IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v15y2021i2s1751157721000092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridge strongly or focus – An analysis of bridging patents in four application fields of carbon fiber reinforcements

Author

Listed:
  • Moehrle, Martin G.
  • Frischkorn, Jonas

Abstract

The major purpose of patents is to protect technical inventions. As a rule of thumb, an inventor (and the patent attorney) should aim to achieve the broadest possible scope of protection for the invention. Our basic research question is, whether this rule proves helpful under all circumstances. We aim to answer this question by means of an informetric approach, focusing on bridging patents between several application fields of a technology. Prior work has identified patents that build bridges between two or more application fields of a technology. So far, these bridging patents have only marginally been analyzed to obtain an idea of how the “bridging” intensity is achieved. One purpose of our paper is to fill this gap and characterize patents of this kind by means of an approach based on text mining, claim analysis, and forward citation analysis. We select the case of carbon fiber reinforced plastics as an example, focusing on four application fields for which we develop a basic patent set. We identify in this patent set semantic anchor points, and - subsequently - bridging patents of different intensity. We expand our patent set by accepting a slightly lower precision level, which leads to a considerably higher recall value. We find that bridging patents comprise a greater number as well as a higher complexity of claims than non-bridging patents. Interestingly, the relationship between the intensity of bridging as an independent variable and forward citations as a dependent variable is described by a u-shaped curve. This answers the basic research question in the way that when writing a patent application, inventors should bridge strongly or focus.

Suggested Citation

  • Moehrle, Martin G. & Frischkorn, Jonas, 2021. "Bridge strongly or focus – An analysis of bridging patents in four application fields of carbon fiber reinforcements," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:2:s1751157721000092
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157721000092
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101138?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus Reitzig & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 765-789, July.
    2. Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich & Van Looy, Baart & Walsh, J. P. & Devroede, R. & Du Plessis, M. & Jung, T. & Meng, Y. & Neuhäusler, Peter & Peeters, B. & Schubert, T., 2010. "The value and indicator function of patents," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 15-2010, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    3. Adams, Jonathan, 2018. "Information and misinformation in bibliometric time-trend analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1063-1071.
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    5. An, Jaehyeong & Kim, Kyuwoong & Mortara, Letizia & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "Deriving technology intelligence from patents: Preposition-based semantic analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 217-236.
    6. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    7. Ellen Enkel & Annika Groemminger & Sebastian Heil, 2018. "Managing technological distance in internal and external collaborations: absorptive capacity routines and social integration for innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1257-1290, October.
    8. Eilers, Kathi & Frischkorn, Jonas & Eppinger, Elisabeth & Walter, Lothar & Moehrle, Martin G., 2019. "Patent-based semantic measurement of one-way and two-way technology convergence: The case of ultraviolet light emitting diodes (UV-LEDs)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 341-353.
    9. Martin G. Moehrle & Jan M. Gerken, 2012. "Measuring textual patent similarity on the basis of combined concepts: design decisions and their consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 805-826, June.
    10. Di Lorenzo, Francesco & Almeida, Paul, 2017. "The role of relative performance in inter-firm mobility of inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1162-1174.
    11. Blind, Knut & Pohlisch, Jakob & Zi, Aikaterini, 2018. "Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1185-1197.
    12. Ove Granstrand, 1999. "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1651.
    13. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon, 2014. "Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: the case of Korean national R&D," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 853-890, February.
    14. Lothar Walter & Alfred Radauer & Martin G. Moehrle, 2017. "The beauty of brimstone butterfly: novelty of patents identified by near environment analysis based on text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 103-115, April.
    15. Martin G. Moehrle, 2010. "Measures for textual patent similarities: a guided way to select appropriate approaches," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 95-109, October.
    16. Zhang, Yi & Shang, Lining & Huang, Lu & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Guangquan & Lu, Jie & Zhu, Donghua, 2016. "A hybrid similarity measure method for patent portfolio analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1108-1130.
    17. Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2012. "Detecting signals of new technological opportunities using semantic patent analysis and outlier detection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 445-461, February.
    18. Julie Callaert & Bart Van Looy & Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Bart Thijs, 2006. "Traces of Prior Art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 3-20, October.
    19. El Gibari, Samira & Gómez, Trinidad & Ruiz, Francisco, 2018. "Evaluating university performance using reference point based composite indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1235-1250.
    20. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    21. Torrisi, Salvatore & Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Mariani, Myriam, 2016. "Used, blocking and sleeping patents: Empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1374-1385.
    22. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.
    23. Fischer, Timo & Leidinger, Jan, 2014. "Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 519-529.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choi, Jaewoong & Yoon, Janghyeok, 2022. "Measuring knowledge exploration distance at the patent level: Application of network embedding and citation analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Hu, Zewen & Zhou, Xiji & Lin, Angela, 2023. "Evaluation and identification of potential high-value patents in the field of integrated circuits using a multidimensional patent indicators pre-screening strategy and machine learning approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eun Han & So Sohn, 2015. "Patent valuation based on text mining and survival analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 821-839, October.
    2. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    3. Xuefeng Wang & Huichao Ren & Yun Chen & Yuqin Liu & Yali Qiao & Ying Huang, 2019. "Measuring patent similarity with SAO semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    5. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    6. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    8. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    9. An, Xin & Li, Jinghong & Xu, Shuo & Chen, Liang & Sun, Wei, 2021. "An improved patent similarity measurement based on entities and semantic relations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    10. Huang, Kenneth Guang-Lih & Huang, Can & Shen, Huijun & Mao, Hao, 2021. "Assessing the value of China's patented inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    12. Michael Rennings & Philipp Baaden & Carolin Block & Marcus John & Stefanie Bröring, 2024. "Assessing emerging sustainability-oriented technologies: the case of precision agriculture," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 2969-2998, June.
    13. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    15. Asna Ashari, Parsa & Blind, Knut & Koch, Claudia, 2023. "Knowledge and technology transfer via publications, patents, standards: Exploring the hydrogen technological innovation system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    16. Cédric Gossart & Altay Özaygen & Müge Özman, 2020. "Are Litigated Patents More Valuable? The Case of LEDs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 825-844, September.
    17. Noh, Heeyong & Lee, Sungjoo, 2020. "What constitutes a promising technology in the era of open innovation? An investigation of patent potential from multiple perspectives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    18. Bo Kyeong Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1203-1227, September.
    19. Hu, Zewen & Zhou, Xiji & Lin, Angela, 2023. "Evaluation and identification of potential high-value patents in the field of integrated circuits using a multidimensional patent indicators pre-screening strategy and machine learning approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    20. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 883-909, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:2:s1751157721000092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.