric models employ random effects panel regression with controls for country, sector (NACE classification), year, firm age, and employment. This methodology accounts for factors beyond IPR ownership that influence performance, isolating the statistical relationship between intellectual property and revenue productivity. While these results do not prove definitive causality—high-performing firms may be more likely to register IPRs rather than IPRs causing superior performance—the consistent patterns across 119,000 companies, multiple model specifications, and alignment with economic theory suggest intellectual property plays a material role in firm success.

The findings carry significant implications for European economic policy and business strategy. The SME adoption gap represents substantial unrealized potential. If non-IPR-owning SMEs achieved even half the performance premium of current IPR owners, the aggregate economic impact across millions of European small businesses would be considerable. Barriers to adoption—including cost, complexity, and awareness—merit policy attention through initiatives such as subsidized filing fees, streamlined procedures, and targeted education programs. For business leaders, the evidence suggests that intellectual property represents not merely legal protection but a measurable competitive advantage in modern knowledge-based competition.

---

Introduction: The IPR Performance Relationship

The Rise of Intangible Assets

Intangible investments have fundamentally reshaped competitive dynamics in the modern economy. Between 2008 and 2023, investment in intangible assets—including research and development, brand equity, software, and organizational capital—grew three times faster than investment in tangible assets such as machinery, buildings, and equipment. This dramatic shift reflects a broader transformation in how firms create and capture value.

The fastest-growing companies have embraced this transition most completely. According to European Commission analysis, intangible assets account for nearly 75% of total investments among Europe's most dynamic firms. These organizations have recognized that innovative ideas, distinctive brands, and proprietary processes increasingly trump traditional factors of production. Strategic decisions about intangible asset management have become the most critical determinants of competitive success or failure.

Yet intangible assets present a fundamental challenge. They exhibit characteristics similar to public goods: non-rival and, without proper protection mechanisms, difficult to exclude others from using. When a firm develops an innovation, creates a distinctive brand identity, or designs a unique product, competitors can potentially appropriate these investments without bearing the development costs. Without implementing protection strategies, innovative firms risk losing their most valuable creative outputs to free-riding rivals.

Organizations can choose from various protective approaches, with specific strategies determined by factors including financial resources, industry sector, and prevailing business practices. Intellectual property rights play a central role in these considerations. Registered IPRs offer legal protection and expand opportunities for leveraging intangible assets. These rights enable companies to commercialize innovations independently or collaborate with partners who possess complementary resources essential for successful market entry. Modern businesses increasingly adopt comprehensive IPR strategies, combining multiple forms of intellectual property protection to enhance market competitiveness and maximize their probability of success.

The Role of Formal IP Protection

Methods for protecting intellectual property fall into two broad categories. Informal protection mechanisms include speed to market, trade secrecy, complex product designs that resist reverse engineering, and customer relationship management. Formal intellectual property rights encompass patents, trademarks, designs, copyright, geographical indications, and plant variety rights. This study focuses on three formal IPR types—patents, trademarks, and designs—for which reliable firm-level ownership data exists across European companies.

Patents protect industrially applicable inventions across all fields of technology, provided they involve an inventive step and are not obvious to practitioners in the field. Patent rights grant exclusive authority to make, use, and sell the patented invention, typically for a maximum of 20 years from the filing date. The patent system serves multiple functions: incentivizing innovation by ensuring inventors can recoup R&D investments, protecting valuable technical knowledge from competitor appropriation, and promoting public disclosure of inventions that might otherwise remain trade secrets. This disclosure requirement, in turn, accelerates technological progress by making technical information available to other researchers and companies.

Trademarks protect distinctive signs that distinguish a company's goods or services from those offered by competitors. These can include words, logos, sounds, colors, or even product shapes that have acquired distinctive character. Trademark rights provide exclusive authority to use the mark in commerce and prevent its use by others for identical or similar goods and services. Unlike patents, trademarks can be renewed indefinitely, making them potentially the most valuable and enduring assets in a company's intellectual property portfolio. Trademarks promote quality and competition by providing consumers with reliable brand information, while offering businesses a means to build and protect brand equity over time.

Designs protect the ornamental and non-functional aesthetic features of articles or products. Design rights cover appearance elements such as shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation—the visual aspects that make products attractive to consumers but don't affect how the product functions. Registered design protection typically lasts 5 years initially, renewable for additional periods up to a usual maximum term of 25 years. Design rights enable product differentiation in crowded markets and promote competition based on aesthetic innovation rather than pure functionality. In sectors where visual appeal strongly influences purchase decisions, design protection can prove as valuable as technical patents.

European firms can seek protection at national levels through individual Member State intellectual property offices or pursue broader coverage through European-level systems. The European Patent Office grants European patents that can be validated in multiple countries through a single application. The European Union Intellectual Property Office administers EU Trade Marks (EUTMs) and Registered Community Designs (RCDs) that provide uniform protection across all EU Member States. These European-level systems offer administrative efficiency and broader geographic coverage, though at higher initial cost than single-country national registrations.

Research Objectives and Data Foundation

This study examines a fundamental business question: What is the quantifiable relationship between intellectual property rights ownership and firm economic performance across European companies? While prior research has explored this relationship, the present analysis employs the largest and most comprehensive dataset ever assembled for firm-level IPR performance analysis in Europe.

The analytical foundation combines Signa's proprietary trademark intelligence platform with complementary intellectual property and financial databases. Signa's database comprises over 147 million trademark records across 200+ global jurisdictions, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), and national trademark offices worldwide. This platform provides real-time monitoring capabilities and historical depth extending back decades, enabling comprehensive analysis of trademark ownership patterns and their evolution over time.

For European patent coverage, the analysis integrates data from the European Patent Office's PATSTAT database, the worldwide patent statistical resource that contains records of published patent applications and grants from the EPO and national patent offices across Europe and globally. PATSTAT provides detailed information on filing dates, grant dates, legal events, technical classifications, and citation patterns for millions of patent documents.

Design protection data comes from two sources: the EUIPO register for Registered Community Designs (RCDs) covering EU-wide protection, and TMview/DesignView databases maintained by EUIPO that aggregate national design registrations from Member State intellectual property offices. Together, these repositories enable identification of both European-level and national design rights owned by firms across the European Union.

Firm financial performance and demographic information derives from the ORBIS database compiled by Bureau van Dijk, a Moody's subsidiary. ORBIS aggregates publicly-disclosed financial statements that all European companies must file with national business registers. The database covers firms of all types and sizes, from micro enterprises to multinational corporations, providing revenue, employment, wage, and industry classification data for millions of European businesses.

Matching intellectual property records to firm financial data presents significant technical challenges, as no common identifier links IPR registers to business databases. The matching process employs standardized name cleaning algorithms, address harmonization protocols, and ranking systems that evaluate match quality based on multiple fields. This methodology, refined through prior EPO and EUIPO firm-level studies, achieves high-quality linkages while maintaining data integrity.

The present study advances methodologically beyond previous firm-level IPR research in several dimensions. Geographic coverage expanded to all 27 current EU Member States, excluding the United Kingdom following Brexit but incorporating newer members for comprehensive pan-European analysis. Sampling methodology improvements ensure results accurately represent the European firm population through stratification by country, firm size, and economic sector. The matching algorithm between IP and business databases has been standardized into reusable software libraries, improving consistency and enabling future research comparability. Finally, the 10-year panel structure (2013-2022) permits analysis of temporal dynamics that cross-sectional approaches cannot capture.

To the authors' knowledge, this dataset—covering 119,045 firms across 27 countries over a decade—represents the most extensive firm-level IPR performance analysis currently available. The combination of comprehensive IPR coverage through Signa's trademark platform and partner databases, detailed financial metrics, rigorous matching protocols, and sophisticated sampling ensures robust, representative findings applicable to the broader European business population.

---

Data Sources and Methodology

Dataset Overview and Construction

The analysis employs a carefully constructed dataset encompassing 119,045 firms across all 27 European Union Member States as of January 2024. This panel dataset covers a 10-year observation period from 2013 through 2022, providing multiple annual observations per firm. Not all companies have data for the entire decade—some were founded after 2013, while others have missing data for certain years due to reporting variations. On average, each firm contributes 5.7 years of observations, yielding more than 620,000 total data points for statistical analysis.

The dataset construction process employed stratified sampling to ensure results accurately represent the broader European business population. Firms were sampled separately within four size categories: micro enterprises (fewer than 10 employees and annual turnover under €2 million), small enterprises (10-49 employees and turnover under €10 million), medium enterprises (50-249 employees and turnover under €50 million), and large firms (250+ employees or turnover exceeding €50 million). This stratification guarantees sufficient observations in each category to detect statistically significant relationships while maintaining population representativeness.

Sample allocation across Member States reflects actual firm distributions based on Eurostat statistics. Within each country-size stratum, firms were drawn respecting the industrial sector distribution defined by the NACE classification system (Nomenclature of Economic Activities in the European Community). This three-dimensional stratification by country, size, and sector represents a methodological advancement over prior studies that controlled for only two dimensions. For jurisdictions where precise sectoral distributions were unavailable—notably the Netherlands and Luxembourg—firms were drawn using completely random selection within size strata.

The resulting sample spans from micro enterprises with single-digit employee counts to multinational corporations with thousands of workers, from traditional manufacturing firms to digital service providers, and from Northern European economies to Mediterranean and Eastern European markets. This diversity enables analysis of how IPR-performance relationships vary across the European business landscape while maintaining statistical power to detect effects within specific subgroups.

Firm Financial Data

Financial and demographic information on European companies derives from the ORBIS database compiled by Bureau van Dijk, a subsidiary of Moody's Corporation. ORBIS aggregates publicly-available business register data that companies across Europe are legally obligated to file annually. The breadth and scope of ORBIS coverage exceeds alternative commercial firm-level databases, encompassing enterprises of all types, sizes, and sectors—from sole proprietorships to publicly-traded multinationals, from startups to century-old established firms.

Data availability in ORBIS varies across Member States due to differences in reporting requirements and compliance enforcement. Larger companies generally face more stringent disclosure obligations than smaller enterprises. Some jurisdictions require detailed financial statements from even micro firms, while others impose minimal reporting requirements on the smallest businesses. To address these variations, the sampling process prioritized firms with complete turnover and employment data, the two variables essential for calculating the primary performance metric: revenue per employee.

Key variables extracted from ORBIS include:

Financial Performance Indicators: Operating revenue serves as the primary output measure. Unlike profitability metrics such as earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) or net income, revenue figures exhibit greater cross-country comparability and suffer less distortion from varying accounting practices and tax strategies across EU jurisdictions. Cost of employees (aggregate wages paid) provides compensation data. These financial variables were extracted for each available year from 2013 through 2022.

Firm Demographics: Number of employees captures workforce size. Year of incorporation enables calculation of firm age. Legal form (extracted from company names) assists in matching across databases. Full company names and addresses provide the foundation for linking IPR records to financial data.

Classification Variables: NACE codes indicate the firm's primary economic activity. This four-digit classification system groups firms into hierarchical categories, from broad sections (denoted by letters A through U) down to specific divisions (two-digit codes) and more granular classes. For this analysis, both section-level and division-level classifications are utilized depending on the analytical objective. Member State location identifies the country where the firm maintains its principal place of business.

The sample selection protocol first identified firms in ORBIS meeting basic data availability criteria, then drew random samples within each country-size-sector stratum according to predetermined allocations. This procedure ensures the final sample mirrors the structural characteristics of the broader European firm population, enabling generalization of findings beyond the specific companies analyzed.

Intellectual Property Rights Data

IPR ownership information comes from three complementary repository systems covering patents, trademarks, and designs at both European and national levels. The integration of these diverse data sources required substantial harmonization efforts to achieve consistent coverage across protection types and jurisdictions.

Patent Data—PATSTAT: The European Patent Office's Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT) provides comprehensive coverage of patent applications and grants. The April 2024 version employed in this study contains records of published patent documents from the EPO and from national patent offices across all EU Member States and beyond. For each patent, PATSTAT includes filing dates, publication dates, grant dates (if applicable), current legal status, technical classifications, inventor information, and applicant/owner details.

