IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v104y2015i2d10.1007_s11192-015-1626-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of patent family information in patent citation network analysis: a comparative case study in the drivetrain domain

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroko Nakamura

    (The University of Tokyo)

  • Shinji Suzuki

    (The University of Tokyo)

  • Yuya Kajikawa

    (Tokyo Institute of Technology)

  • Masataka Osawa

    (Toyota Central R&D Lab)

Abstract

Previous researchers of citation analysis often analyze patent data of a single authority because of the availability of the data and the simplicity of analysis. Patent analysis, on the other hand, is used not only for filing and litigation, but also for technology trend analysis. However, global technology trends cannot be understood only with the analysis of patent data issued by a single authority. In this paper, we propose the use of patents from multiple authorities and discuss the effect of bundling patent family information. We investigate the effect of patent families with cases from automobile drivetrain technology. Based on the results, we conclude that the use of multiple authorities’ patent data bundled with the patent family information can significantly improve the coverage and practicability of patent citation analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroko Nakamura & Shinji Suzuki & Yuya Kajikawa & Masataka Osawa, 2015. "The effect of patent family information in patent citation network analysis: a comparative case study in the drivetrain domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 437-452, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:104:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1626-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1626-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1626-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1626-2?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. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Duncan Kushnir & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1583-1599, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Hiroko Nakamura & Shinji Suzuki & Tomobe Hironori & Yuya Kajikawa & Ichiro Sakata, 2011. "Citation lag analysis in supply chain research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 221-232, May.
    5. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Fang Pei Su & Kuei Kuei Lai & R.R.K. Sharma & Tsung Hsien Kuo, 2009. "Patent priority network: Linking patent portfolio to strategic goals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(11), pages 2353-2361, November.
    7. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    8. Simmons, Edlyn S., 2009. ""Black sheep" in the patent family," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 11-18, March.
    9. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(10), pages 1582-1597, August.
    10. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, 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. Curci, Ylenia & Mongeau Ospina, Christian A., 2016. "Investigating biofuels through network analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 60-72.
    2. Jurriën Bakker & Dennis Verhoeven & Lin Zhang & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Patent citation indicators: One size fits all?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 187-211, January.
    3. Lai, Kuei-Kuei & Bhatt, Priyanka C. & Kumar, Vimal & Chen, Hsueh-Chen & Chang, Yu-Hsin & Su, Fang-Pei, 2021. "Identifying the impact of patent family on the patent trajectory: A case of thin film solar cells technological trajectories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    4. Zhao Qu & Shanshan Zhang & Chunbo Zhang, 2017. "Patent research in the field of library and information science: Less useful or difficult to explore?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 205-217, April.
    5. Yoon, Naeun & Sohn, So Young, 2024. "Assessment framework for automotive suppliers' technological adaptability in the electric vehicle era," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Jun Hong Park & Hyunseog Chung & Ki Hong Kim & Jin Ju Kim & Chulung Lee, 2021. "The Impact of Technological Capability on Financial Performance in the Semiconductor Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    7. Zhenfu Li & Yixuan Wang & Zhao Deng, 2022. "Research on Evolution Characteristics and Factors of Nordic Green Patent Citation Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Takano, Yasutomo & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2019. "Extracting commercialization opportunities of the Internet of Things: Measuring text similarity between papers and patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 45-68.
    9. Mejia, Cristian & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2020. "Emerging topics in energy storage based on a large-scale analysis of academic articles and patents," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    10. Takano, Yasutomo & Mejia, Cristian & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2016. "Unconnected component inclusion technique for patent network analysis: Case study of Internet of Things-related technologies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 967-980.
    11. Higham, Kyle & Contisciani, Martina & De Bacco, Caterina, 2022. "Multilayer patent citation networks: A comprehensive analytical framework for studying explicit technological relationships," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2020. "Ties that matter: The impact of alliance partner knowledge recombination novelty on knowledge utilization in R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).

    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. Nakamura, Hiroko & Suzuki, Shinji & Sakata, Ichiro & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2015. "Knowledge combination modeling: The measurement of knowledge similarity between different technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 187-201.
    2. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    3. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    4. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    5. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    6. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    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. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio & François Perruchas & Pauline Mattsson, 2009. "What do patent examiner inserted citations indicate for a region with low absorptive capacity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 441-455, August.
    9. Jeff Alstott & Giorgio Triulzi & Bowen Yan & Jianxi Luo, 2017. "Mapping technology space by normalizing patent networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 443-479, January.
    10. Hain, Daniel S. & Jurowetzki, Roman & Buchmann, Tobias & Wolf, Patrick, 2022. "A text-embedding-based approach to measuring patent-to-patent technological similarity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    11. Si Hyung Joo & Yeonbae Kim, 2010. "Measuring relatedness between technological fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 435-454, May.
    12. Francesco Lamperti & Franco Malerba & Roberto Mavilia & Giorgio Tripodi, 2019. "Does the Position in the Inter-sectoral Knowledge Space affect the International Competitiveness of Industries?," LEM Papers Series 2019/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Loet Leydesdorff & Dieter Franz Kogler & Bowen Yan, 2017. "Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1573-1591, September.
    14. Forman, Chris & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2019. "Digital technology adoption and knowledge flows within firms: Can the Internet overcome geographic and technological distance?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    15. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    16. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    17. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. David Rigby, 2012. "The Geography of Knowledge Relatedness and Technological Diversification in U.S. Cities," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1218, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2012.
    19. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    20. Barbieri, Nicolò, 2015. "Investigating the impacts of technological position and European environmental regulation on green automotive patent activity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 140-152.

    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:spr:scient:v:104:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1626-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.