IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esx/essedp/22928.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent Thickets Identification

Author

Listed:
  • Gątkowski, Mateusz
  • Dietl, Marek
  • Skrok, Lukasz
  • Whalen, Ryan
  • Rockett, Katharine

Abstract

Patent thickets have been identified by various citations-based techniques, such as Graevenitz et al (2011) and Clarkson (2005). An alternative direct measurement is based on expert opinion. We use natural language processing techniques to measure pairwise semantic similarity of patents identified as thicket members by experts to create a semantic network. We compare the semantic similarity scores for patents in different expert-identified thickets: those within the same thicket, those in different thickets, and those not in thickets. We show that patents within the same thicket are significantly more semantically similar than other pairs of patents. We then present a statistical model to assess the probability of a newly added patent belonging to a thicket based on semantic networks as well as other measures from the existing thicket literature (the triples of Graevenitz and Clarkson’s density ratio). We conclude that combining information from semantic distance with other sources can be helpful to isolate the patents that are likely to be members of thickets.

Suggested Citation

  • Gątkowski, Mateusz & Dietl, Marek & Skrok, Lukasz & Whalen, Ryan & Rockett, Katharine, 2018. "Patent Thickets Identification," Economics Discussion Papers 22928, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:esx:essedp:22928
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.essex.ac.uk/22928/
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Antonin Bergeaud & Yoann Potiron & Juste Raimbault, 2017. "Classifying patents based on their semantic content," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Scott Deerwester & Susan T. Dumais & George W. Furnas & Thomas K. Landauer & Richard Harshman, 1990. "Indexing by latent semantic analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 391-407, September.
    4. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    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. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

    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. Gątkowski, Mateusz & Dietl, Marek & Skrok, Łukasz & Whalen, Ryan & Rockett, Katharine, 2020. "Semantically-based patent thicket identification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    2. Jonathan H. Ashtor, 2019. "Investigating Cohort Similarity as an Ex Ante Alternative to Patent Forward Citations," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 848-880, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Silvestri, Daniela & Riccaboni, Massimo & Della Malva, Antonio, 2018. "Sailing in all winds: Technological search over the business cycle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1933-1944.
    5. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    6. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    7. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    8. Jiang, Lin & Clark, Brent B. & Turban, Daniel B., 2023. "Overcoming the challenge of exploration: How decompartmentalization of internal communication enhances the effect of exploration on employee inventive performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Pellegrino, Gabriele & Raiteri, Emilio, 2024. "Do patents enable disclosure? Evidence from the invention secrecy act," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    10. Emanuele Pugliese & Lorenzo Napolitano & Andrea Zaccaria & Luciano Pietronero, 2019. "Coherent diversification in corporate technological portfolios," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Henry Sauermann, 2017. "Fire in the Belly? Employee Motives and Innovative Performance in Startups versus Established Firms," NBER Working Papers 23099, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Shuping Li & Sai Yayavaram, 2021. "Attenuating the negative effects of network change on innovation: A whole network level analysis of Taiwanese business groups," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 151-177, March.
    13. Puay Khoon Toh & Cameron D. Miller, 2017. "Pawn to Save a Chariot, or Drawbridge Into the Fort? Firms' Disclosure During Standard Setting and Complementary Technologies Within Ecosystems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(11), pages 2213-2236, November.
    14. William Arant & Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Kolja Hesse & Cathrin Söllner, 2019. "University-industry collaborations—The key to radical innovations? [Universität-Industrie-Kooperationen – Der Schlüssel zu radikalen Innovationen?]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 119-141, October.
    15. Haschka, Rouven E. & Herwartz, Helmut, 2020. "Innovation efficiency in European high-tech industries: Evidence from a Bayesian stochastic frontier approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    16. Gianluca Carnabuci & Elisa Operti & Balázs Kovács, 2015. "The Categorical Imperative and Structural Reproduction: Dynamics of Technological Entry in the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1734-1751, December.
    17. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    18. Giada Di Stefano & Andrew A. King & Gianmario Verona, 2014. "Kitchen confidential? Norms for the use of transferred knowledge in gourmet cuisine," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1645-1670, November.
    19. Pezzoni, Michele & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    20. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Diffusion of science-based inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 66-77.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent Thickets Identification; Intellectual Property; Patenting; Patent Thickets; Semantic Distance; Latent Semantic Analysis; Natural Language Processing; Complexity;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:esx:essedp:22928. 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: Essex Economics Web Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edessuk.html .

    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.