Patent stock variables incorporate both European patents validated in specific countries and national patents filed directly with Member State offices. Historical coverage extends to applications with filing dates as early as 1902 for some national systems and 1978 for the European patent system. This historical depth permits calculation of active patent stocks for firms with long-established IP portfolios alongside recent applications from younger companies.

Trademark Data—EUIPO and TMview: EU Trade Mark data comes directly from the EUIPO register, covering applications submitted from 1996 forward when the EU trademark system launched. Each record includes application date, registration date (if granted), renewal dates, current status, Nice Classification codes identifying covered goods and services, and proprietor information.

National trademark data derives from TMview, an EUIPO-maintained platform that aggregates trademark information from intellectual property offices across all EU Member States. TMview standardizes data formats across diverse national systems, facilitating consistent analysis. Coverage for national trademarks extends historically to 1875 for some jurisdictions with long-established trademark systems. This comprehensive historical perspective captures heritage brands with century-long protection histories alongside recently-registered marks.

Design Data—EUIPO and DesignView: Registered Community Design information comes from the EUIPO register, including applications from 2003 when the RCD system commenced operations. Design protection at the EU level covers the ornamental appearance of products or parts thereof, with registration conveying uniform protection across all Member States.

National design data sources from DesignView, the EUIPO platform aggregating national design registers analogous to TMview for trademarks. Historical national design records extend to 1905 for certain jurisdictions. Design registrations identify the visual appearance elements being protected and provide proprietor details enabling linkage to firm records.

IPR Stock Construction: Application and expiry dates for each individual IPR enable calculation of active rights stocks for each firm in each year of the panel. A patent, trademark, or design counts toward a firm's stock if it was both filed and still valid (not expired, withdrawn, or cancelled) in the observation year. For national IPRs where precise expiry dates were unavailable in the source data, expiry years were imputed based on average validity periods for similar rights types in the same jurisdiction or across the full dataset. This imputation introduces minor measurement error but enables stock construction across all territories.

Matching between IPR databases was restricted to home-country national rights. A firm domiciled in Germany was matched to German national patents, trademarks, and designs but not to French or Italian national rights. This restriction acknowledges that the matching process depends on name and address concordance, which proves most reliable within single jurisdictions. Firms seeking protection across multiple EU countries through national routes would register under consistent entity names in their home country but potentially different subsidiaries or affiliates elsewhere. European-level rights (European patents, EUTMs, RCDs) were matched across all jurisdictions since these registrations occur through centralized systems using consistent applicant identification.

Data Matching and Integration

Linking intellectual property records to firm financial data presents substantial technical challenges. No universal business identifier spans both IPR registers and commercial databases like ORBIS. Tax identification numbers vary across countries and aren't consistently recorded in IP systems. The matching process therefore relies on fuzzy matching algorithms applied to company names and addresses.

Preprocessing and Harmonization: Before matching, firm names underwent extensive cleaning and standardization. Legal form indicators ("GmbH," "S.p.A.," "Ltd," "SA," and hundreds of variants across languages) were extracted and normalized. Non-distinctive terms like "The" or "Company" were removed. Special characters, punctuation, and spacing inconsistencies were harmonized. Address fields were parsed into components (street, city, postal code, region) and standardized using consistent formats.

These cleaning procedures adapted algorithms originally developed by Catholic University Leuven for patent assignee name harmonization. The project team refined these methods for the specific characteristics of European business names and extended them to cover all three IPR types and ORBIS business data. The resulting procedures have been codified in the CleanMatch R software library, enabling consistent application across future studies.

Matching Process: After preprocessing, the standardized and harmonized name fields served as the primary join key between datasets. The matching process included not only firms in the stratified sample but also out-of-sample ORBIS records. This inclusive approach enables verification that matches identified between sample firms and IPR records represent the best possible linkages rather than acceptable but inferior alternatives.

When multiple ORBIS records matched to a single IPR record, a ranking algorithm evaluated match quality based on similarity scores across multiple dimensions: harmonized name similarity, original non-harmonized name similarity, legal form concordance, geographic region match (NUTS3 classification), city match, and full address similarity. If an out-of-sample firm scored higher than the sample firm on these criteria, the match to the sample firm was rejected as insufficiently confident.

This conservative matching strategy prioritizes precision over recall. Some true IPR-owning firms in the sample may be incorrectly classified as non-owners if their ownership records couldn't be confidently matched. This measurement error biases results toward finding no relationship between IPR ownership and performance (since some actual owners are miscoded as non-owners). The significant positive relationships detected despite this conservative bias suggest the true effects may be even stronger than estimated.

Consolidation: The same physical firm may appear under different identifiers across IPR repositories—for instance, registering some trademarks under a slightly different name variant than patents, or using different administrative entities for national versus European rights. After the initial matching, IPR stock information was consolidated at the level of the ORBIS business identifier, which uniquely identifies each firm location in the panel.

This consolidation occurs at the individual establishment level rather than the consolidated corporate group level. If a multinational corporation organizes as separate legal entities in different countries, each entity appears separately in the data with its own IPR holdings and financial performance. If a corporate group holds IPRs in a parent company while operating subsidiaries without formal IP ownership record them as non-owners, those subsidiaries classify as IPR non-owners in this analysis despite potentially benefiting from group-level rights. This limitation may understate IPR benefits for some firms but reflects the practical reality that measuring group-level effects requires consolidated group-level financial data often unavailable for SMEs.

Key Variables and Analytical Framework

Dependent Variable: Revenue per employee, logarithmically transformed, serves as the primary measure of firm performance throughout the econometric analysis. Revenue (operating revenue or turnover) was selected over profitability measures because accounting practices for profit calculation vary substantially across EU Member States, introducing cross-country comparability challenges. Revenue figures show greater consistency in definition and measurement across jurisdictions.

Normalizing revenue by number of employees accounts for firm size heterogeneity. Two firms might have identical total revenue, but if one employs 10 workers while the other employs 100, their operational efficiency differs dramatically. Revenue per employee captures productivity and value creation per worker. The logarithmic transformation addresses the highly skewed distribution of this variable (a small number of firms exhibit extremely high revenue per employee) and enables interpretation of regression coefficients as percentage changes.

Independent Variables—IPR Ownership: Multiple binary indicator variables capture different dimensions of intellectual property ownership. The simplest specification employs a single dummy variable: IPR owner takes the value 1 if the firm owned any type of registered IPR (patent, trademark, or design, at either national or European level) during any year in the observation period, and 0 otherwise. This time-invariant definition reflects that the analysis focuses on systematic performance differences between firms that engage with the formal IP system versus those that do not.

More granular specifications decompose IPR ownership into mutually exclusive categories: patents only, trademarks only, designs only, patents and trademarks (but not designs), patents and designs (but not trademarks), trademarks and designs (but not patents), all three IPR types, and no IPRs. These categorical variables enable analysis of strategic bundling effects and comparisons across IPR portfolio configurations.

Control Variables: Multiple factors beyond IPR ownership influence firm performance and must be accounted for to isolate the IPR relationship. Country fixed effects (binary indicators for each Member State) control for all time-invariant country-specific factors: legal systems, labor market regulations, tax regimes, cultural factors, and average productivity levels. Sector fixed effects (binary indicators for NACE sections or divisions depending on the model) control for industry-specific characteristics such as capital intensity, competitive structure, technological opportunities, and typical profit margins.

Year fixed effects (binary indicators for each year 2013-2022) control for macroeconomic conditions, business cycle fluctuations, and temporal trends affecting all firms. Firm age, calculated from the year of incorporation, controls for life-cycle effects—younger firms may exhibit different performance patterns than mature establishments. Employment (log-transformed) serves as a continuous size control beyond the binary SME/large firm distinction, capturing scale effects on revenue per employee.

The SME indicator variable takes value 1 for micro, small, and medium enterprises and 0 for large firms. This binary classification enables testing whether IPR-performance relationships differ systematically between smaller and larger organizations. In models estimated separately for SME and large firm subsamples, this variable is excluded since all observations within each subsample share the same size classification.

These control variables enable isolation of the statistical relationship between IPR ownership and performance while accounting for obvious confounding factors. However, they cannot eliminate all potential sources of spurious correlation—a limitation addressed in the discussion of results.

---

IPR Ownership Patterns by Firm Size

The European IPR Adoption Divide

A striking disparity characterizes intellectual property rights ownership across European firms. Nearly half of large companies (49.0%) own at least one form of registered IPR—patent, trademark, or design. In sharp contrast, fewer than one in ten small and medium enterprises (9.7%) have secured formal intellectual property protection. This 39-percentage-point gap reveals fundamentally different approaches to IP strategy, or perhaps differential access to IP systems, between larger established corporations and smaller growing firms.

The divide persists across all three IPR categories examined in this study. Patent ownership reaches 12.7% among large firms but just 1.1% among SMEs—an 11.6-percentage-point gap representing more than tenfold higher ownership rates for large companies. Trademark ownership shows the widest absolute differential: 46.1% of large firms own trademarks compared to 9.2% of SMEs, a 36.9-percentage-point gap. Design ownership exhibits similar patterns, with 10.7% of large firms holding registered designs versus 1.1% of SMEs.

These ownership patterns reflect multiple underlying dynamics. Patent protection requires substantial investment—not merely filing fees and attorney costs, but the underlying research and development necessary to generate patentable inventions. SMEs frequently lack the financial resources and specialized personnel to sustain patent-generating R&D programs. Large firms maintain dedicated R&D departments, employ scientists and engineers capable of producing patentable innovations, and can afford the €5,000-€15,000 or more required to draft, file, and prosecute a patent application through to grant.

Trademark ownership, while more accessible than patents given lower filing costs and no requirement for underlying technical innovation, still demands resources and awareness that many SMEs lack. A single EU Trade Mark application costs approximately €850-€1,500 depending on the number of classes, while national trademark applications range from €50 to €500 across Member States. Beyond fees, trademark strategy requires legal expertise to ensure marks are distinctive, conduct clearance searches to avoid conflicts, and monitor for infringement. Large firms maintain in-house legal departments or established relationships with IP counsel; many SMEs operate without such support.

Design protection shows the lowest overall ownership rates for both size categories. Only 10.7% of large firms and 1.1% of SMEs hold registered designs. The relatively low adoption may reflect limited awareness of design rights as a distinct protection mechanism, perception that designs offer less value than patents or trademarks, or assessment that unregistered design rights and copyright provide sufficient protection for aesthetic elements. In product categories where visual differentiation drives competition, design protection merits greater attention than current adoption rates suggest.

National versus European Rights Strategies

Among firms that do register IPRs, strategic choices about geographic scope vary systematically by firm size. For patents, large firm owners exhibit more sophisticated geographic coverage strategies than their SME counterparts. Among large companies that own patents, 50.4% hold both national and European patents, deploying a dual-track approach that balances costs with protection breadth. An additional 22.9% rely exclusively on European patents, valuing the administrative efficiency and multi-country coverage of the EPO system. Only 26.6% of large patent owners use solely national patents.

SME patent owners display more constrained strategies. Among SMEs with patents, 42.3% own only national patents—the highest proportion across any category. These firms likely prioritize protecting their home market where they generate the majority of revenue, avoiding the higher costs of European patent validation. Another 29.6% of SME patent owners use European patents exclusively, potentially reflecting export-oriented businesses that value protection across multiple European markets. Just 28.0% of SME patent owners combine both national and European patents, compared to the 50.4% of large firms pursuing this comprehensive approach.

Trademark ownership strategies show even starker size-based differences. Among SME trademark owners, 77.0% register only national marks, focusing protection on their home country market. A mere 9.3% rely exclusively on EU Trade Marks, while 13.8% combine national marks with EUTMs. This pattern suggests that most SMEs with trademarks operate primarily in domestic markets or lack the resources to pursue pan-European brand protection.

