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

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

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

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

5. 3D Printing is the next disruptive technology in manufacturing
What is the market potential for 3D Printing?
Which metros are leading in 3D Printing IP activity?
Which markets are translating IP into economic activity as measured by start-ups?

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

7. 3D Printing Market is Big and Getting Bigger….
3D printing will expand globally at a 27% compound annual growth rate through 2019
The industry generated approximately $11 billion in 2015
This number will balloon to $26.7 billion by 2019
It is expected that the West European, Asian and United States markets will primarily drive the growth
Data source: International Data Corporation (IDC)

8. U.S. Leads in 3D Printing Startups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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