IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v46y2016icp10-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the trajectory of a standard for patent classification: An institutional account of a technical cooperation between EPO and USPTO

Author

Listed:
  • Cavalheiro, Gabriel Marcuzzo do Canto
  • Joia, Luiz Antonio
  • Van Veenstra, Anne Fleur

Abstract

This paper explores the dynamics of standardization practices associated with patent classification and discusses the technical, legal and policy implications of standard-setting for patent classification. Therefore, this paper aims to fill a gap in the literature on knowledge management, based on an analysis of the development and implementation of Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC). This paper examines the processes of developing a standard for classifying patent applications from the perspective of Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Our findings reveal that standardization in the context of patent classification is primarily shaped by the interaction involving patent offices that belong to the IP5 group. Furthermore, we found evidence that the CPC standard can be regarded as a response to the demands posed by innovative firms requiring accurate patent classification to provide secure protection for their new technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Cavalheiro, Gabriel Marcuzzo do Canto & Joia, Luiz Antonio & Van Veenstra, Anne Fleur, 2016. "Examining the trajectory of a standard for patent classification: An institutional account of a technical cooperation between EPO and USPTO," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 10-17.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:46:y:2016:i:c:p:10-17
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X16300471
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.04.004?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. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Jack J. Baroudi, 1991. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Olivier Boiral, 2003. "ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 720-737, December.
    3. Kani, Masayo & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2012. "Understanding the technology market for patents: New insights from a licensing survey of Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 226-235.
    4. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    5. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    6. Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Muramatsu, Shingo, 2012. "Examining the university industry collaboration policy in Japan: Patent analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 149-162.
    7. Blind, Knut & Cremers, Katrin & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 428-436, March.
    8. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    9. Pierre M. Picard & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Patent Office Governance and Patent System Quality," DEM Discussion Paper Series 11-06, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    10. Funk, Jeffrey L. & Methe, David T., 2001. "Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: the case of mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 589-610, April.
    11. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    12. Schilling, Melissa, 1999. "Winning the standards race: : Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 265-274, June.
    13. Drahos, Peter & Maher, Imelda, 2004. "Innovation, competition, standards and intellectual property: policy perspectives from economics and law," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, March.
    14. Hemphill, Thomas A., 2005. "Technology standards development, patent ambush, and US antitrust policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 55-67.
    15. Godinho, Manuel Mira & Ferreira, Vítor, 2012. "Analyzing the evidence of an IPR take-off in China and India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 499-511.
    16. Lubango, Louis Mitondo & Pouris, Anastassios, 2010. "Is patenting of technical inventions in university sectors impeding the flow of scientific knowledge to the public? a case study of South Africa," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 241-248.
    17. Wright, Christopher & Sturdy, Andrew & Wylie, Nick, 2012. "Management innovation through standardization: Consultants as standardizers of organizational practice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 652-662.
    18. Matutes, Carmen & Regibeau, Pierre, 1996. "A selective review of the economics of standardization. Entry deterrence, technological progress and international competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 183-209, September.
    19. Scherer, F M, 1972. "Nordhaus' Theory of Optimal Patent Life: A Geometric Reinterpretation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 422-427, June.
    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. Willoughby, Kelvin W. & Mullina, Nadezhda, 2021. "Reverse innovation, international patenting and economic inertia: Constraints to appropriating the benefits of technological innovation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Catalán, Pablo & Navarrete, Carlos & Figueroa, Felipe, 2022. "The scientific and technological cross-space: Is technological diversification driven by scientific endogenous capacity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    3. Jie Liu, 2024. "“Divergent” cross-domain stretching for technology fusion: validating the knowledge partition search model using patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3023-3043, June.

    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. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    2. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    3. Xie, Zongjie & Hall, Jeremy & McCarthy, Ian P. & Skitmore, Martin & Shen, Liyin, 2016. "Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 69-78.
    4. Jussi Heikkilä & Timo Ali-Vehmas & Julius Rissanen, 2021. "The Link Between Standardization and Economic Growth: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Lichtensteiger, Bill & Markard, Jochen, 2015. "Smart meter communication standards in Europe – a comparison," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1249-1262.
    6. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    7. Foucart, Renaud & Li, Qian Cher, 2021. "The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    8. Johansson, Magnus & Kärreman, Matts & Foukaki, Amalia, 2019. "Research and development resources, coopetitive performance and cooperation: The case of standardization in 3GPP, 2004–2013," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Markard, Jochen & Erlinghagen, Sabine, 2017. "Technology users and standardization: Game changing strategies in the field of smart meter technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-235.
    10. Lee, Won Sang & Sohn, So Young, 2018. "Effects of standardization on the evolution of information and communications technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 308-317.
    11. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    12. Nizar Abdelkafi & Sergiy Makhotin & Marina Thuns & Anna Pohle & Knut Blind, 2016. "To Standardise Or To Patent? Development Of A Decision Making Tool And Recommendations For Young Companies," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(08), pages 1-30, December.
    13. Dinçkol, Dize & Ozcan, Pinar & Zachariadis, Markos, 2023. "Regulatory standards and consequences for industry architecture: The case of UK Open Banking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    14. Dong Geun Choi & Heesang Lee & Tae-kyung Sung, 2011. "Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 259-278, July.
    15. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    16. Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Ruben Tessmann & Ralf Elbert, 2022. "A multilevel, multi-mode framework for standardization in digital B2B platform eco-systems in international cargo transportation—A multiple case study," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1843-1875, December.
    18. Peterman, Andrew & Kourula, Arno & Levitt, Raymond, 2014. "Balancing act: Government roles in an energy conservation network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1067-1082.
    19. Justus Baron & Jorge Contreras & Martin Husovec & Pierre Larouche, 2019. "Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights," JRC Research Reports JRC115004, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.

    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:teinso:v:46:y:2016:i:c:p:10-17. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.