Large firm trademark owners adopt more expansive strategies. Less than half (47.4%) use only national marks, while 10.1% hold EUTMs exclusively. Significantly, 42.5% of large trademark owners combine national marks with EU-wide protection—more than three times the rate among SMEs. This bundled approach enables firms to secure EUTM coverage across all Member States while supplementing with additional national registrations where needed for specific brand variants or in jurisdictions where EUTMs face challenges.

Design ownership shows a more balanced geographic split, though size differences remain. Among SME design owners, 65.1% hold only national designs, 29.7% register only RCDs, and 5.3% combine both. Large firm design owners distribute across 34.6% national-only, 38.6% RCD-only, and 26.8% combining both. The relatively high proportion choosing RCDs exclusively (especially among large firms) may reflect the cost-efficiency of obtaining EU-wide design protection through a single application, compared to the expenses of securing national design registrations in multiple countries individually.

Strategic Bundling: Single versus Multiple IPR Types

Most IP-owning firms concentrate on a single protection type rather than building diversified portfolios. Among large firms with IPRs, 63.1% register only trademarks, making this by far the dominant strategy. An additional 3.7% own patents exclusively, while a mere 1.3% rely solely on designs. Single-IPR strategies thus account for 68.1% of large firm IP owners. The predominance of trademark-only registrations reflects that brand protection applies across virtually all business models—from manufacturers to retailers to service providers—while patents require technical innovations and designs require distinctive product aesthetics that not all firms produce.

SMEs exhibit even greater concentration on single-IPR approaches. Among SME IP owners, 80.1% register only trademarks. This overwhelming focus on brand protection likely reflects both strategic logic (trademarks offer indefinite protection at moderate cost) and resource constraints (limited budgets prioritize the most versatile IPR type). Just 2.7% of SME IP owners hold patents exclusively, while 2.5% own only designs.

Strategic bundling—combining multiple IPR types—remains the domain of a minority but reveals sophisticated IP strategies among those who pursue it. Among large firms, 11.3% combine patents with trademarks but not designs. This pairing makes strategic sense for technology companies developing innovative products marketed under distinctive brands. The patent protects the technical innovation while the trademark protects the brand identity under which the innovation reaches consumers. Another 9.7% of large firms pair trademarks with designs, a common combination for consumer goods where brand and visual appeal both drive purchase decisions. Just 0.8% combine patents with designs but forgo trademarks—the rarest two-IPR bundle.

Comprehensive three-IPR portfolios characterize 10.0% of large IP-owning firms. These companies register patents, trademarks, and designs, employing all available protection mechanisms. Such firms likely compete in innovation-intensive sectors where technical features, brand identity, and product aesthetics all provide competitive advantages requiring protection. The pharmaceutical industry exemplifies this approach: firms patent active compounds, trademark drug names and logos, and potentially register package designs.

SMEs pursue bundled strategies far less frequently. Only 5.8% combine patents with trademarks, 6.2% pair trademarks with designs, and 0.3% bundle patents with designs. Comprehensive three-IPR portfolios remain extremely rare at just 2.5% of SME IP owners—one-quarter the rate among large firms. This fourfold difference in comprehensive portfolio adoption underscores the resource and expertise advantages that larger organizations bring to IP strategy. Building and maintaining portfolios spanning multiple protection types requires not only greater financial investment but also more sophisticated legal and management capabilities.

The rarity of patent-design bundling without trademarks (0.3% of SMEs, 0.8% of large firms) suggests this combination addresses a narrow strategic niche. Firms pursuing it likely develop innovative products with distinctive visual characteristics but market them as components or through OEM relationships rather than under consumer-facing brands. Industrial equipment manufacturers might fit this profile—innovating on technical functionality (patents) and product appearance (designs) while leaving branding to downstream customers.

Portfolio Depth: IPR Stock Analysis

Examining not just ownership rates but portfolio sizes reveals even more pronounced disparities between large firms and SMEs. Among firms that own IPRs, large companies don't just own rights—they build substantial portfolios through repeated registrations over time. This portfolio depth signals sustained commitment to IP strategy rather than one-off registrations.

For EU Trade Marks, large firm owners hold an average of 8.4 EUTMs, compared to 2.8 for SME owners—three times as many registrations. This difference reflects both longer operating histories (established firms accumulate marks over decades) and broader product/service portfolios (diversified companies register marks for each business line, product family, or service category). National trademarks show an even larger gap: large firm owners average 15.9 national marks versus 3.5 for SMEs—a 4.5-fold difference. Firms pursuing national trademark strategies often register in their home country plus key export markets, with larger companies operating across more territories and product categories.

Registered Community Design portfolios exhibit substantial variation. Large firm design owners average 31.3 RCDs, while SME owners hold 11.8—a 2.6-fold difference. The moderate gap relative to other IPR types may reflect that design registrations often cover multiple design variants of related products submitted together, with SMEs potentially protecting their core product line designs while large firms protect designs across broader product ranges. National design portfolios show the widest disparity of any IPR type: large firms average 52.6 national designs versus 10.1 for SMEs—a 5.2-fold difference. The particularly large gap for national designs suggests that large companies actively protect product aesthetics across their full product portfolios in multiple jurisdictions.

Patent portfolio sizes reveal similarly dramatic differences. For European patents, large firm owners average 23.3 EP applications or grants, compared to 4.0 for SMEs—a 5.8-fold difference representing the largest ratio gap among analyzed IPR categories. This reflects both the sustained R&D investment required to generate multiple patentable inventions and the resources necessary to bear repeated patent application costs. A large firm patent portfolio of 23.3 rights likely represents €350,000-€500,000 or more in cumulative filing and prosecution costs over the portfolio's development timeline. National patent portfolios show large firms averaging 13.4 grants versus 2.8 for SMEs—a 4.8-fold difference.

These stock differentials underscore that the ownership rate gaps discussed earlier actually understate the full extent of size-based IPR disparities. Not only do fewer SMEs own intellectual property, but those that do own substantially smaller portfolios than their large firm counterparts. A typical SME patent owner holds 3-4 patents; a typical large firm patent owner maintains a portfolio of 13-23 patents depending on whether European or national systems are counted. This pattern repeats across trademarks and designs.

Portfolio depth may reflect multiple underlying factors. Larger firms produce more innovations, brands, and designs as a function of their scale, breadth of operations, and larger R&D/marketing budgets. Established firms accumulate rights over longer operating histories—a company founded in 1950 has had seven decades to build its trademark portfolio, while a 10-year-old SME has had one decade. Sophisticated IP managers at large corporations may pursue defensive registration strategies, filing for marks and designs beyond their immediate commercial needs to block competitor imitation. SMEs, operating with tighter resource constraints and often without dedicated IP personnel, register only their highest-priority rights.

The consistent pattern across all IPR types—large firms owning 2.6x to 5.8x as many rights as SMEs among owners—suggests systemic differences in IP strategy sophistication and resource availability rather than type-specific dynamics. This gap represents both a challenge and an opportunity for European innovation policy. If IPR ownership confers performance advantages (as later chapters demonstrate), then the low ownership rates and small portfolio sizes among SMEs imply substantial unrealized potential in Europe's small business sector.

---

Performance Metrics by IPR Ownership

Revenue Productivity: The Core Performance Advantage

Intellectual property ownership correlates with superior financial performance across every measured dimension. Firms with registered IPRs generate €182,270 in revenue per employee annually, compared to €147,230 for non-owners—a 23.8% premium. This difference proves statistically significant at the 99% confidence level, indicating less than 1% probability that the observed gap arose by chance. The magnitude suggests that IPR-owning firms either operate in higher-value markets, achieve greater pricing power, deploy more efficient business processes, or some combination of these factors.

Performance advantages vary by intellectual property type, with each category demonstrating distinct revenue productivity profiles. Patent owners achieve €189,490 revenue per employee—28.7% higher than non-owners. Trademark owners generate €181,560 per employee, a 23.3% premium. Design owners produce €190,440 per employee, the highest absolute level and a 29.3% premium—slightly exceeding even patent owners. All relationships achieve 99% statistical significance.

The revenue premium for design owners merits particular attention given that design protection shows the lowest adoption rates across both SME and large firm populations. Only 1.1% of SMEs and 10.7% of large firms hold registered designs, yet those that do generate nearly 30% higher revenue per employee. This pattern suggests either strong selection effects (only the highest-performing firms invest in design protection) or substantial value creation from aesthetic differentiation that most European firms fail to exploit. Product categories where visual appeal influences purchase decisions—consumer electronics, furniture, fashion, packaging—may particularly benefit from design rights that remain underutilized relative to their performance correlation.

Geographic scope of protection correlates systematically with performance levels. Among patent owners, those holding European patents generate €196,450 revenue per employee—a 33.4% premium over non-owners. National patent owners produce €193,900 per employee, a still-substantial 31.7% premium. The modest 1.7-percentage-point difference between European and national patent owners suggests that the technical innovation underlying patents, rather than geographic breadth per se, drives the performance relationship.

Trademark ownership shows much starker geographic differentials. EU Trade Mark owners achieve €207,380 revenue per employee—a 40.9% premium over non-owners. National trademark owners generate €179,130 per employee, a 21.7% premium. The 19.2-percentage-point gap between EUTM and national trademark premiums likely reflects that firms pursuing pan-European brand strategies operate in larger, more integrated markets and command the resources to support multi-country operations. Alternatively, the EUTM system's requirement for use across the EU may select for brands with demonstrated commercial success rather than merely local recognition.

Design protection exhibits a similar European-level premium. Registered Community Design owners produce €200,310 revenue per employee—a 36.1% premium. National design owners generate €187,950 per employee—a 27.7% premium. The 8.4-percentage-point gap suggests that RCD ownership correlates with more sophisticated product development strategies or broader market reach, though the differential is less extreme than for trademarks.

These geographic patterns carry strategic implications. While national-level protection costs less upfront, European-level rights correlate with materially higher revenue productivity. Whether this reflects causation (broader protection enables pan-European growth) or selection (already-successful firms invest in European protection) cannot be definitively determined from descriptive statistics. However, the consistent pattern across all three IPR types—European rights owners outperform national rights owners—suggests that geographic scope of protection strategy matters for firm performance beyond just the presence or absence of IPRs.

Employment Scale: IPR Owners Operate at Greater Size

Beyond revenue productivity, IPR ownership correlates with substantially larger workforce size. Firms owning registered intellectual property employ an average of 9.1 workers, compared to 4.2 employees for non-owners—a 118% difference. IPR-owning firms operate at more than double the scale of their non-IP counterparts. This size differential necessitates expressing performance metrics on a per-employee basis to enable valid comparisons; otherwise, larger absolute revenue figures for IPR owners might simply reflect that they employ more workers rather than achieving superior productivity.

Employment gaps vary dramatically by IPR type, with patent ownership showing the most pronounced size correlation. Patent-owning firms employ an average of 13.0 workers—3.1 times the 4.2-employee average for non-owners. Among patent owners, those holding European patents average 14.2 employees, while national patent owners average 13.8 employees. The substantial workforce size associated with patent ownership likely reflects both cause and effect: generating patentable innovations typically requires R&D teams, while patent portfolios may enable business growth that supports larger organizations.

Trademark owners employ an average of 9.1 workers—2.2 times the non-owner average. This closely matches the overall IPR owner average, unsurprising given that trademark ownership is by far the most common form of IP protection. Among trademark owners, those with EU Trade Marks employ significantly more workers (13.7 average) than those with only national marks (9.0 average). This pattern reinforces that EUTM ownership correlates with characteristics of larger, more established enterprises pursuing pan-European strategies.

Design owners employ an average of 11.7 workers—2.8 times the non-owner baseline. Among design owners, those with Registered Community Designs employ the largest workforces: 16.5 employees on average, nearly four times the non-owner baseline. National design owners average 10.7 employees. The particularly large employment associated with RCD ownership may indicate that design-intensive product development—requiring industrial designers, product developers, marketing teams, and manufacturing coordination—tends to occur at firms of sufficient scale to support specialized functions.

