The commercial aircraft industry provides a fascinating case study in how large, complex technology companies develop their intellectual property (IP) strategies over time. A recent paper by Punyapat Saksupapchon and Kelvin W. Willoughby examines the patent filing behaviors of industry leaders Airbus and Boeing over a 20-year period to uncover patterns in how their IP management capabilities evolved this is a summary of their paper:

Saksupapchon, P., Willoughby K.W.; Intellectual Property management, dynamic capabilities and competitive innovation in the commercial aircraft industry; Int. J. Intellectual Property Management 11/3 (2021) 236-262

Key Findings

The researchers propose a three-phase model for how patent application strategies typically develop in technology-intensive industries:

  1. Passive strategy (early phase): Limited patent filings, mostly domestic
  2. Aggressive strategy (growth phase): High volume of filings across many jurisdictions
  3. Sophisticated strategy (maturity phase): Strategic, targeted filings optimized for cost and value

Analysis of patent data from 1998-2017 showed that both Airbus and Boeing broadly followed this pattern, but with some key differences:

Airbus’ Patent Strategy Evolution

  • Passive Phase (1998-2002)
    • Filed only about 100 patent-family applications per year
    • Slight growth visible during this period
    • Over 90% of first patent applications filed in main European production locations (France, Germany, UK, Spain)
  • Aggressive Phase (2002-2008)
    • Exponential growth in annual patent-family applications
    • Reached nearly 800 patent-family applications by 2008
    • Increased focus on filing in the US market
    • Shifted European filings from individual countries to centralized European Patent Office
    • Expanded filings in emerging markets like China and India
  • Sophisticated Phase (2008 onwards)
    • Gradual reduction in annual volume of patent-family applications
    • Relatively stable filing volume from 2012 to 2016
    • More decisive downward turn in 2017
    • Increased emphasis on strategic value and cost-effectiveness of patents
    • Further internationalization, with continued focus on US, China, and key emerging markets
    • Optimized filing strategy based on technological priorities and geographical business activities

This evolution demonstrates Airbus’ development of IP management as a dynamic capability, progressing from basic domestic patenting to sophisticated international portfolio management aligned with its broader business strategy.

Boeing’s Patent Strategy Evolution 

  • Early Phase (1998-2000)
    • Already had significant patent activity, filing about 200 patent-family applications per year
    • Over 95% of first patent applications filed domestically in the USA
    • Showed some observable growth during this period
  • Aggressive Phase I (2000-2003)
    • Exponential growth in annual patent-family applications
    • Reached nearly 700 patent-family applications by 2003
    • Increased focus on international filings, particularly in Europe
  • Transition Phase (2003-2008)
    • Relatively stable annual volume of patent-family filings for about half a decade
    • Exhibited a stark downward turn in 2008, suggesting a shift towards a more sophisticated approach
    • Likely aimed at optimizing patent-related costs
  • Aggressive Phase II (2009-2014)
    • Sudden return to an aggressive patent filing strategy
    • Annual volume of patent-family applications rose to almost 1,100
    • Likely a response to Airbus’ increased patenting activity
    • Shifted focus from Europe to emerging markets like China, South Korea, Brazil, and Russia
  • Recent Phase (2015 onwards)
    • Leveling off at a relatively stable level of over 1,000 patent-family applications per year
    • Showing signs of a more targeted strategy:
    • Increased emphasis on strategic value and cost-effectiveness of patents
    • Further internationalization, with continued focus on emerging markets
    • Optimized filing strategy based on technological priorities and geographical business activities

This evolution demonstrates Boeing’s development of IP management as a dynamic capability, progressing from basic domestic patenting to sophisticated international portfolio management aligned with its broader business strategy and competitive landscape.

