IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v81y2009i1d10.1007_s11192-009-1836-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining triadic patent families as a measure of technological strength

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Sternitzke

    (Technische Universität Ilmenau
    Universität Bremen)

Abstract

A frequently used indicator for assessing technological strengths of nations are patents registered in the triad region, i.e. in North America, Europe, and Asia. Currently these so-called triadic patents are defined as filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). Recent developments suggested that this definition might lack adequacy regarding the offices in Europe and Asia. Our findings propose that in particular Germany and China should be added to this triad definition since in some technology fields patents registered in these countries show the same citation impact as patents registered at the EPO or JPO. Our results also underline that the number of triadic patent families per country is a function of technological specialization and (national) patenting strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Sternitzke, 2009. "Defining triadic patent families as a measure of technological strength," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 91-109, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:81:y:2009:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-1836-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-1836-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-1836-6
    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/s11192-009-1836-6?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. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2000. "Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look," NBER Working Papers 7741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Basberg, Bjorn L., 1987. "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 131-141, August.
    3. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    4. Grupp, Hariolf & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1999. "Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 377-396, April.
    5. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis & Woolf, Patricia, 1981. "Citation rates to technologically important patents," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 160-163, October.
    6. Hélène Dernis & Mosahid Khan, 2004. "Triadic Patent Families Methodology," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2004/2, OECD Publishing.
    7. Hariolf Grupp, 1998. "Foundations of the Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1390.
    8. Yang, Deli, 2003. "The development of intellectual property in China," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 131-142, 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. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    2. Catalina Martínez, 2011. "Patent families: When do different definitions really matter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 39-63, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Antoine Schoen, 2019. "Worldwide IP coverage of patented inventions in large pharma firms: to what extent do the internationalisation of R&D and firm strategy matter?," Post-Print hal-01725229, HAL.
    5. Czarny Bogusław & Czarny Elżbieta, 2021. "Efficiency and equity – The Swedish economy in comparison to other countries at the beginning of the 21st century," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 57(3), pages 255-267, September.
    6. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    7. Ferrucci, Edoardo & Lissoni, Francesco, 2019. "Foreign inventors in Europe and the United States: Diversity and Patent Quality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    8. Chandra, Praveena & Dong, Andy, 2018. "The relation between knowledge accumulation and technical value in interdisciplinary technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 235-244.
    9. Asid, Rozilee & khalifah, noor, 2016. "The Effects of Foreign R&D and Triadic Patent Propensity on Developing Economies Efficiency and Convergence," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 50(2), pages 107-124.
    10. Foster-McGregor, Neil & Nomaler, Onder & Verspagen, Bart, 2019. "Measuring the creation and adoption of new technologies using trade and patent data," MERIT Working Papers 2019-053, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    11. Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Griesshaber, Tobias & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2012. "The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change – Does the locus of policies matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1296-1308.
    12. Jussi Heikkilä & Michael Verba, 2018. "The role of utility models in patent filing strategies: evidence from European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 689-719, August.
    13. Nor-Eddine Oumansour & M'ssiyah Sakhr, 2024. "Innovation and employment: Estimation on a panel of countries using the software Stata," French Stata Users' Group Meetings 2024 34, Stata Users Group.
    14. Baron, Justus & Kanevskaia, Olia, 2023. "Wearing multiple hats—The role of working group chairs’ affiliation in standards development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    15. Chunjuan Luan & Zeyuan Liu & Xianwen Wang, 2013. "Divergence and convergence: technology-relatedness evolution in solar energy industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 461-475, 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. von Wartburg, Iwan & Teichert, Thorsten & Rost, Katja, 2005. "Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1591-1607, December.
    2. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    3. Stefan Lachenmaier, 2005. "Identification of Available and Desirable Indicators for Patent Systems, Patenting Processes and Patent Rights Research Project for the German Patent and Trademark Office," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 25, September.
    4. C. Gay & C. Le Bas & P. Patel & K. Touach, 2005. "The determinants of patent citations: an empirical analysis of French and British patents in the US," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 339-350.
    5. Anthony Breitzman & Patrick Thomas, 2015. "Inventor team size as a predictor of the future citation impact of patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 631-647, May.
    6. Breitzman, Anthony & Thomas, Patrick, 2015. "The Emerging Clusters Model: A tool for identifying emerging technologies across multiple patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 195-205.
    7. Chandra, Praveena & Dong, Andy, 2018. "The relation between knowledge accumulation and technical value in interdisciplinary technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 235-244.
    8. Katja Rost, 2006. "Der Einfluss von Erfindernetzwerken auf die Relevanz von Patenten," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 363-389, May.
    9. Goto, Akira & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2007. "Construction of a Japanese Patent Database and a first look at Japanese patenting activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1431-1442, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Gamal Atallah & Gabriel Rodríguez, 2006. "Indirect patent citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 437-465, June.
    12. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2008. "Radical versus Non-Radical Inventions," MERIT Working Papers 2008-036, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    14. Giorgio Prodi & Federico Frattini & Francesco Nicolli, 2018. "The diffusion and embeddedness of innovative activities in China," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(1), pages 71-106, April.
    15. Christian Sternitzke, 2009. "The international preliminary examination of patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty — a proxy for patent value?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 189-202, February.
    16. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    17. C. Gay & C. Le Bas, 2005. "Uses without too many abuses of patent citations or the simple economics of patent citations as a measure of value and flows of knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 333-338.
    18. Song, Jaeyong & Asakawa, Kazuhiro & Chu, Youngeun, 2011. "What determines knowledge sourcing from host locations of overseas R&D operations?: A study of global R&D activities of Japanese multinationals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 380-390, April.
    19. Donghyun Choi & Bomi Song, 2018. "Exploring Technological Trends in Logistics: Topic Modeling-Based Patent Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Frietsch, Rainer & Neuhäusler, Peter & Michels, Carolin & Dornbusch, Friedrich, 2014. "Medical research at universities – An international comparison," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2014, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:81:y:2009:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-1836-6. 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.