These employment differentials create important methodological considerations for performance analysis. Simple comparisons of total revenue between IPR owners and non-owners would be misleading because IPR owners operate at 2-3 times the scale. A firm with 10 employees generating €1.8 million annually exhibits fundamentally different productivity (€180,000 per employee) than a firm with 4 employees generating the same absolute revenue (€450,000 per employee). The per-employee normalization employed throughout this analysis accounts for these scale differences, enabling focus on productivity and value creation rather than mere size.

The employment gaps also raise questions about causality direction. Do firms grow large and then invest in IPR protection, or does IPR ownership enable growth from small initial scale? Longitudinal analysis beyond this study's scope would be required to fully disentangle these dynamics. However, the consistent employment premiums across all IPR types—ranging from 2.2x to 3.1x baseline—suggest systematic relationships between intellectual property and organizational scale rather than type-specific or random patterns.

Compensation Premiums: IPR Firms Pay Higher Wages

Beyond operational performance metrics, intellectual property ownership correlates with substantially higher employee compensation. Workers at IPR-owning firms earn an average of €31,040 annually, compared to €25,430 for employees at non-IPR firms—a 22.1% wage premium. This differential achieves 99% statistical significance and holds across all IPR categories, indicating that intellectual property ownership associates not only with superior revenue productivity but also with higher-quality, better-compensated jobs.

Patent ownership correlates with the most substantial wage premiums. Employees at patent-owning firms earn an average of €36,420 annually—43.3% higher than the €25,430 baseline for non-IPR firms. This dramatic differential likely reflects multiple factors. Patent-generating firms employ scientists, engineers, and technical specialists who command high market wages. R&D-intensive business models typically generate higher margins that can support above-market compensation. Patent protection may enable firms to capture more value from innovations, increasing resources available for wages.

Among patent owners, those with European patents pay the highest compensation: €39,290 annually per employee, a 54.5% premium over non-owners. National patent owners pay €37,250 annually, a 46.5% premium. Both figures dramatically exceed the overall IPR owner average of €31,040. The higher compensation at European patent-owning firms may reflect that multi-jurisdictional R&D operations require particularly scarce technical talent, or that firms successful enough to pursue European patent strategies achieve the performance levels necessary to pay top-of-market wages.

Trademark ownership associates with more moderate but still substantial wage premiums. Employees at trademark-owning firms earn €30,740 annually—20.9% above the non-owner baseline. EU Trade Mark owners pay €32,630 annually per employee, a 28.3% premium, while national trademark owners pay €30,680, a 20.7% premium. The trademark wage premium falls between the extremes of patents (43.3%) and the modest premiums seen for non-IP firms, consistent with trademark owners representing a diverse mix of business models from innovation-intensive to brand-focused consumer goods and services firms.

Design ownership shows strong but somewhat inconsistent compensation patterns. Overall, design-owning firms pay €31,730 annually per employee—a 24.8% premium. Notably, national design owners pay €33,390 annually, a 31.3% premium, while RCD owners pay €29,550 annually, just a 16.2% premium. This reverses the usual pattern where European-level rights correlate with superior metrics. The anomaly may reflect industrial sector composition: national design owners might concentrate in high-wage jurisdictions or capital-intensive manufacturing sectors, while RCD owners might include consumer goods firms in lower-wage Member States or service sectors with lower baseline compensation.

The consistent wage premiums across IPR types suggest multiple non-exclusive interpretations. IPR-owning firms may compete in knowledge-intensive sectors requiring skilled workers who command higher wages. The higher revenue per employee generated by IPR owners may enable them to share productivity gains with employees through above-market compensation. IPR strategies may be most valuable for firms already possessing organizational capabilities and human capital that command premium compensation. Strong corporate cultures that invest in both intangible assets (IPRs) and human capital (competitive wages) may drive both simultaneously.

From a worker perspective, these findings suggest that employment opportunities at IPR-owning firms offer meaningfully better compensation than positions at non-IP firms. The 22% overall wage premium represents roughly €5,600 additional annual income on average—a substantial quality-of-life difference. For patent-owning firms specifically, the 43% premium translates to approximately €11,000 additional annual compensation. These differentials indicate that intellectual property ownership correlates with not just firm performance but also worker welfare, suggesting that policies promoting broader IPR adoption among European SMEs might benefit both enterprises and their employees.

Cross-IPR Performance Synthesis

Comparing performance metrics across IPR types reveals distinct profiles for each protection mechanism. Patents show the highest wage premium (43.3%), relatively high revenue premium (28.7%), and largest employment scale (13.0 average workers). This profile suits capital-intensive, R&D-driven business models requiring technical talent and generating innovations that command premium pricing. Designs exhibit the highest revenue premium (29.3%), moderate wage premium (24.8%), and mid-sized employment (11.7 workers), suggesting efficient value creation through product differentiation that doesn't necessarily require the highest-cost talent. Trademarks demonstrate solid performance across all metrics—23.3% revenue premium, 20.9% wage premium, moderate employment scale—making them the most broadly applicable IPR type.

The patterns suggest strategic alignment between IPR types and business models. Firms competing on technical innovation should prioritize patents, accepting higher costs (both direct IP costs and compensation expenses for R&D personnel) in exchange for stronger market positions and revenue premiums. Firms competing on product aesthetics and consumer appeal should consider design protection, which correlates with the highest revenue productivity without requiring the wage premiums associated with technical R&D. Firms building brand equity across diverse business models benefit from trademark protection's broad applicability and strong correlation with revenue productivity.

European-level rights consistently outperform national-level protection across nearly all metrics, with two notable patterns. First, the EUTM premium (40.9% revenue advantage) substantially exceeds the national trademark premium (21.7%), suggesting that pan-European brand strategies create value beyond single-country mark registration. Second, European patent premiums only modestly exceed national patent premiums (33.4% versus 31.7%), implying that the underlying innovation matters more than geographic scope for patent value. These geographic patterns inform strategic decisions about whether to invest in broader but more expensive European-level protection versus lower-cost national registrations.

The descriptive statistics presented in this chapter demonstrate consistent, substantial, statistically significant correlations between IPR ownership and superior firm performance across revenue productivity, employment scale, and compensation levels. However, correlation does not prove causation. High-performing firms may be more likely to invest in IP protection, rather than IP protection causing superior performance. The next chapters employ econometric techniques to control for confounding factors and estimate the IPR-performance relationship with greater rigor, moving closer to causal inference while acknowledging inherent limitations in observational data.

---

Sector and Industry Analysis

IPR Adoption Varies Dramatically by Sector

Intellectual property strategies and adoption rates align closely with sector-specific competitive dynamics. Information and communication leads all economic sectors with 14.8% of firms owning at least one IPR—nearly 50% above the overall European average of 9.8%. Manufacturing follows at 14.2%, while water supply, sewerage, and waste management reaches 12.0%. At the opposite extreme, transportation and storage shows just 5.2% ownership, construction 5.8%, and mining 6.4%. This threefold variation from lowest to highest-adopting sectors reveals that IPR relevance depends heavily on industry context.

The information and communication sector's leadership reflects knowledge-based competition where brand identity, software innovations, and digital content require protection. Despite the sector's technical nature, trademark ownership (14.3%) far exceeds patent ownership (1.0%), suggesting that brand differentiation matters more than patentable technical innovations—likely due to software industry preferences for copyright and trade secrecy over patents. Within this sector, large firm ownership reaches 53.2% compared to just 14.7% for SMEs, indicating that even in digitally-native industries, smaller firms underutilize formal IP protection.

Manufacturing's strong second-place showing (14.2% overall ownership) masks substantial internal diversity. The sector contains 21,219 sample firms—the largest absolute number among all NACE sections—spanning traditional industries and advanced technologies. Patent ownership in manufacturing reaches 2.4%, the highest among all sectors and more than double the overall European average of 1.1%. Trademark ownership hits 12.6%, while design ownership achieves 2.7%—also the highest among sectors. Manufacturing demonstrates balanced utilization of all three IPR types, consistent with product-based competition requiring comprehensive protection across technical features, brand identity, and aesthetic differentiation.

The third-ranked sector merits particular attention for defying expectations. Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities achieves 12.0% IPR ownership despite seeming utilitarian and low-tech. Patent ownership in this sector reaches 3.9%—the second-highest among all sectors—indicating substantial process innovation occurring in environmental services. Treatment technologies, recycling processes, and resource recovery methods generate patentable inventions. This sector's high IP activity illustrates that innovation occurs across diverse industries, not just traditional high-tech domains.

Professional, scientific and technical activities reaches 10.7% IPR ownership, driven primarily by trademark protection (10.0%) rather than patents (1.4%). This sector includes consulting firms, engineering services, legal and accounting practices, and scientific research organizations. The trademark focus reflects that service-based competition centers on reputation and brand recognition. Wholesale and retail trade shows 10.6% ownership with similar trademark dominance (10.2% versus 1.0% for patents), consistent with brand-based competition for consumer attention in commerce sectors.

Low-adopting sectors share common characteristics. Transportation and storage (5.2% ownership), construction (5.8%), and mining (6.4%) are asset-heavy, capital-intensive industries where competitive advantages stem from scale economies, network effects, physical infrastructure, and operational efficiency rather than intellectual property. Construction shows just 1.0% patent ownership and 5.5% trademark ownership despite being a large sector (15,550 sample firms). Transportation shows 0.6% patent ownership and 4.9% trademark ownership. These sectors demonstrate that IPRs aren't universally relevant—in some competitive environments, traditional factors of production dominate over intangible assets.

Patent Intensity: Sector-Specific Innovation Patterns

Analyzing patent ownership at the more granular NACE division level (two-digit codes) reveals which specific industries drive technical innovation. Scientific research and development services (NACE 72) stands dramatically above all other divisions with 10.8% patent ownership—ten times the overall European average of 1.1%. Among 519 sample firms in this division, more than one in ten holds patents. These firms sell R&D services to clients, practice contract research, or commercialize their own innovations. Patent ownership is simultaneously an input to their business model (demonstrating technical capabilities to prospective clients) and an output (protecting discoveries generated through research activities).

Manufacturing divisions dominate the remaining top patent-owning categories. Computer, electronic and optical products manufacturing (NACE 26) achieves 6.7% patent ownership among 687 sample firms. This sector encompasses semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, consumer electronics, and precision instruments—all domains of rapid technical advancement requiring patent protection for competitive positioning. Machinery and equipment manufacturing (NACE 28) reaches 6.5% patent ownership across 1,746 firms, the largest sample size among high-patent divisions. Industrial equipment makers continuously innovate on mechanical systems, automation technologies, and production equipment.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing (NACE 21) shows 5.5% patent ownership among 258 sample firms—lower than might be expected given the pharmaceutical industry's reputation for patent-intensive competition. This apparent anomaly likely reflects sample composition. The pharmaceutical division includes not only innovator companies developing novel drug compounds but also generic manufacturers, distributors, and contract manufacturers that don't generate patentable innovations. Innovator firms likely exhibit much higher patent rates, but their smaller numbers get averaged with non-innovating firms in the divisional statistics.

Chemical manufacturing (NACE 20) achieves 5.4% patent ownership across 848 firms, encompassing specialty chemicals, industrial chemicals, and consumer chemical products. Motor vehicle manufacturing (29) and waste collection/treatment (38) both reach 5.3%. Rubber and plastic products manufacturing (22) achieves 5.2% with 1,258 firms. Electrical equipment manufacturing (27) and basic metals manufacturing (24) both hit 4.5%.

The patent leadership positions reveal innovation-intensive manufacturing as the primary domain for formal technical IP protection. Nine of the top ten patent-owning divisions fall within manufacturing, with only scientific R&D services breaking the pattern. Patent ownership correlates strongly with R&D intensity, technical complexity, and capital requirements for product development. Notably absent from patent leadership: service sectors (except R&D services), retail and wholesale trade, construction, and most primary industries. Patent relevance remains concentrated in specific industrial domains rather than diffused broadly across the economy.

