IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v96y2013i1d10.1007_s11192-012-0930-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher L. Benson

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Christopher L. Magee

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This paper presents a relatively simple, objective and repeatable method for selecting sets of patents that are representative of a specific technological domain. The methodology consists of using search terms to locate the most representative international and US patent classes and determines the overlap of those classes to arrive at the final set of patents. Five different technological fields (computed tomography, solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, electric capacitors, electrochemical batteries) are used to test and demonstrate the proposed method. Comparison against traditional keyword searches and individual patent class searches shows that the method presented in this paper can find a set of patents with more relevance and completeness and no more effort than the other two methods. Follow on procedures to potentially improve the relevancy and completeness for specific domains are also defined and demonstrated. The method is compared to an expertly selected set of patents for an economic domain, and is shown to not be a suitable replacement for that particular use case. The paper also considers potential uses for this methodology and the underlying techniques as well as limitations of the methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2013. "A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 69-82, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:96:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0930-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0930-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0930-3
    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/s11192-012-0930-3?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. 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.
    2. Campbell, Richard S., 1983. "Patent trends as a technological forecasting tool," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 137-143.
    3. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    4. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1987. "Patents, Citations and Innovations: Tracing the Links," NBER Working Papers 2457, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jacques Michel & Bernd Bettels, 2001. "Patent citation analysis.A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 185-201, April.
    6. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, 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. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2015. "Technology structural implications from the extension of a patent search method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 1965-1985, March.
    2. Ansgar Moeller & Martin G. Moehrle, 2015. "Completing keyword patent search with semantic patent search: introducing a semiautomatic iterative method for patent near search based on semantic similarities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 77-96, January.
    3. Feng, Sida & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Technological development of key domains in electric vehicles: Improvement rates, technology trajectories and key assignees," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    4. Martin Ho & Henry CW Price & Tim S Evans & Eoin O'Sullivan, 2023. "Order in Innovation," Papers 2302.13076, arXiv.org.
    5. Mariam Barry & Giorgio Triulzi & Christopher L. Magee, 2017. "Food Productivity Trends from Hybrid Corn: Statistical Analysis of Patents and Field-test data," Papers 1706.05911, arXiv.org.
    6. Annapoornima M. Subramanian & Moren Lévesque & Vareska van de Vrande, 2020. "“Pulling the Plug:” Time Allocation between Drug Discovery and Development Projects," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(12), pages 2851-2876, December.
    7. Shubbak, Mahmood H., 2019. "Advances in solar photovoltaics: Technology review and patent trends," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. Mun, Changbae & Yoon, Sejun & Raghavan, Nagarajan & Hwang, Dongwook & Basnet, Subarna & Park, Hyunseok, 2021. "Function score-based technological trend analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Parraguez, Pedro & Škec, Stanko & e Carmo, Duarte Oliveira & Maier, Anja, 2020. "Quantifying technological change as a combinatorial process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Subarna Basnet & Christopher L Magee, 2017. "Artifact interactions retard technological improvement: An empirical study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    12. Changbae Mun & Sejun Yoon & Hyunseok Park, 2019. "Structural decomposition of technological domain using patent co-classification and classification hierarchy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 633-652, November.
    13. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    14. Christopher L Benson & Christopher L Magee, 2015. "Quantitative Determination of Technological Improvement from Patent Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    15. MAVRIDIS, Dimitrios & CSÉFALVAY, Zoltan & GKOTSIS, Petros & POTTERS, Lesley, 2021. "A Preliminary Index of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Testing Patents," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2020-07, Joint Research Centre.
    16. Magee, C.L. & Basnet, S. & Funk, J.L. & Benson, C.L., 2016. "Quantitative empirical trends in technical performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 237-246.
    17. Donghyun You & Hyunseok Park, 2018. "Developmental Trajectories in Electrical Steel Technology Using Patent Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Yoon, Byungun & Magee, Christopher L., 2018. "Exploring technology opportunities by visualizing patent information based on generative topographic mapping and link prediction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 105-117.
    19. Parcu, Pier Luigi & Pisarkiewicz, Anna Renata & Carrozza, Chiara & Innocenti, Niccolò, 2023. "The future of 5G and beyond: Leadership, deployment and European policies," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9).
    20. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    21. Jie Hu & Shaobo Li & Jianjun Hu & Guanci Yang, 2018. "A Hierarchical Feature Extraction Model for Multi-Label Mechanical Patent Classification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, January.
    22. Matthias Niggli & Christian Rutzer, 2023. "Digital technologies, technological improvement rates, and innovations “Made in Switzerland”," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-31, December.
    23. 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).
    24. Triulzi, Giorgio & Alstott, Jeff & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    25. Benson, Christopher L. & Magee, Christopher L., 2014. "On improvement rates for renewable energy technologies: Solar PV, wind turbines, capacitors, and batteries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 745-751.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010. "International Knowledge Diffusion and Home‐bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, September.
    4. Li, Xiaogang, 2020. "Innovation, market valuations, policy uncertainty and trade: Theory and evidence," ISU General Staff Papers 202001010800009179, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    6. Christopher Kurzhals & Lorenz Graf‐Vlachy & Andreas König, 2020. "Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 437-464, November.
    7. Alfons Palangkaraya, 2010. "Patent Application Databases," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(1), pages 77-87, March.
    8. Wadhwa, Anu & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2016. "Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm innovation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 95-112.
    9. Yuandi Wang & Xiongfeng Pan & Yantai Chen & Xin Gu, 2013. "Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 731-752, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Martin, Ralf & Mohnen, Myra, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60501, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    14. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    15. Malwina Mejer, 2012. "The impact of knowledge diversity on inventive performance at European universities," Working Papers TIMES² 2013-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. A. Fronzetti Colladon & B. Guardabascio & F. Venturini, 2023. "A new mapping of technological interdependence," Papers 2308.00014, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    17. Arts, Sam & Hou, Jianan & Gomez, Juan Carlos, 2021. "Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: Code, data, and new measures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    18. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2008. "Patent Value and R&D Competition," Working Papers 51/2008, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    19. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent searching; Technological planning; Information retrieval; Patent analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:96:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0930-3. 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.