How much value do papers without new scientific information have, i.e. seminar papers such as overviews of or examples for current methods in CS? So I wrote a seminar paper in grad school (MSc) with examples on how companies use method x to improve their security. It includes zero original research, no new methods and it would never ever be published in a journal, because the substance is really not there.

It gives a theoretical background of the problems itself and then different current examples from 2 companies that I researched over the internet and a conclusion. Thus, not only academic sources but also other sources (companies) are used and it basically shows the application of academic concepts.

Other researchers could use this paper to potentially find ways on how to dig deeper and how to address some problems specifically, but I did not point something like that out myself.

My question:

Does this count as research and does it make sense to hand those kind of papers to PhD admission departments?
This is akin to a review article, in the sense that you're interpreting and reporting on existing work, rather than creating something new. There's nothing wrong with a review article, and many scientists do write them during their careers (but usually not before they've started a doctoral program!). 

That said, while I believe that it is not nearly as good as a "standard" research paper in establishing one's capabilities to do original research, it may have some merit. If the schools to which you are applying allow you to submit additional documentation, then you could consider sending it in, if you believe it is of sufficient quality.