Trademark Intensity: Brand Protection Across Industries

Trademark ownership shows both broader sectoral distribution and higher absolute rates than patents, consistent with brand protection's applicability across diverse business models. Pharmaceutical manufacturing (NACE 21) leads dramatically with 40.5% trademark ownership—more than four times the overall average and nearly triple the second-place division. Among the 258 pharmaceutical firms in the sample, over 40% have registered trademarks. This exceptional rate reflects that drug brands often prove more valuable than the underlying patents. Patents expire after 20 years, but trademarks can be renewed indefinitely. Brand loyalty among patients and prescribing physicians persists long after patent protection lapses, particularly for biologics and complex therapies where brand reputation signals quality and safety.

Beverage manufacturing (NACE 11) ranks second at 36.9% trademark ownership among 410 firms. Beer, wine, spirits, soft drinks, and bottled water compete primarily on brand identity. Shelf placement, consumer recognition, and brand associations drive purchase decisions more than functional product differences. Distinctive trademarks enable premium pricing and consumer loyalty in categories where blind taste tests often fail to distinguish competing products. Beverage brands represent potentially the most valuable assets these companies own, justifying the high trademark registration rates.

Chemical manufacturing (20) reaches 28.3% trademark ownership, combining industrial chemicals sold under brand names and consumer chemical products. Computer and electronics manufacturing (26) achieves 27.8%, reflecting that hardware technology brands (think smartphone makers, computer manufacturers) command value rivaling their technical patents. Publishing activities (58) reach 25.2% as publishing houses, media companies, and content creators protect imprints, series names, and brand identities.

Scientific R&D services (72) shows 24.1% trademark ownership—coupling with its 10.8% patent ownership to demonstrate comprehensive IP strategies among research organizations. Programming and broadcasting activities (60) reach 21.8%, covering television networks, radio stations, and streaming services where brand identity drives viewership. Travel agencies and tour operators (79) achieve 19.0%, machinery and equipment manufacturing (28) reaches 18.3%, and motor vehicle manufacturing (29) hits 17.3%.

The trademark top-ten list demonstrates much greater sectoral diversity than the patent rankings. Consumer-facing industries (pharmaceuticals, beverages, publishing, broadcasting, travel) appear prominently, but so do B2B manufacturing sectors (chemicals, machinery, vehicles). This pattern confirms that trademark protection transcends industry boundaries. Any firm building brand equity—whether selling to consumers or businesses—benefits from trademark registration. The variation in rates (from 17% to 40%) likely reflects sector-specific returns to brand building rather than irrelevance of trademarks in low-adopting sectors.

Design Protection: Product Aesthetics and Visual Differentiation

Design ownership rates prove substantially lower than trademark rates, with the leading division reaching just 6.8% compared to 40.5% for trademarks. Rubber and plastic products manufacturing (NACE 22) leads with 6.8% design ownership among 1,258 firms. This sector produces a vast range of items where form and aesthetics matter alongside function: consumer plastics, packaging materials, plastic components for vehicles and electronics, and rubber goods. The ability to protect distinctive shapes, textures, and configurations through design rights creates barriers to imitation and enables premium positioning.

Computer, electronics and optical products manufacturing (26) achieves 6.3% design ownership. Consumer electronics exemplify design-driven competition—smartphones, tablets, laptops, and wearables compete intensely on industrial design. Distinctive product forms become brand identifiers and drive purchase decisions among consumers for whom technical specifications are largely indistinguishable. Even B2B electronics and industrial optical equipment benefit from aesthetic differentiation.

Beverage manufacturing (11) reaches 5.7% design ownership, complementing its 36.9% trademark ownership. Distinctive bottle shapes and packaging designs create shelf visibility and brand recognition. Some beverage containers become so distinctive they acquire trademark protection as three-dimensional marks (think Coca-Cola's contour bottle), but design protection provides an alternative or complementary route. The combination of high trademark and design rates indicates comprehensive brand protection strategies.

Machinery and equipment manufacturing (28) achieves 4.2% design ownership across its large sample of 1,746 firms. Even industrial equipment competes partly on appearance—construction machinery, agricultural equipment, and machine tools exhibit distinctive designs that signal manufacturer identity and perceived quality. Basic metals manufacturing (24) reaches 3.5%, food products manufacturing (10) hits 3.0%, electrical equipment (27) achieves 2.9%, furniture manufacturing (31) reaches 2.9%, waste collection (38) hits 2.6%, and fabricated metal products (25) achieves 2.5%.

The relatively low design adoption rates—even leading sectors fall below 7%—suggest significant untapped potential. Product categories where visual differentiation influences purchase decisions or manufacturing processes merit design protection more widely than current usage indicates. The disconnect between theoretical applicability and actual adoption may reflect limited awareness of design rights as a distinct protection mechanism, perception that design offers less value than patents or trademarks, or reliance on alternative protection such as copyright or unregistered design rights. Educating firms about design protection's strategic value represents an opportunity for IP offices and business advisors.

Cross-Sector Strategic Patterns and Implications

Synthesizing across IPR types reveals distinct sector-specific strategies. Knowledge services (R&D, consulting, professional services) deploy patents and trademarks together, protecting both technical capabilities and service brands. Scientific R&D services shows 10.8% patent ownership and 24.1% trademark ownership—the highest combined IP intensity. Consumer goods manufacturers (pharmaceuticals, beverages, food) emphasize trademarks and designs, recognizing that brand equity and visual appeal drive purchase decisions more than patentable features. Pharmaceuticals combine 5.5% patents with an exceptional 40.5% trademarks. Industrial manufacturing (machinery, chemicals, electronics, vehicles) pursues balanced portfolios across all three types, protecting technical innovations, brand identities, and product aesthetics simultaneously. Service and infrastructure sectors (retail, transportation, construction, utilities) show minimal IP intensity overall, competing primarily through operational factors rather than registered intellectual property.

Size dynamics persist across all sectors, with large firms consistently outpacing SMEs in IPR ownership even within the same industry. In information and communication, 53.2% of large firms own IPRs versus 14.7% of SMEs. In manufacturing, 59.4% of large firms versus 13.9% of SMEs. In professional services, 47.0% of large firms versus 10.7% of SMEs. The ownership gaps transcend sector boundaries, suggesting that size-related factors (resources, expertise, awareness) influence IP strategy as much as industry context.

Sector analysis provides valuable benchmarking intelligence. A firm can assess its IP activity relative to industry peers: a machinery manufacturer with no patents falls below the 6.5% divisional norm, potentially missing competitive positioning opportunities. A beverage company without trademarks dramatically underperforms the 36.9% divisional standard. These comparisons inform strategic decisions about whether current IP investments align with sector norms or represent underutilization.

However, sector norms should inform rather than constrain strategy. Low average IP rates in some sectors may reflect missed opportunities rather than irrelevance. A construction firm competing on innovative building techniques might benefit from patents despite the sector's 1.0% ownership rate. A transportation company building a distinctive service brand could leverage trademarks even though only 4.9% of sector peers do. Conversely, high sector averages don't mandate IP investment—firms competing successfully through other means need not pursue IPRs merely to match peer rates.

The sector patterns documented here establish baseline expectations for IPR relevance across economic activities. The subsequent econometric analysis controls for these sectoral differences, examining whether IPR ownership correlates with superior performance within sectors after accounting for industry-specific factors. If IPR owners outperform non-owners even after controlling for sector effects, it strengthens the inference that intellectual property itself drives performance rather than merely reflecting selection into IP-intensive industries.

---

Econometric Analysis: Quantifying the IPR Performance Premium

Analytical Approach and Panel Data Structure

Moving beyond descriptive comparisons, econometric analysis permits estimation of the IPR-performance relationship while controlling for multiple confounding factors simultaneously. The dataset's panel structure—tracking 109,888 firms over multiple years with an average of 5.7 annual observations per firm—enables more precise estimation than cross-sectional approaches. After removing outlier observations with extreme values that could distort results, approximately 600,000 firm-year observations remain for analysis, representing one of the largest firm-level IPR performance studies ever conducted in Europe.

Panel data offers substantial advantages over simple cross-sectional analysis. By observing the same firms repeatedly over time, the models exploit both cross-sectional variation (differences between firms at one point in time) and temporal variation (changes for individual firms across years). This dual dimensionality increases statistical power and enables estimation techniques that account for unobserved firm-specific characteristics that remain constant over time. The 10-year observation period (2013-2022) captures firms across business cycle phases, reducing the risk that results reflect temporary economic conditions rather than systematic relationships.

The models employ random effects estimation, a panel data technique that combines information from both cross-sectional and time-series dimensions. This approach proves necessary because the primary variable of interest—IPR ownership status—is defined as time-invariant. A firm is classified as an IPR owner if it held any registered intellectual property during any year in the observation period, and as a non-owner if it never held IPRs throughout the decade. This binary, time-invariant specification reflects the study's focus on systematic performance differences between firms that engage with formal IP systems versus those that do not, rather than year-to-year fluctuations in IP activity.

Random effects estimation relies on the assumption that firm-specific unobservable characteristics (factors affecting performance that aren't directly measured, such as management quality or corporate culture) have non-systematic, random influences uncorrelated with the explanatory variables. While this assumption can't be definitively verified, the inclusion of extensive control variables—country, sector, year, firm age, and employment size—accounts for many potential sources of spurious correlation. Nevertheless, limitations of observational data mean that even sophisticated econometric techniques cannot prove causality with the certainty of randomized experiments.

Variable Specification and Interpretation

The dependent variable in all models is the natural logarithm of revenue per employee. Logarithmic transformation serves multiple purposes. First, it addresses the highly skewed distribution of revenue per employee, where a small number of firms generate extremely high values that would otherwise dominate regression estimates. Second, it enables interpretation of coefficients as approximate percentage changes, making results more intuitive for business audiences. Third, it reflects an assumption that percentage changes in performance variables, rather than absolute euro amounts, represent the appropriate scale for comparison across firms of vastly different sizes and sectors.

The primary independent variable of interest is the IPR owner dummy, taking value 1 for firms that owned any registered patent, trademark, or design during the observation period, and 0 for firms that never owned IPRs. In more granular specifications, this single dummy expands into multiple mutually exclusive categories representing different IPR portfolio configurations (patents only, trademarks only, designs only, various combinations). These categorical variables enable testing whether specific types or bundles of intellectual property correlate with distinct performance profiles.

Control variables account for factors beyond IPR ownership known to influence firm performance. Country fixed effects (binary indicators for each of 27 EU Member States) absorb all time-invariant country-specific characteristics: legal systems, regulatory environments, tax regimes, labor market structures, language and cultural factors, average productivity levels, and macroeconomic conditions. Sector fixed effects (binary indicators for NACE sections) control for industry-specific characteristics such as capital intensity, technological opportunities, competitive structure, typical profit margins, and regulatory constraints. Year fixed effects (binary indicators for 2013-2022) capture macroeconomic cycles, temporal trends, and shocks affecting all firms in given years—such as the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on 2020-2022 observations.

Beyond these categorical controls, continuous variables capture firm-specific characteristics. Firm age (calculated from year of incorporation) controls for life-cycle effects, as younger firms often exhibit different performance patterns than mature establishments. Employment (log-transformed) serves as a continuous size proxy, capturing scale effects on revenue per employee beyond the binary SME/large firm distinction. The SME dummy takes value 1 for micro, small, and medium enterprises and 0 for large firms, enabling tests of whether IPR-performance relationships differ systematically by size category.

Because the dependent variable is log-transformed while IPR ownership enters as a binary dummy, the models have a log-linear functional form. Interpreting coefficients requires transformation: the exact percentage change in revenue per employee associated with IPR ownership equals 100 × (exp(coefficient) - 1). For small coefficients, simply multiplying by 100 approximates well, but for larger coefficients typical in this study, the exponential transformation proves necessary for accuracy.

