IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v40y2011i7p986-1000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structural modeling of the value of patent

Author

Listed:
  • Suzuki, Jun

Abstract

There is a considerable volume of prior research on the relationship between innovation and patents. Those research studies reveal that patents contain a great deal of noise, and unless a correction is made in terms of the value of individual patents, a simple count of the number of patents does not constitute a very useful indicator. From research that has been conducted for the purpose of finding such an indicator to show the value of individual patents (that is, research to identify the characteristics of valuable patents), many kinds of value indicators have been proposed. Nevertheless, research hitherto has focused primarily on business or private value derived from the possession of patents, and little attention has been paid to value in terms of technical knowledge or social value. In a survey of inventors conducted by RIETI in 2007, terminology describing broad concepts was used when questioning inventors about the value of individual patents, and this has provided an excellent opportunity to analyze the multiple factors lying behind the value of patents and how they impact one another. The purpose of this research is to use data from the RIETI survey of inventors and structural equation modeling methods to elucidate the relationships between the technological and business value of patents, and the latent factors that influence them. The findings show that a scientific-technological motive for inventors would have a positive effect on both the business and technological value, meanwhile, the monetary or promotion motive would not have any direct effects on the value of a patent. The model also suggests that academic linkage would have a strong positive effect on the technological value but a weak negative effect on the business value. Furthermore, these relationships differ more markedly according to technological field.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzuki, Jun, 2011. "Structural modeling of the value of patent," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 986-1000, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:7:p:986-1000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000710
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    2. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    4. Don E Kash & William Kingston, 2001. "Patents in a world of complex technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 11-22, February.
    5. Schankerman, Mark & Pakes, Ariel, 1986. "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries during the Post-1950 Period," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(384), pages 1052-1076, December.
    6. 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.
    7. NAGAOKA Sadao & John P. WALSH, 2009. "The R&D Process in the U.S. and Japan: Major findings from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey," Discussion papers 09010, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    9. Guellec, Dominique & Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno v., 2000. "Applications, grants and the value of patent," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 109-114, October.
    10. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam & Brusoni, Stefano & Crespi, Gustavo & Francoz, Dominique & Gambardella, Alfonso & Garcia-Fontes, Walter & Geuna, Aldo & Gonzales, Raul & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1107-1127, October.
    12. Karl Jöreskog, 1978. "Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 43(4), pages 443-477, December.
    13. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    14. Schumpeter Tamada & Yusuke Naito & Fumio Kodama & Kiminori Gemba & Jun Suzuki, 2006. "Significant difference of dependence upon scientific knowledge among different technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(2), pages 289-302, August.
    15. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    17. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    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. Alessandra Scandura, 2013. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," ERSA conference papers ersa13p128, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Lin, Jia & Wu, Ho-Mou & Wu, Howei, 2021. "Could government lead the way? Evaluation of China's patent subsidy policy on patent quality," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Xu, Guannan & Wu, Yuchen & Minshall, Tim & Zhou, Yuan, 2018. "Exploring innovation ecosystems across science, technology, and business: A case of 3D printing in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 208-221.
    4. Achim Walter & Nicole Coviello & Monika Sienknecht & Thomas Ritter, 2024. "Leveraging the Lab: How Pre-Founding R&D Collaboration Influences the Internationalization Timing of Academic Spin-Offs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 48(1), pages 71-103, January.
    5. Su, Hsin-Ning, 2017. "Collaborative and Legal Dynamics of International R&D- Evolving Patterns in East Asia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 217-227.
    6. Liu, Li-jun & Cao, Cong & Song, Min, 2014. "China's agricultural patents: How has their value changed amid recent patent boom?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 106-121.
    7. Lee, Pei-Chun & Su, Hsin-Ning, 2014. "How to forecast cross-border patent infringement? — The case of U.S. international trade," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 125-131.
    8. Alessandra Scandura, 2019. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1029-1069, August.
    9. Sercan Ozcan & Nazrul Islam, 2017. "Patent information retrieval: approaching a method and analysing nanotechnology patent collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 941-970, May.
    10. Ribeiro, Barbara & Shapira, Philip, 2020. "Private and public values of innovation: A patent analysis of synthetic biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    11. Felix Poege & Dietmar Harhoff & Fabian Gaessler & Stefano Baruffaldi, 2019. "Science Quality and the Value of Inventions," Papers 1903.05020, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    12. Cappelli, Riccardo & Corsino, Marco & Laursen, Keld & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2023. "Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    13. Hsin-Ning Su & Carey Ming-Li Chen & Pei-Chun Lee, 2012. "Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 181-195, July.
    14. 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).
    15. Yunwei Li & Wenjing Long & Xiao Ning & Yumeng Zhu & Yifan Guo & Zhou Huang & Yu Hao, 2022. "How can China's sustainable development be damaged in consequence of financial misallocation? Analysis from the perspective of regional innovation capability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3649-3668, November.

    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. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    2. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.
    3. 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.
    4. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Daniele Rotolo & Vito Albino, 2014. "Determinants of Patent Citations in Biotechnology: An Analysis of Patent Influence Across the Industrial and Organizational Boundaries," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-05, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Wagner, Stefan & Wakeman, Simon, 2016. "What do patent-based measures tell us about product commercialization? Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1091-1102.
    6. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    9. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    10. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    11. Novelli, Elena, 2015. "An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 493-507.
    12. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    13. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Yann Ménière & Myra Mohnen, 2017. "International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 793-828, May.
    14. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1105-1106, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Hsin-Ning Su & Carey Ming-Li Chen & Pei-Chun Lee, 2012. "Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 181-195, July.
    17. Chang, Ke-Chiun & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2012. "The relationships between the patent performance and corporation performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 131-139.
    18. Liu, Li-jun & Cao, Cong & Song, Min, 2014. "China's agricultural patents: How has their value changed amid recent patent boom?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 106-121.
    19. 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.
    20. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).

    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:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:7:p:986-1000. 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/respol .

    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.