IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id1651.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovation Systems as Patent Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Wilfred Dolfsma

Abstract

While patent data offers a quantitative measure, they are often used in a rather unimaginative way. Patents granted are aggregated to the level of firms, regions, sectors or countries to determine the respective aggregate’s (potential) (future) significance. While patent data is Globalisation of knowledge development and delivery, ISID, New Delhi, India, October 17-18, 2008 shaped by institutions, and reflects information about applications that is the result of institutional configurations, they are not defined by institutions a priori. Institutions themselves are embedded in knowledge infrastructures, providing the technological opportunities that have to be interfaced with market positions and expected demand that agents can act upon. From this perspective, patent data offer a vastly more informative source of information. We analyse patents granted as a sediment of substantive-technical efforts by actors to develop new knowledge or find (non-obvious) applications for existing knowledge. Classes of patent applications, and particularly co-classifications, thus may be taken as an important indicator of a mutual knowledge basis within the boundaries of a system (Breschi et al., 2003; Leydesdorff, 2008). The network of co-classifications for patents, drawing on a unified and harmonized database, thus indicates the workings of a NIS and its relevant institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilfred Dolfsma, 2008. "Innovation Systems as Patent Networks," Working Papers id:1651, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:1651
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eSocialSciences.com/data/articles/Document11692008150.2386743.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    2. Leydesdorff, Loet & Fritsch, Michael, 2006. "Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1538-1553, December.
    3. Bart Verspagen, 2006. "University Research, Intellectual Property Rights And European Innovation Systems," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 607-632, September.
    4. Markus Balzat & Horst Hanusch, 2004. "Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 197-210, June.
    5. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    6. Leydesdorff, Loet & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Van der Panne, Gerben, 2006. "Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among 'technology, organization, and territory'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 181-199, March.
    7. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    8. Paola Criscuolo, 2006. "The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 23-41, January.
    9. Dolfsma, W.A., 2006. "IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-004-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    11. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff, 2004. "The university–industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 55(11), pages 991-1001, September.
    13. Liu, Xielin & White, Steven, 2001. "Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1091-1114, August.
    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. 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.
    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. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2010. "The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 355-362, May.

    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. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1442-1458, July.
    3. Dolfsma, Wilfred & van der Panne, Gerben, 2008. "Currents and sub-currents in innovation flows: Explaining innovativeness using new-product announcements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1706-1716, December.
    4. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline, 2009. "Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 353-362.
    5. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2007. "The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (Introduction to the topical issue)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 207-222, February.
    7. Rahul RK Kapoor & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2016. "The laws of action and reaction: on determinants of patent disputes in European chemical and drug industries," Working Papers TIMES² WP 2016-019, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Dolfsma, W.A. & van der Panne, G., 2006. "Currents and Sub-currents in the River of Innovations - Explaining Innovativeness using New-Product Announcements," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-036-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Klein, Malte & Sauer, Andreas, 2016. "Celebrating 30 years of innovation system research: What you need to know about innovation systems," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 17-2016, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    10. repec:hig:wpaper:98sti2019 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Chen, Ping-Chuan & Hung, Shiu-Wan, 2016. "An actor-network perspective on evaluating the R&D linking efficiency of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 303-312.
    13. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    14. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    15. Park, Han Woo & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2010. "Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 640-649, June.
    16. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Juranek, Steffen & Otneim, Håkon, 2021. "Using machine learning to predict patent lawsuits," Discussion Papers 2021/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    18. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    19. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    20. Mark Schankerman & Florian Schuett, 2022. "Patent Screening, Innovation, and Welfare," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(4), pages 2101-2148.
    21. Swati Mehta, 2018. "National Innovation System of India: An Empirical Analysis," Millennial Asia, , vol. 9(2), pages 203-224, August.

    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:ess:wpaper:id:1651. 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: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    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.