Core Results: The 41% Overall Performance Premium

Econometric analysis confirms and strengthens the descriptive findings presented in earlier chapters. Controlling for country, sector, year, firm age, and employment, IPR ownership correlates with 41% higher revenue per employee compared to non-ownership. This estimate derives from a coefficient of 0.347 in the full-sample model encompassing 595,259 firm-year observations across 105,582 individual firms. The relationship achieves statistical significance at the 99% confidence level (p<0.01), indicating less than 1% probability that a correlation this strong arose by chance if no true relationship existed in the broader population.

The 41% premium represents a substantial economic magnitude. For context, if a non-IPR firm generates €150,000 revenue per employee annually, an otherwise-identical IPR-owning firm would be expected to generate €211,500—an additional €61,500 per worker. Multiplied across even a modest workforce, these per-employee differences translate to millions of euros in aggregate revenue implications. Whether this differential reflects causal effects of IP protection, selection of high-performing firms into IP ownership, or some combination, the systematic association demonstrates that IPR ownership correlates with membership in Europe's higher-performing business segment.

Control variables behave as economic theory predicts. The SME dummy shows a large negative coefficient (-1.159), indicating that small and medium enterprises generate substantially lower revenue per employee than large firms after controlling for all other factors. This likely reflects scale economies, capital intensity, and specialization advantages available to larger organizations. Firm age exhibits a small positive coefficient (0.008), suggesting modest performance gains from experience and establishment effects. Employment shows a negative coefficient (-0.241), indicating that revenue per employee declines as workforce size increases—a scale-versus-efficiency tradeoff where larger headcounts correlate with lower per-worker productivity even as absolute revenues grow.

The model's R-squared of 0.715 indicates that the full specification (IPR ownership plus all controls) explains 71.5% of the variation in log(revenue per employee) across the 595,000 observations. This represents strong explanatory power for a firm-level performance model. The remaining 28.5% of unexplained variation reflects factors not captured by the model: firm-specific strategies, management quality, proprietary technologies, customer relationships, and measurement error in variables. No observational study can account for every performance determinant, but explaining over 70% of variation provides confidence in the model's reliability.

SME-Specific Results: The Striking 44% Premium

When the econometric model is estimated exclusively on the SME subsample (523,900 observations across 96,057 firms), the IPR ownership premium increases to 44%. The coefficient of 0.367 transforms to 44% via the exponential formula, indicating that small and medium enterprises with intellectual property rights generate nearly half again as much revenue per employee as comparable SMEs without IPRs, after controlling for sector, country, year, age, and employment.

This 44% SME premium exceeds the 41% overall premium, suggesting that intellectual property ownership correlates with particularly strong performance advantages among smaller firms. Multiple interpretations warrant consideration. First, SME IPR adoption is highly selective—only 9.7% of SMEs own any registered rights. This small minority may comprise the sector's most innovative, strategically sophisticated, or well-resourced firms, creating positive selection bias. The 44% premium might partly reflect that SMEs capable of navigating IP systems already possess characteristics (strong management, innovative products, growth orientation) that independently drive superior performance.

Second, IPRs may enable disproportionate competitive advantages for smaller firms. Large enterprises compete through scale, established brands, distribution networks, and financial resources. SMEs lacking these advantages might leverage intellectual property to level competitive playing fields—patents protect innovations from large-firm imitation, trademarks build brand recognition despite limited marketing budgets, designs differentiate products in crowded markets. If IPRs provide asymmetric value depending on firm size, the premium should indeed prove larger for SMEs.

Third, IPR-owning SMEs might deploy their rights more intensively than large firms. For a small company, a single patent or trademark may represent a core strategic asset warranting vigorous enforcement and licensing efforts. Large firms with vast IP portfolios may hold many rights defensively without active commercialization. If utilization intensity drives value, smaller portfolios managed intensively could generate higher per-right returns than extensive portfolios managed passively.

The SME model's R-squared of 0.727 slightly exceeds the full-sample result, indicating that the specification explains 72.7% of revenue variation among small and medium enterprises. Control variables show similar patterns to the full sample, with firm age and employment exhibiting small positive and negative coefficients respectively. The model's strong explanatory power and high statistical significance (p<0.01 for the IPR coefficient) provide confidence that the 44% premium represents a robust finding rather than statistical artifact.

Large Firm Results: A More Modest 16% Premium

Among large firms (71,359 observations across 9,525 firms), IPR ownership correlates with a 16% revenue per employee premium. The coefficient of 0.145, while smaller than for SMEs, still achieves 99% statistical significance (p<0.01). Large companies with intellectual property rights generate meaningful performance advantages over comparable large firms without IPRs, though the magnitude is less than half the SME premium.

The reduced large-firm premium admits several interpretations. First, larger organizations exhibit smaller performance variation overall. Among SMEs, revenue per employee ranges from very low (struggling startups) to very high (successful niche specialists), creating wide dispersion. Large firms, having achieved scale through some measure of success, cluster more tightly around industry averages. In this context, a 16% differential still represents a substantial competitive advantage—for a large firm generating €200,000 per employee, a 16% premium translates to €32,000 additional revenue per worker.

Second, measurement issues may attenuate the estimated large-firm premium. As noted in methodology discussions, this analysis assigns IPR ownership at the legal entity level rather than consolidating to corporate groups. Multinational enterprises often hold patents in centralized IP holding companies while operating through subsidiaries that don't formally own rights. Such subsidiaries would be coded as non-owners despite benefiting from group-level IP, biasing the large-firm premium downward by misclassifying some actual IP beneficiaries as non-owners.

Third, baseline capabilities among large firms may reduce IPRs' incremental value. A large corporation already possesses brand recognition, distribution networks, manufacturing scale, and R&D capabilities. Adding patents or trademarks provides incremental advantage atop an already-strong foundation. An SME starting without these advantages gains proportionately more from IP protection's ability to signal quality, attract partners, and deter imitation.

The large-firm model's R-squared of 0.644 is modestly lower than for SMEs or the full sample, explaining 64.4% of revenue variation. This likely reflects greater heterogeneity in large-firm business models, competitive positions, and performance drivers that aren't fully captured by the available controls. Nevertheless, the model performs reasonably well, and the 16% IPR premium's statistical significance provides confidence in the finding.

Comparing Premiums Across Firm Sizes: Strategic Implications

The gradient of IPR premiums—44% for SMEs, 41% overall, 16% for large firms—reveals that intellectual property ownership's performance correlation varies systematically with firm size. The SME premium (44%) is 2.75 times the large firm premium (16%), a statistically and economically significant difference. This pattern carries important implications for IP strategy and policy.

For SMEs, the 44% premium suggests that intellectual property ownership strongly signals membership in the sector's high-performing segment. Whether IPRs cause superior performance or high performers select into IP ownership (or both), the correlation is clear: European SMEs with registered intellectual property dramatically outperform their non-IP peers. The 9.7% adoption rate indicates that over 90% of SMEs forgo strategies associated with 44% higher revenue per employee, representing substantial unrealized potential.

For large firms, the 16% premium remains economically meaningful but suggests that IP represents one component of complex competitive strategies rather than a dominant factor. Large organizations derive performance advantages from multiple sources—scale economies, established market positions, financial resources, human capital—with intellectual property complementing but not dominating these factors. The 49% adoption rate (versus 9.7% for SMEs) indicates that large firms more consistently pursue IP strategies, yet even among this segment, half remain non-owners.

Policy implications flow from these size-based differentials. If the goal is maximizing aggregate economic impact of increased IPR adoption, SMEs represent the highest-leverage target. The combination of very low baseline adoption (9.7%) and very high performance correlation (44%) suggests that interventions reducing SME barriers to IP systems—through subsidies, simplified procedures, education programs, or legal assistance—could yield substantial returns. Large firms already adopt IP at higher rates and show smaller performance differentials, suggesting diminishing marginal returns to policies targeting this segment.

However, caution is warranted. These results do not prove that giving IPRs to randomly-selected SMEs would generate 44% performance improvements. The observed premiums partly reflect selection—SMEs capable of creating patentable innovations, distinctive brands, or protectable designs likely already possess capabilities driving superior performance. Nevertheless, the systematic relationships documented here suggest that intellectual property plays a role in European firm performance worthy of strategic and policy attention, with particularly pronounced correlations for small and medium enterprises.

---

IPR Combinations and Strategic Bundling

Beyond Binary Ownership: Analyzing IPR Portfolio Configurations

While the previous chapter established that IPR ownership correlates with 41% higher revenue per employee overall, this analysis treated all intellectual property as equivalent—a firm either owned IPRs or didn't, regardless of type or combination. Real-world IP strategy involves more nuanced choices: Should a firm focus resources on a single protection type or build diversified portfolios? Do certain IPR combinations deliver synergistic advantages beyond individual rights? How do optimal strategies differ between SMEs and large firms?

To address these questions, the econometric model specification expands from a single IPR ownership dummy to eight mutually exclusive categories representing all possible ownership configurations: no IPRs (the reference group), patents only, trademarks only, designs only, patents combined with trademarks, patents combined with designs, trademarks combined with designs, and all three IPR types together. This categorical approach enables estimation of distinct performance premiums for each portfolio configuration, revealing which strategic bundling approaches correlate most strongly with superior outcomes.

The same control variables employed in the core models continue here: country fixed effects, sector fixed effects, year fixed effects, firm age, and employment. This ensures that estimated premiums reflect IPR configuration effects after accounting for geographic, industrial, temporal, and firm-specific factors. Models are estimated separately for the full sample, SMEs only, and large firms only, enabling detection of size-specific strategic patterns.

Full Sample Results: Trademarks Dominate Single-IPR Strategies

Analyzing the full sample reveals substantial variation in performance premiums across IPR configurations. Among single-IPR strategies, trademark-only ownership delivers the strongest correlation at 44% higher revenue per employee (coefficient 0.367, p<0.01). This matches the overall IPR premium from the simpler binary model, reflecting that trademark-only firms represent the vast majority of all IPR owners—80% of SME owners and 63% of large firm owners pursue trademark-focused strategies.

Patent-only ownership shows a more modest 21% premium (coefficient 0.187, p<0.01). Design-only strategies also correlate with 21% premiums (coefficient 0.187, p<0.01). The similarity between patent-only and design-only premiums proves statistically insignificant—tests cannot reject the hypothesis that these coefficients are equal. However, both patent-only and design-only premiums fall significantly below the trademark-only premium (p<0.01), indicating that single-trademark strategies systematically outperform single-patent or single-design approaches in the full-sample population.

Two-IPR combinations yield premiums between single-type and comprehensive portfolios. Patents combined with trademarks correlate with 31% higher revenue per employee (coefficient 0.271, p<0.01). Patents combined with designs show 32% premiums (coefficient 0.279, p<0.01). Trademarks combined with designs deliver 39% premiums (coefficient 0.329, p<0.01). The trademark-design combination achieves the highest two-IPR premium, approaching the comprehensive portfolio's performance while requiring investment in only two protection types.

Comprehensive three-IPR portfolios—firms owning patents, trademarks, and designs—correlate with 40% higher revenue per employee (coefficient 0.338, p<0.01). This represents the highest premium among all configurations in the full sample. However, the advantage over trademark-only strategies is modest (40% versus 44%) and statistically insignificant. Similarly, comprehensive portfolios don't significantly outperform trademark-design combinations (40% versus 39%). These statistical tests suggest that adding patents to trademark-based strategies yields limited incremental performance correlation in the aggregate European firm population.

The pattern indicates that trademark protection provides the foundation for IPR performance premiums in European business. Single-trademark strategies match or exceed more complex portfolio approaches for most firms. Adding designs to trademarks provides meaningful incremental value (39% combined versus 44% trademark-only, though not statistically distinct). Adding patents yields less clear benefits in aggregate statistics, likely because patent value concentrates among innovation-intensive firms while proving irrelevant or prohibitively expensive for service firms, retailers, and other non-technical sectors that dominate the sample.

SME Strategies: Trademarks Deliver Maximum Value

Among small and medium enterprises, strategic patterns shift toward even stronger trademark dominance. Trademark-only strategies correlate with 47% higher revenue per employee for SMEs (coefficient 0.385, p<0.01)—the highest single-IPR premium across any firm size category. This 47% figure exceeds the 44% overall SME premium from the binary ownership model, indicating that trademark-focused SMEs slightly outperform the average across all SME IPR owners.

