IPC NACE2 Concordance "not with ipc"

Here you can post your opinions, ask questions and share experiences on the PATSTAT product line. Please always indicate the PATSTAT edition (e.g. 2015 Autumn Edition) and the database (e.g. PATSTAT Online, MySQL, MS SQL Server, ...) you are using.
Post Reply

Florian Seliger
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:32 pm

IPC NACE2 Concordance "not with ipc"

Post by Florian Seliger » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:46 am

Dear PATSTAT users and experts,

I am trying to query the industries for each application id, i.e. tls209_appln_ipc with tls902_ipc_nace2 joined on ipc%.
I know that there is a table tls_appln_nace2 where this is already done, but I want to know how to include the "not_with_ipc", "unless_with_ipc" columns in the basic query to assign the industries to applications. I have no idea how to do that.

I also would like to know how to calculate the weights in my query including these additional constraints ("not_with_ipc" ...).

I am asking because I uploaded a further table from OECD where I have an additional column "only together_with_ipc". With this constraint, I do not know how to write the query in order to take all columns into account when joining with applications (I also join on ipc%).
I also would like to calculate weights taking account this additional constraint.

Any help is appreciated.

Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:17 am
Location: Vienna

Re: IPC NACE2 Concordance "not with ipc"

Post by mkracker » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:58 am

Dear Florian,

I do not know the table from OECD you mentioned. But I can give some information on the data used in PATSTAT.

Table TLS902_IPC_NACE2 contains a mapping / concordance between IPC symbols and NACE2 (= NACE revision2) codes, which is the result of a work of Eurostat in co-operation with KU Leuven and others. I reformatted and structured in columns the mapping data is such a way that it was most easy for me to apply this mapping when computing table TLS230_APPLN_NACE2, which assigns NACE2 industries to patent applications. I applied the logic as described in Eurostat's paper from Oct 2014(!) https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/d1475596 ... 2_2014.pdf (cf. especially the explanations of section 4).

Admittedly, for some IPCs the logic is not easy to follow, because you have to apply exceptions and exceptions of exceptions. So read the paper carefully. If you need to see the SQL code we used for implementation, then contact me via the PATSTAT helpdesk patstat@epo.org

The paper from Oct 2014 mentioned above actually is considered as version 1 of the IPC-NACE revision 2 concordance. Recently there already has been an update of the mapping (version 2 from 2015-06-30), but it's not on the Internet yet. The update contains some simplification of the mapping and includes some newer IPC symbols. PATSTAT 2016 Spring edition will apply this updated version.

Best regards,
Martin Kracker / EPO

Post Reply