本文研究2004~2021年台灣電子零組件製造業(代碼26)廠商專利數目對公司市場價值的影響，將專利數目與研發費用以總專利密度存量與研發密度存量做為衡量廠商創新能力之變數，並加入國外專利比率比較國內、外專利的表現，其中專利範圍為我國智財局與台灣廠商申請國外專利前五大國。另外本研究以Hall(1993)的市場價值方程式作為基礎，透過工具變數估計並藉由兩階段最小平方法進行分析，針對不同落後期及廠商特徵如研發費用、研發強度、不動產廠房設備、營業收入，依其高低分群，估計總專利密度存量對公司市場價值的影響，並加入國外專利比率探討國內、外專利之間的表現差異。

本文發現總專利密度存量對電子零組件製造業廠商的市場價值有顯著的正向影響，且隨著落後期數增加，總專利密度存量的影響有先遞增後遞減的趨勢，國外專利比率則有正向顯著的影響，顯示國外專利較國內專利的表現佳；而控制外資股權占比後，總專利密度存量有更為突出的影響，國外專利比率則轉為正向不顯著。此外針對廠商特徵如研發密度存量、研發強度、不動產廠房、營業收入等變數，依其高低進行分群，發現廠商具有高研發密度存量、高研發強度、高不動產廠房以及低營業收入等特徵，總專利密度存量有顯著的正向影響，並發現研發強度、不動產廠房的廠商特徵其國外專利比率有顯著的效果，高研發強度、高不動產廠房的廠商其國外專利較國內專利表現佳，與低研發強度、低不動產廠房的廠商其國內專利較國外專利表現佳的結果相反。

In this paper, we study the impact of the number of patents on the market value of Taiwan's electronic component manufacturing industry (Code 26) from 2004 to 2021, and the number of patents and R&D expenditures are used to measure the innovative capacity of manufacturers by using the stock of total patent density and the stock of R&D density, and the ratio of foreign patents is included to compare the performance of domestic and foreign patents, in which the scope of patents is the number of patents filed by Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and the top five countries in which Taiwan manufacturers have applied for foreign patents. In addition, this study uses Hall's (1993) market value equation as the basis to analyze the impact of the stock of total patent density on the market value of a company through Instrumental Variable(IV) estimation and the Two-stage Least Square Method(2SLS), focusing on the different lag periods and company characteristics, such as R&D expenses, R&D intensity, Real Estate equipment, and revenues, while including the ratio of foreign patents to explore the differences in the performance between domestic and foreign patents.

This paper finds that the stock of total patent density has a significant positive impact on the market value of electronic component manufacturers, and with the increase of backward period, the impact of the stock of total patent density has a tendency of increasing and then decreasing, while the ratio of foreign patents has a positive and significant impact, emphasizing that foreign patents perform better than domestic patents; after controlling for the proportion of foreign equity, the stock of total patent density has a more prominent impact, and the ratio of foreign patents turns to be positively insignificant. After controlling for the proportion of foreign ownership, the total patent density stock has a more prominent effect, while the proportion of foreign patents turns to be positive but not significant. Furthermore, the subgrouping of manufacturers' characteristics such as R&D density stock, R&D intensity, real estate, operating income, etc. reveals that manufacturers with high R&D intensity stock, high R&D intensity, high Real Estate Equipment, and low revenue have significant positive effects on the stock of total patent density, and that manufacturers with R&D intensity and Real Estate Equipment have significant effects on the ratio of foreign patents, while those with high R&D intensity and high Real Estate Equipment have significant effects on the ratio of foreign patents, and the ratio of foreign patents for those with high R&D intensity and high Real Estate Equipment have significant effects on the ratio of foreign patents. Also, manufacturers with high R&D intensity and high real estate plants have a significant effect on the ratio of foreign patents, while those with low R&D intensity and low real estate have a better performance in terms of domestic patents than foreign patents.

Bloom, N., & Reenen, J. V. (2002). Patents, Real Options and Firm Performance. The Economic Journal, pp. C97-C116.

Bosworth, D., & Rogers, M. (2001). Market Value, R&D and Intellectual Property: An Empirical Analysis of Large Australian Firms. Economic Record, pp. 323-337.

Chauvin, K. W., & Hirschey, M. (1993). Advertising, R&D Expenditures and the Market Value of the Firm. Financial Management, Vol. 22(No. 4), pp. 128-140.

Chauvin, K. W., & Hirschey, M. (1994). Goodwill, Profitability, and the Market Value of the Firm. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, pp. 159-180.

Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A Simple Approximation of Tobin's q. Financial Management, Vol. 23(No. 3), page 70-74.

Connolly, A. R., Hirsch, B. T., & Mark, H. (1986). Union Rent Seeking, Intangible Capital, and Market Value of the Firm. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68(No. 4), pp. 567-577.

Connolly, R. A., & Hirschey, M. (1984). R & D, Market Structure and Profits: A Value-Based Approach. The MIT Press, pp. 682-686.

Corrado, C. A., Hulten, C. R., & Sichel, D. E. (2009). Intangible Capital and U.S. Economic Growth. Review of Income and Wealth, pp. 661-685.

Entezarkheir, M. (2017). Patent thickets, defensive patenting, and induced R&D:an empirical analysis of the costs and potential benefits of fragmentation in patent ownership. Empir Econ, 599–634.

Ernst, H. (1995). Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to company performance. Technovation, pp. 225-240.

Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, pp. 279-308.

Greenhalgh, C., & Rogers, M. (2012). Trade Marks and Performance in Services and Manufacturing Firms: Evidence of Schumpeterian Competition through Innovation. Australian Economic Review, p. 50-76.

Grilliches, Z. (1981). Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics letters, Vol.7 (2), p.183-187.

Grilliches, Z. (1990). Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 1661-1707.

Hall, B. H. (1993). The Stock Market's Valuation of R&D Investment During the 1980's. The American Economic Review, pp. 259-264.

Hall, B. H. (1998). Innovation and Market Value. NBER, working paper 6984.

Hall, B. H., Grilliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag? International Economic Review, pp. 265-283.

Megna, P., & Klock, M. (1993). The Impact of Intangible Capital on Tobin's q in the Semiconductor Industry. The American Economic Review, pp. 265-269.

Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research policy, p.143-155.

Noel, M., & Schankerman, M. (2013). STRATEGIC PATENTING AND SOFTWARE INNOVATION. The Journal of Industrial Economics, pp. 481-520.

Pakes, A. (1985). On Patents, R & D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return. Journal of Political Economy, pp. 390-409.

Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, p. 377-381.

Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2009). The Market Value of R&D, Patents and Trademarks. Research Policy, pp. 969-985.

Toivanen, O., Stoneman, P., & Bosworth, D. (2002). Innovation and the Market Value of UK Firms, 1989-1995. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, p. 39-61.

Zhou, H., Sandner, P. G., Martinelli, S. L., & Block, J. H. (2016). Patents, trademarks, and their complementarity in venture capital funding. Technovation, p. 14-22.

楊志海, & 陳忠榮. (2001). 研究發展、技術引進與專利－一般動差法於可數追蹤資料. 經濟論文叢刊, pp. 69-87.

楊志海, & 陳忠榮. (2002). 研究發展，專利與生產力－台灣製造業的實證研究. 經濟論文叢刊, pp. 27-48.