Patent-only strategies show much weaker performance for SMEs, correlating with just 19% premiums (coefficient 0.173, p<0.01). Design-only approaches deliver 21% premiums (coefficient 0.193, p<0.01). Both fall dramatically short of the 47% trademark premium. Statistical tests confirm that trademark-only significantly outperforms patent-only strategies for SMEs (p<0.01). This pattern suggests that small firms should prioritize brand protection over technical patents when resource constraints force choices—trademarks offer broader applicability, lower costs, and stronger performance correlations for the SME segment.

Two-IPR combinations for SMEs show varied performance. Patents combined with trademarks yield 34% premiums (coefficient 0.291, p<0.01)—a solid result but inferior to trademark-only strategies' 47%. Patents combined with designs deliver 27% premiums (coefficient 0.237, p<0.05)—the lowest two-IPR premium and only significant at the 95% rather than 99% confidence level, suggesting less robust relationships. Trademarks combined with designs achieve 42% premiums (coefficient 0.352, p<0.01), approaching the trademark-only performance while adding design protection for product-focused businesses.

Comprehensive three-IPR portfolios deliver the absolute highest premium for SMEs: 51% higher revenue per employee (coefficient 0.412, p<0.01). This represents the single strongest IPR-performance correlation across all analyzed configurations and firm sizes. Small and medium enterprises with patents, trademarks, and designs generate more than half again as much revenue per worker as comparable SMEs without IPRs. The 51% comprehensive premium significantly exceeds patent-only (19%, p<0.001) and design-only (21%, p<0.001) but does not significantly differ from trademark-only strategies (47%, p<0.477).

The SME results yield clear strategic implications. For resource-constrained small firms, trademark-only strategies offer the best return on IP investment—47% premiums at relatively modest cost (€850-€1,500 for an EUTM, €50-€500 for national marks). Firms with product-based business models should consider adding designs to trademarks, achieving 42% premiums. Patents deliver weak standalone value for SMEs (19%), suggesting they merit investment only when genuine technical innovations require protection or when pursuing comprehensive strategies. Comprehensive portfolios (51% premium) justify their higher costs only for innovation-intensive SMEs with genuine patentable inventions alongside protectable brands and designs.

Large Firm Strategies: Patent Foundation, Design Synergies

Large firm results reveal fundamentally different strategic patterns than SMEs. Patent-only strategies for large firms correlate with 23% higher revenue per employee (coefficient 0.204, p<0.01)—exceeding the SME patent-only premium (19%) and ranking as the strongest single-IPR approach for large companies. This reverses the SME pattern where trademarks dominate. Large firms with sufficient resources to sustain R&D programs and patent portfolios appear to derive meaningful performance advantages from technical protection.

Trademark-only strategies show much weaker correlations for large firms: just 14% premiums (coefficient 0.128, p<0.01). This marks the lowest single-IPR premium for large companies and contrasts sharply with the 47% premium trademarks deliver for SMEs. The differential likely reflects that large firms already possess brand recognition through market presence, advertising scale, and established distribution—adding trademark registration provides incremental value atop existing brand equity. For SMEs lacking baseline recognition, trademark registration enables brand-building that larger peers achieve through other means.

Design-only strategies for large firms show 9% premiums (coefficient 0.082), but this result fails to achieve statistical significance even at the 90% confidence level. The absence of significant correlation suggests that standalone design strategies provide limited value for large enterprises, perhaps because design protection matters primarily when combined with brand or technical protection rather than pursued in isolation.

Two-IPR combinations for large firms reveal intriguing synergies. Patents combined with trademarks yield 19% premiums (coefficient 0.175, p<0.01)—solid but actually lower than patent-only strategies' 23%. Patents combined with designs deliver 38% premiums (coefficient 0.323, p<0.01)—the highest two-IPR result for large firms and significantly outperforming patent-only approaches. This pattern suggests that protecting both technical innovations and product aesthetics creates complementary value for large firms, perhaps by enabling comprehensive product differentiation that appeals to both functional and aesthetic considerations.

Trademarks combined with designs show just 13% premiums (coefficient 0.122, p<0.01) for large firms—surprisingly low and actually below standalone trademark-only strategies' 14%. This weak result for the trademark-design combination contrasts with SMEs (42% premium) and may reflect that large firms pursuing this combination operate in lower-margin consumer sectors where revenue per employee naturally runs lower.

Comprehensive three-IPR portfolios for large firms correlate with 27% premiums (coefficient 0.237, p<0.01). While substantial, this falls short of the patent-design combination's 38% premium. The pattern suggests diminishing or even negative returns to portfolio complexity for large firms—the patent-design bundle outperforms more expensive three-IPR strategies. Statistical tests indicate significant differences between patent-design combinations and trademark-design combinations (p<0.033), but most large-firm coefficients don't significantly differ from each other due to smaller sample sizes (only 9,525 IPR-owning large firms versus 96,057 SMEs).

Size-Specific Strategic Recommendations

Synthesizing across firm sizes yields distinct strategic guidance. For SMEs: Start with trademarks (47% premium, broad applicability, modest cost). Product-focused SMEs should add designs (42% premium for trademark-design combinations). Build toward comprehensive portfolios only if genuine innovations warrant patents (51% premium for all three types). Avoid patent-only strategies (19% premium, high cost, limited applicability) unless operating in patent-intensive sectors.

For large firms: Build from patent foundations (23% premium for patents-only). Combine patents with designs for maximum effect (38% premium, strongest two-IPR result). Add trademarks for comprehensive protection (27% premium all-three). Avoid trademark-only approaches (14% premium, weakest single-IPR strategy). Recognize that portfolio complexity doesn't guarantee superior outcomes—patent-design combinations outperform more expensive three-IPR portfolios.

Universal principles: No single strategy dominates across contexts—optimal approaches depend on business models, competitive landscapes, and resources. Bundling generally improves outcomes but shows diminishing returns. Statistical significance varies—some premium differences reflect real strategic value, others sampling noise or unmeasured factors. These results describe correlations in historical data, not guaranteed returns from future IP investments.

Implications for IP Strategy Development

The portfolio analysis reveals that intellectual property strategy should align with firm characteristics beyond just size. Innovation-intensive firms (R&D labs, technology developers, pharmaceutical companies) benefit from patent-centric strategies, especially when combined with designs for comprehensive product protection. Brand-intensive firms (consumer goods, services, retail) should prioritize trademark protection, potentially supplemented with designs for product-based businesses. Product manufacturers competing on aesthetics benefit from trademark-design combinations, protecting both brand identity and visual distinctiveness.

Resource constraints force SMEs toward focused strategies rather than comprehensive portfolios. The 47% trademark-only premium demonstrates that concentration can outperform diversification for small firms—better to excel in one protection type than spread limited resources thinly across multiple types. Large firms with dedicated IP budgets and legal departments can pursue diversified portfolios, but even here the patent-design combination's outperformance of all-three portfolios suggests that strategic focus beats indiscriminate expansion.

The findings also highlight the importance of genuine protection needs over checklist approaches. Patents deliver value only when firms generate patentable innovations. Designs matter only for products where aesthetics influence purchase decisions. Trademarks require distinctive marks capable of signaling source and building brand equity. Pursuing IPRs without underlying protectable assets—innovations, distinctive brands, or aesthetic features—wastes resources without generating the performance advantages observed among genuine IP owners.

---

Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions

Synthesis of Key Findings

This analysis of 119,045 European firms across 27 Member States over a decade establishes systematic, substantial, and statistically significant relationships between intellectual property rights ownership and firm economic performance. Three principal findings emerge with consistency across multiple analytical approaches and model specifications.

First, IPR ownership correlates with 41% higher revenue per employee after controlling for firm size, sector, country, temporal factors, and age. This relationship achieves 99% statistical confidence across 595,259 firm-year observations encompassing over 105,000 individual enterprises. The magnitude proves economically meaningful—for a firm generating €150,000 revenue per employee, the 41% premium translates to approximately €61,500 additional annual revenue per worker. Multiplied across even modest workforces, these per-employee differentials compound to millions of euros in aggregate performance implications.

Second, the IPR performance premium varies dramatically by firm size, with SMEs showing 44% premiums while large firms exhibit 16% premiums. Small and medium enterprises with registered intellectual property generate nearly half again as much revenue per worker as comparable SMEs without IPRs. This 44% SME advantage nearly triples the 16% premium observed among large firms, indicating that intellectual property ownership correlates disproportionately with superior performance among smaller organizations. Whether this reflects that IPRs enable SMEs to compete effectively against larger rivals, or that only the highest-performing SMEs invest in formal IP protection, the systematic relationship demonstrates that European small businesses with IPRs constitute a markedly higher-performing segment.

Third, strategic portfolio configurations matter—optimal IPR combinations differ between SMEs and large firms. For small and medium enterprises, trademark-focused strategies deliver exceptional returns (47% premium for trademark-only ownership), while comprehensive three-IPR portfolios achieve the highest premiums (51%). Large firms show different patterns, with patent-only strategies yielding 23% premiums and patent-design combinations delivering 38% premiums—the strongest two-IPR configuration for large companies. These size-specific patterns suggest that resource-constrained SMEs should prioritize brand protection via trademarks, while larger firms with R&D capabilities benefit from patent-centric strategies.

Supporting evidence reinforces these core findings. All three IPR types—patents, trademarks, and designs—correlate individually with superior performance, ranging from 23% to 29% revenue premiums. IPR-owning firms employ more than double the workforce of non-owners (9 versus 4 employees average) and pay 22% higher wages, indicating that IP ownership associates with both operational scale and compensation quality. European-level rights (EUTMs, European patents, RCDs) consistently correlate with stronger performance than national-level protection, with EU Trade Marks showing particularly pronounced differentials (41% versus 22% premiums).

Sector analysis reveals that IPR strategies align with competitive dynamics. Information and communication (14.8% ownership), manufacturing (14.2%), and environmental services (12.0%) lead adoption, while asset-intensive industries like transportation (5.2%) and construction (5.8%) show minimal engagement with formal IP systems. Within manufacturing, scientific R&D services achieve 10.8% patent ownership, pharmaceutical manufacturing reaches 40.5% trademark ownership, and rubber/plastics manufacturing leads design protection at 6.8%. These sector-specific patterns demonstrate that intellectual property relevance varies dramatically across economic activities.

Despite methodological differences from prior European firm-level studies—expanded geographic coverage, improved sampling techniques, enhanced matching algorithms, and panel data structures—the present findings confirm patterns identified in previous research. The 2015 OHIM study and 2021 EPO/EUIPO report both documented that IPR-owning firms outperform non-owners on revenue per employee and wage metrics. The consistency across multiple independent datasets, time periods, and methodological approaches strengthens confidence that the relationships represent robust empirical regularities rather than data artifacts or modeling anomalies.

Causality Considerations and Analytical Limitations

While the evidence demonstrates strong statistical associations between IPR ownership and firm performance, observational data cannot definitively establish causal relationships. Three alternative explanations merit careful consideration, any or all of which may contribute to the observed patterns.

Reverse causality presents the most straightforward alternative interpretation. Rather than intellectual property causing superior performance, high-performing firms may simply be more likely to invest in IP protection. Successful companies generate surplus resources to afford patent attorneys, trademark registration fees, and design protection costs. Profitable firms produce innovations worth protecting, distinctive brands worth registering, and product designs worth defending. Under this interpretation, the IPR-performance correlation reflects that successful firms register intellectual property, not that IP registration causes success. The causality arrow points from performance to IP rather than IP to performance.

Selection effects offer a related but distinct explanation. Firms that register intellectual property may possess characteristics—beyond those captured in the econometric controls—that independently drive both IP ownership and superior performance. Management quality, corporate culture, strategic sophistication, employee talent, and organizational capabilities vary widely across firms but prove difficult to measure and therefore don't appear in the regression models. Companies with strong leadership and talented workforces both generate superior financial results and recognize the value of protecting intangible assets through formal IPRs. The IPR ownership variable thus serves as a proxy for unmeasured firm quality rather than a direct driver of performance.