Geographical Trends

The study also examined how the companies’ international patent filing strategies changed over time:

  • Airbus
    • Increased focus on filing in the US market over time
    • Shifted European filings from individual countries to the centralized European Patent Office
    • Expanded filings in emerging markets like China and India
  • Boeing
    • Maintained very high proportion of domestic US filings throughout
    • Reduced proportional emphasis on European filings over time
    • Increased filings in markets like Canada, Japan, China, South Korea, Brazil and Russia

Insights on IP Management as a Dynamic Capability

The researchers argue that a company’s ability to strategically manage its intellectual property should be viewed as an important dynamic capability – a higher-order organizational skill that allows firms to adapt and thrive in changing business environments.

The evolution of patent strategies at Airbus and Boeing demonstrates how IP management capabilities develop over time:

  • Companies start with basic, domestically-focused patenting
  • They then build capabilities to file and manage large international patent portfolios
  • Mature IP management involves sophisticated analysis to optimize patent filings for strategic value and cost-effectiveness

Importantly, the study shows that the development of IP capabilities is not always linear. External competitive factors can cause companies to shift strategies, as seen with Boeing’s reversion to an aggressive approach in response to Airbus.

Industry Context and Competitive Dynamics

The unique dynamics of the commercial aircraft industry likely influenced the patent strategies of both companies:

  • The industry is essentially a duopoly, with Airbus and Boeing as the dominant players
  • Aircraft development involves extremely complex, high-value technologies
  • The industry is global in nature, requiring IP protection across many jurisdictions

These factors help explain the eventual move towards more sophisticated, internationally-focused patent strategies by both firms. The competitive nature of the duopoly also appears to have spurred periods of aggressive patent filing as each company sought to establish technological leadership.

Implications for IP Management Theory and Practice

This research offers several valuable insights for both scholars and practitioners of IP management:

IP strategy evolves over time

Companies’ IP strategies typically progress through distinct phases as they mature, from passive to aggressive to sophisticated approaches. Organizations should develop dynamic IP management capabilities that can adapt to changing business needs and competitive landscapes over time.

Competition shapes strategy

The study of Airbus and Boeing demonstrates how rivals’ IP activities can significantly influence a company’s patent strategy. Firms may need to adjust their IP approaches in response to competitive moves, even if it means deviating from a theoretically optimal strategy.

Geography matters

The research reveals how both Airbus and Boeing adapted their international patent filing strategies to align with their evolving global business operations. Companies should carefully consider their key markets, manufacturing locations, and regional competitive dynamics when developing their international IP strategies.

Quality over quantity

As companies reach the sophisticated phase of IP management, the focus shifts from maximizing patent counts to building strategically valuable portfolios. This transition requires developing advanced IP analytics capabilities and aligning patent strategy more closely with overall business objectives.

Industry context is key

The commercial aircraft industry’s duopolistic structure and complex, high-value technologies significantly shaped the IP strategies of Airbus and Boeing. Companies in different industries may need to tailor their IP approaches based on their specific competitive landscape and technological characteristics.

Conclusion

The evolution of patent strategies at Airbus and Boeing offers a compelling illustration of how large technology companies develop their IP management capabilities over time. While both broadly followed the proposed three-phase model, their individual paths were shaped by their unique histories, competitive positions, and strategic priorities.

This case study demonstrates that effective IP management is not simply about maximizing patent counts or geographical coverage. Rather, it requires building sophisticated organizational capabilities to analyze technologies, markets, and competitive dynamics in order to make strategic decisions about when, where, and what to patent.

As industries become increasingly global and technology-driven, the ability to strategically manage intellectual property will likely become an even more critical source of competitive advantage. Companies across sectors can learn from the experiences of Airbus and Boeing as they work to develop their own IP management capabilities.

Future research could explore how these patterns of IP strategy evolution apply in other industries or for smaller, emerging technology companies. Additionally, examining how other forms of IP beyond patents (e.g. trademarks, trade secrets) fit into firms’ overall IP strategies could provide valuable insights.

Ultimately, this study reinforces the idea that intellectual property management should be viewed as a core strategic capability for technology-intensive firms. By understanding how these capabilities typically evolve, companies can more effectively develop and leverage their IP to drive innovation and competitive advantage in the global marketplace.