IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v177y2022ics0040162522000919.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A text-embedding-based approach to measuring patent-to-patent technological similarity

Author

Listed:
  • Hain, Daniel S.
  • Jurowetzki, Roman
  • Buchmann, Tobias
  • Wolf, Patrick

Abstract

This paper describes an efficiently scaleable approach to measuring technological similarity between patents by combining embedding techniques from natural language processing with nearest-neighbor approximation. Using this methodology, we are able to compute similarities between all existing patents, which in turn enables us to represent the whole patent universe as a technological network. We validate both technological signature and similarity in various ways and, using the case of electric vehicle technologies, demonstrate their usefulness in measuring knowledge flows, mapping technological change, and creating patent quality indicators. This paper contributes to the growing literature on text-based indicators for patent analysis. We provide thorough documentation of our methods, including all code, and indicators at https://github.com/AI-Growth-Lab/patent_p2p_similarity_w2v).

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:177:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522000919
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522000919
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121559?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. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. 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.
    3. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    4. Jasjit Singh & Matt Marx, 2013. "Geographic Constraints on Knowledge Spillovers: Political Borders vs. Spatial Proximity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2056-2078, September.
    5. McNamee, Robert C., 2013. "Can’t see the forest for the leaves: Similarity and distance measures for hierarchical taxonomies with a patent classification example," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 855-873.
    6. Xuefeng Wang & Huichao Ren & Yun Chen & Yuqin Liu & Yali Qiao & Ying Huang, 2019. "Measuring patent similarity with SAO semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Daniel Hain & Tobias Buchmann & Muhamed Kudic & Matthias Müller, 2018. "Endogenous dynamics of innovation networks in the German automotive industry: analysing structural network evolution using a stochastic actor-oriented approach," International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(3/4), pages 325-344.
    8. Bryan Kelly & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Matt Taddy, 2021. "Measuring Technological Innovation over the Long Run," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 303-320, September.
    9. Ernst, Holger, 2001. "Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 143-157, January.
    10. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    11. Tijs F. Mocking & Pantelis Bampoulis & Nuri Oncel & Bene Poelsema & Harold J. W. Zandvliet, 2013. "Electronically stabilized nanowire growth," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5, December.
    12. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    13. Rachel Griffith & Sokbae Lee & John Van Reenen, 2011. "Is distance dying at last? Falling home bias in fixed‐effects models of patent citations," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(2), pages 211-249, July.
    14. Criscuolo, Paola & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1892-1908, December.
    15. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Dernis, Hélène & Guellec, Dominique & Picci, Lucio & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "The worldwide count of priority patents: A new indicator of inventive activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 720-737.
    17. Show-Ling Jang & Shihmin Lo & Wen Hao Chang, 2009. "How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 563-591, June.
    18. Florian Seliger & Gaéran de Rassenfosse & Jan Kozak, 2019. "Geocoding of worldwide patent data," KOF Working papers 19-458, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    19. Oecd, 2013. "Electronic and Mobile Commerce," OECD Digital Economy Papers 228, OECD Publishing.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Marco, Alan C. & Sarnoff, Joshua D. & deGrazia, Charles A.W., 2019. "Patent claims and patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    23. Liang Chen & Shuo Xu & Lijun Zhu & Jing Zhang & Xiaoping Lei & Guancan Yang, 2020. "A deep learning based method for extracting semantic information from patent documents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 289-312, October.
    24. Fu, Xiaolan & Yang, Qing Gong, 2009. "Exploring the cross-country gap in patenting: A Stochastic Frontier Approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1203-1213, September.
    25. 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.
    26. Jaeyoung Kim & Janghyeok Yoon & Eunjeong Park & Sungchul Choi, 2020. "Patent document clustering with deep embeddings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 563-577, May.
    27. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    28. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.
    29. Luciano Kay & Nils Newman & Jan Youtie & Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Patent overlay mapping: Visualizing technological distance," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(12), pages 2432-2443, December.
    30. Li, Yao Amber, 2014. "Borders and distance in knowledge spillovers: Dying over time or dying with age?—Evidence from patent citations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 152-172.
    31. Yujin Jeong & Hyejin Jang & Byungun Yoon, 2021. "Developing a risk-adaptive technology roadmap using a Bayesian network and topic modeling under deep uncertainty," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3697-3722, May.
    32. Aharonson, Barak S. & Schilling, Melissa A., 2016. "Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 81-96.
    33. Yue-ying Yang & Di Liu & Jun Meng & Xu Li & Ting-ting Shang & Jian-xin Hu, 2013. "The Advantage of Using the Electric Vehicles," Springer Books, in: Ershi Qi & Jiang Shen & Runliang Dou (ed.), The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 1507-1517, Springer.
    34. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    35. 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.
    36. Sam Arts & Bruno Cassiman & Juan Carlos Gomez, 2018. "Text matching to measure patent similarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 62-84, January.