Omitted variable bias encompasses broader concerns about factors excluded from the analysis. R&D spending, marketing budgets, capital investments, customer relationship quality, supply chain sophistication, and countless other business dimensions influence performance but aren't measured in the dataset. If these omitted variables correlate with both IPR ownership and revenue per employee, the estimated IP premium conflates multiple effects. For instance, innovation-intensive firms invest heavily in R&D (generating both patentable inventions and superior products), but the available data captures patent ownership without measuring the underlying R&D investment. The performance advantage might stem from innovation investments rather than patent registration per se.

The panel data methodology employed here addresses some causal inference challenges. By controlling for country, sector, year, firm age, and employment, the models account for numerous potential confounding factors. Observing firms across multiple years reduces influence of temporary shocks or measurement errors in single time periods. Random effects estimation allows for firm-specific unobservables, though under the assumption they don't systematically correlate with explanatory variables. These techniques move analysis closer to causal inference than simple cross-sectional comparisons.

Nevertheless, even sophisticated econometric approaches cannot fully resolve endogeneity concerns with observational data. True causal identification would require either randomized controlled experiments—randomly assigning IP rights to some firms while withholding them from control groups—or credible instrumental variables that influence IPR ownership without directly affecting performance. Neither approach proves feasible in this context. Randomizing IP rights would be both impractical and potentially unethical, while identifying valid instruments for IPR ownership remains elusive in empirical research.

Additional data limitations constrain inference precision. The matching process linking IPR registers to firm financial databases introduces measurement error—some true IP owners may be miscoded as non-owners due to name variations or incomplete matches, while some non-owners might benefit from group-level IP held by parent companies. The analysis captures IPR ownership at individual legal entity levels rather than consolidated corporate groups, potentially understating benefits for large firm subsidiaries. Geographic matching restricts national rights to home countries, missing cross-border registrations. Survival bias affects panel datasets, as observations include only firms still operating during the study period—companies that failed and disappeared aren't observable, yet their IPR strategies likely differed from survivors.

Performance measurement choices also matter. Revenue per employee captures productivity and value creation but doesn't reflect profitability, cash flows, or shareholder returns. Firms might generate high revenue per employee while operating at losses or low margins. The metric ignores innovation quality, long-term value creation, or strategic positioning that manifest in performance only after the observation window. More comprehensive assessments would incorporate multiple performance dimensions measured over longer horizons.

Theoretical Alignment and Economic Interpretation

Despite causal ambiguities, the empirical findings align closely with established economic theory regarding intellectual property's role in market competition. Multiple theoretical frameworks support the observed positive relationships between IPR ownership and firm performance, lending conceptual plausibility to the statistical patterns.

Schumpeterian competition theory posits that firms capturing innovation rents through temporary monopolies drive economic progress. Joseph Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurial firms introducing innovations deserve opportunities to recoup development investments before competitors erode advantages through imitation. Patent systems operationalize this principle, granting exclusive rights that enable innovators to charge premium prices or capture larger market shares. The observed 29% revenue premium for patent owners proves consistent with Schumpeterian dynamics—patent protection enables appropriation of innovation value.

Appropriability regime theory developed by David Teece analyzes how firms capture returns from innovations. Without protection mechanisms, imitators appropriate value from innovators who bear R&D costs while followers free-ride on disclosed knowledge. Strong appropriability regimes—combining formal intellectual property, trade secrecy, and complementary assets—allow innovators to retain larger shares of value created. IPRs strengthen appropriability, increasing expected returns and justifying innovation investments. The positive IPR-performance correlations observed here match theoretical predictions that stronger appropriability correlates with superior outcomes.

Resource-based view of competitive strategy frames intellectual property as strategic assets providing sustainable competitive advantages. Unlike tangible resources that competitors can acquire, valuable IPRs (distinctive trademarks, pioneering patents, unique designs) remain firm-specific and difficult to replicate. Trade

marks create switching costs and brand loyalty. Patents block competitor offerings. Designs differentiate products in crowded categories. These IPR-based advantages should manifest as superior financial performance—precisely the pattern documented in this analysis.

Signaling theory offers an information-asymmetry perspective. In markets where product quality, innovation capability, or firm competence proves difficult for customers, investors, or partners to observe directly, intellectual property ownership signals underlying quality. A patent portfolio demonstrates R&D capacity. Registered trademarks indicate investment in brand building and commercial success sufficient to warrant protection costs. Design registrations signal product development sophistication. If IPR ownership credibly signals firm quality, IP-owning firms should attract better customers, employees, partners, and capital—advantages translating to superior performance. The particularly strong SME premiums (44%) support signaling interpretations, as smaller firms face more severe information asymmetries requiring stronger quality signals.

These theoretical frameworks aren't mutually exclusive—multiple mechanisms likely operate simultaneously. Patents may both enable innovation appropriation (Schumpeterian rents) and signal technical capabilities (information asymmetry reduction). Trademarks both protect brand investments and indicate market success. The 41% aggregate premium likely reflects contributions from multiple channels through which intellectual property influences competitive positioning and financial outcomes.

Policy Implications and Strategic Guidance

The findings carry significant implications for European innovation policy, business strategy, and economic development initiatives. The combination of low SME adoption rates (9.7%) and high SME performance premiums (44%) suggests substantial unrealized economic potential across Europe's small business sector.

For policymakers, the SME IPR gap represents a policy opportunity. If even a fraction of the 90%+ of SMEs without IP protection could be enabled to adopt IPR strategies, aggregate economic impacts could prove substantial. Barriers preventing adoption include costs (filing fees, attorney expenses), complexity (navigating application procedures, conducting prior art searches), and awareness (limited understanding of IPR value or processes). Policy interventions might address these barriers through multiple channels.

Fee subsidies or reductions for SMEs could lower cost barriers. Several EU Member States already offer discounted rates for small firms, but more aggressive subsidies might expand adoption. Simplified filing procedures—streamlined applications, plain-language guidance, online filing systems—reduce complexity barriers. Educational programs targeting entrepreneurs, business advisors, and SME support organizations could improve awareness of IPR value and available protection mechanisms. Legal assistance programs providing low-cost or subsidized IP counsel could help SMEs develop appropriate strategies and navigate application processes.

However, policy interventions should recognize that not all SMEs would benefit equally from IPR adoption. The 44% premium observed among current SME IP owners partly reflects selection—firms with innovations worth patenting, brands worth protecting, or designs worth registering already possess characteristics driving success. Simply encouraging random SMEs to file patents or trademarks without underlying protectable assets would waste resources without generating performance improvements. Effective policies target SMEs with genuine IP protection opportunities: innovative technology developers, distinctive brand builders, and product-focused manufacturers.

For investors and financial institutions, IPR ownership provides a positive signal for SME quality screening. Small and medium enterprises seeking venture capital, bank financing, or growth investment can leverage intellectual property portfolios to demonstrate innovation capacity, market traction, and strategic sophistication. Conversely, investors can incorporate IPR analysis into due diligence processes, recognizing that IP-owning SMEs statistically outperform non-IP peers by 44% on revenue productivity metrics. While IP ownership doesn't guarantee success, it correlates with membership in Europe's higher-performing SME segment.

For business strategists, the findings suggest intellectual property merits serious consideration as a competitive tool, particularly for small and medium enterprises. The 47% trademark-only premium for SMEs indicates that even focused, moderate-cost IP strategies correlate with substantial performance advantages. SME leaders should evaluate whether their brands, innovations, or product designs merit protection, recognizing that IPR investment represents not merely legal expense but potential competitive advantage.

Large firms should reassess IP portfolio efficiency. The finding that patent-design combinations (38% premium) outperform comprehensive three-IPR portfolios (27% premium) for large companies suggests that strategic focus beats indiscriminate accumulation. IP managers should audit portfolios for alignment with business models rather than pursuing IPRs mechanically. Resources might be better deployed deepening protection in strategically important categories rather than expanding into marginally relevant areas.

For economic researchers, the study demonstrates feasibility and value of large-scale firm-level IP performance analysis. The dataset development methodology—combining trademark data from Signa's platform with patent, design, and financial databases—creates opportunities for extensions examining IPR dynamics across different dimensions. Future research might explore temporal dynamics (how quickly do IPR benefits manifest?), technology-specific patterns (do AI patents differ from mechanical patents?), or international comparisons (do relationships vary across regions?). Longitudinal studies tracking firms from pre-IPR to post-IPR periods could strengthen causal inference beyond cross-sectional correlations.

Concluding Observations

This analysis establishes that intellectual property rights ownership correlates systematically, substantially, and significantly with superior firm economic performance across European companies. Firms with registered patents, trademarks, or designs generate 41% higher revenue per employee than comparable non-IP firms after controlling for size, sector, geography, and temporal factors. The relationship proves particularly pronounced among small and medium enterprises, where IP-owning firms achieve 44% premiums—nearly three times the 16% premium observed among large companies.

These findings do not prove that intellectual property causes superior performance. Selection effects, reverse causality, and omitted variables preclude definitive causal claims from observational data. High-performing firms may invest in IP rather than IP creating high performance. Firms capable of generating patentable innovations, distinctive brands, or protectable designs already possess capabilities independently driving success. Management quality, innovation capacity, and strategic sophistication—difficult to measure but clearly important—influence both IPR decisions and financial outcomes.

Nevertheless, the consistency of relationships across 119,000 companies, multiple model specifications, diverse IPR types, and alignment with economic theory suggests that intellectual property plays a material role in modern competitive dynamics. Whether IPRs cause performance advantages, signal underlying firm quality, or correlate with unmeasured capabilities, the systematic patterns documented here demonstrate that IP-owning European firms constitute a measurably higher-performing segment across revenue productivity, employment scale, and compensation quality.

The adoption paradox—fewer than one in ten SMEs own IPRs despite 44% performance premiums—represents both a challenge and an opportunity for European competitiveness. Barriers preventing adoption limit potential gains. Policies reducing costs, simplifying procedures, and improving awareness could enable broader SME engagement with intellectual property systems. Yet interventions must recognize that IPRs deliver value primarily to firms with genuine innovations, distinctive brands, or protectable designs. Indiscriminate expansion of IP ownership among firms lacking protectable assets would waste resources without capturing the performance advantages observed among current IP owners.

For business leaders, these findings position intellectual property as a strategic consideration meriting attention alongside traditional competitive factors. Trademarks, patents, and designs represent not merely legal protections but correlate with membership in Europe's higher-performing enterprise segment. Whether pursuing trademark-focused strategies offering 47% SME premiums, patent-design combinations delivering 38% large-firm advantages, or comprehensive portfolios achieving 51% SME returns, intellectual property strategy deserves integration into broader competitive positioning.

The dataset assembled for this study—integrating Signa's trademark intelligence platform with European patent data, design registrations, and firm financial metrics—provides analytical infrastructure for ongoing research into intellectual property's economic role. As European competition increasingly centers on knowledge-based differentiation rather than traditional factors of production, understanding relationships between intangible assets and business performance grows more critical. This analysis contributes to that understanding by documenting systematic patterns across the continent's most comprehensive firm-level IPR performance dataset to date.

Intellectual property rights in Europe correlate with superior firm performance. The magnitude proves substantial, the statistical significance robust, and the patterns consistent across multiple analytical dimensions. While causality remains ambiguous in observational data, the weight of evidence suggests that IPRs matter for European competitiveness—particularly among small and medium enterprises where adoption remains low despite the strongest performance correlations. Realizing this potential represents a significant opportunity for European innovation policy and business strategy in knowledge-intensive global competition.

---

This analysis draws on Signa's global trademark intelligence platform comprising 147 million records across 200+ jurisdictions, integrated with European Patent Office data, EUIPO registers, and ORBIS firm financial metrics. The research examines 119,045 firms across 27 EU Member States from 2013-2022.