Fourth Contribution. Immediately following the Third Contribution, on and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Mach Natural Resources Intermediate shall assign, sell, convey, deliver and transfer to Mach Natural Resources Holdco, and Mach Natural Resources Holdco shall assume, accept and purchase from Mach Natural Resources Intermediate, Mach Natural Resources Intermediate's entire right, title and interest in and to any and all Existing Mach Units held by Mach Natural Resources Intermediate and any and all income, distributions, value, rights, benefits and privileges associated therewith or deriving therefrom, free and clear of all Liens (other than restrictions arising from the governance documents of Mach I, Mach II or Mach III, as applicable or arising under federal or state securities laws) (the “Fourth Contribution” and, together with the First Contribution, Second Contribution and Third Contribution, the “Contributions”).
Fourth Contribution. (i) Immediately following the consummation of the transactions described in Section 2.5(f), Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxx shall contribute to Neenah as an additional contribution to capital without the issuance of additional shares or capital stock, all of Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxx’x right, title and interest in and to the Transferred Assets used primarily in the manufacturing of the Paper Products (the “Manufacturing Assets”).
Fourth Contribution. Innovation in clean energy technologies is central to achieving a net-zero energy system. Given the urgency of climate change mitigation, policymakers and managers of public research organizations are interested in how to best support innovation in clean energy technologies. One key determinant of technological innovation in clean energy technologies that have been underexplored is the transfer or integration of external knowledge, i.e., of knowledge spillovers. A major concern in this respect is the fragmentation of the EU innovation system). Similarly to the arguments supporting the creation of a single market, an integrated EU innovation system was promoted as a way for EU countries to benefit from their neighbours, on the assumption that more integrated research efforts would give rise to a virtuous circle, reducing the duplication of research efforts and allowing each country to learn and benefit from the knowledge of other members. Conversely, a disparate and fragmented research and development effort would translate into an “insufficient capacity to innovate, to launch new products and services, to market them rapidly on world markets and, finally, to react rapidly to changes in demand”. In the specific case of renewable energy technologies, several analyses demonstrate that the introduction of demand-pull measures provided incentives to RES innovation and deployment. However, fragmentation remains one of the most crucial concerns, potentially delaying, or even impeding, the achievement of the ambitious EU climate targets. For instance, in 2006 the EC called for the establishment of a EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan, recognizing past efforts in RES research and development, but claiming a still “scattered, fragmented and sub-critical” RES innovation space, which needed greater integration and coordination of Community and national research and innovation programs and budgets, under the aegis of agreed EU-level goals (EC, 2006). Thus, a less fragmented EU RES innovation system is believed to be instrumental to exploiting the federating role that the European Union can play in the field of energy and to meet the challenge of developing a world-class portfolio of affordable, competitive, efficient and low-carbon technologies while creating stable and predictable conditions for industry (EC, 2006). Along similar lines, in a later communication the European Commission argues that “the fragmentation, multiple non-aligned research strategies and sub-cr...
Fourth Contribution. This analysis explores on the intensity and direction of intangible knowledge flows over the years 1985–2010 using information on patent applications and citations at the European Patent Office (EPO). The focus is on the three main innovating regions of the world: the US, Japan and the EU15, which together account for roughly 87% of innovation in this field in our sample. In line with a rich literature on similar subjects, we follow the paper trail left by within-country and cross-country patent citations, using citation frequencies to explore the patterns of knowledge flows within the EU and between the EU and other top innovators. We modify the original double exponential knowledge diffusion model of Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx (1993) to provide information on the degree of integration of EU countries’ innovative efforts and to assess how citation patterns changed over time. The analysis show that indeed EU RES inventors have increasingly built “on the shoulders of the other EU giants”, intensifying their citations to other member countries and decreasing those to domestic inventors. We show that these effects are not driven by Germany, the EU top innovator, nor are they simply the result of increased collaboration in patenting or of an increase in patent quality. Furthermore, we find that the EU strengthened its position as source of RES knowledge for the US. The analysis also compare RES to other relevant technologies in order to gain evidence on whether the observed patterns are common to other technology fields, starting by considering fossil-based energy technologies and then comparing RES to a set of emerging technologies (3D, IT, Biotechnologies and Robot technologies) to assess if our results are specific to RES or common to booming technologies at an early stage of development. Results show that the pattern of knowledge flows and its evolution in time is peculiar to RES, with traditional (i.e. fossil-based) energy technologies and other new technologies behaving in a completely different way. These results support the claim that the EU reduced the fragmentation of the innovation space specifically in the field of RES over the sample period. This analysis thus presents suggestive, but convincing evidence that the reduction in fragmentation was brought about by the strong support of the EU to climate mitigation and renewable energy technology development vis-à-vis the laxer effort put forward by the US and Japan in this respect.
Fourth Contribution. This analysis investigated the fragmentation of the EU innovation system in the field of renewable energy sources (RES) by estimating the intensity and direction of knowledge spillovers over the years 1985–2010. The research relies on an empirical approach rooted in the original double exponential knowledge diffusion model proposed by Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx (1993) to provide information on the degree of integration of EU countries’ RES knowledge bases and to assess how citation patterns changed over time. Results show that EU RES inventors have increasingly built “on the shoulders of the other EU giants”, intensifying their citations to other member countries and decreasing those to domestic inventors. Furthermore, the EU strengthened its position as source of RES knowledge for the US. Finally, we show that this pattern is peculiar to RES, with other traditional (i.e. fossil-based) energy technologies and other radically new technologies behaving differently. These results provide suggestive, but convincing evidence that the reduction in fragmentation emerged as a result of the EU support for RES taking mainly the form of demand-pull policies.