    37. Mowery, David C. & Oxley, Joanne E. & Silverman, Brian S., 1998. "Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 507-523, September.
    38. Andrew Rodriguez & Byunghoon Kim & Mehmet Turkoz & Jae-Min Lee & Byoung-Youl Coh & Myong K. Jeong, 2015. "New multi-stage similarity measure for calculation of pairwise patent similarity in a patent citation network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 565-581, May.
    39. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    40. Christian Sternitzke & Isumo Bergmann, 2009. "Similarity measures for document mapping: A comparative study on the level of an individual scientist," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 113-130, January.
    41. Zhang, Yi & Shang, Lining & Huang, Lu & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Guangquan & Lu, Jie & Zhu, Donghua, 2016. "A hybrid similarity measure method for patent portfolio analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1108-1130.
    42. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    43. 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.
    44. Tong, Xuesong & Frame, J. Davidson, 1994. "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 133-141, March.
    45. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    46. Frank T. Rothaermel & Warren Boeker, 2008. "Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 47-77, January.
    47. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 205-220, February.
    48. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 465-466, March.
    49. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Li-Yun Chiang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2003. "Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwan's high-tech companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 489-506, November.
    50. 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.
    51. Ryan Whalen & Alina Lungeanu & Leslie DeChurch & Noshir Contractor, 2020. "Patent Similarity Data and Innovation Metrics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 615-639, September.
    52. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 450-460, March.
    53. 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.
    54. 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.
    55. 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.
    56. Benner, Mary & Waldfogel, Joel, 2008. "Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1556-1567, October.
    57. Sung-Yong Min & Tae-Sik Kim & Beom Joon Kim & Himchan Cho & Yong-Young Noh & Hoichang Yang & Jeong Ho Cho & Tae-Woo Lee, 2013. "Large-scale organic nanowire lithography and electronics," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, June.
    58. Picard, Pierre M. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "Patent office governance and patent examination quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 14-25.
    59. Yuan Zhou & Fang Dong & Yufei Liu & Zhaofu Li & JunFei Du & Li Zhang, 2020. "Forecasting emerging technologies using data augmentation and deep learning," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 1-29, April.
    60. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    61. 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.
    62. Shaobo Li & Jie Hu & Yuxin Cui & Jianjun Hu, 2018. "DeepPatent: patent classification with convolutional neural networks and word embedding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 721-744, November.
    63. Jan Kinne & Janna Axenbeck, 2020. "Web mining for innovation ecosystem mapping: a framework and a large-scale pilot study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2011-2041, December.
    64. Daniel S Hain & Roman Jurowetzki & Primoz Konda & Lars Oehler, 2020. "From catching up to industrial leadership: towards an integrated market-technology perspective. An application of semantic patent-to-patent similarity in the wind and EV sector," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(5), pages 1233-1255.
    65. Adams, Stephen, 2001. "Comparing the IPC and the US classification systems for the patent searcher," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 15-23, March.
    66. Engelsman, E. C. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1994. "A patent-based cartography of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-26, January.
    67. Chao Yang & Donghua Zhu & Xuefeng Wang & Yi Zhang & Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2017. "Requirement-oriented core technological components’ identification based on SAO analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1229-1248, September.
    68. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    69. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    70. 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.
    71. Dieter F. Kogler & David L. Rigby & Isaac Tucker, 2013. "Mapping Knowledge Space and Technological Relatedness in US Cities," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(9), pages 1374-1391, September.
    72. Victor X. Wang & Marianne Robin Russo & Susan Dennett, 2013. "Electronic Education and Lifelong Learning," International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET), IGI Global, vol. 4(1), pages 46-60, January.
    73. Bowen Yan & Jianxi Luo, 2017. "Measuring technological distance for patent mapping," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(2), pages 423-437, February.
    74. Kim, Tae San & Sohn, So Young, 2020. "Machine-learning-based deep semantic analysis approach for forecasting new technology convergence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    75. Vahe Tshitoyan & John Dagdelen & Leigh Weston & Alexander Dunn & Ziqin Rong & Olga Kononova & Kristin A. Persson & Gerbrand Ceder & Anubhav Jain, 2019. "Unsupervised word embeddings capture latent knowledge from materials science literature," Nature, Nature, vol. 571(7763), pages 95-98, July.
    76. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    77. Suleyman Cetintas & Luo Si, 2012. "Effective query generation and postprocessing strategies for prior art patent search," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 512-527, March.
    78. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    79. Sam Arts & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(6), pages 1215-1246.
    80. Suleyman Cetintas & Luo Si, 2012. "Effective query generation and postprocessing strategies for prior art patent search," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 512-527, March.
    81. Righi, Cesare & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent examiner specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 137-148.
    82. R. Zhou & Z. Li & J. Yang & D. L. Sun & C. T. Lin & Guo-qing Zheng, 2013. "Quantum criticality in electron-doped BaFe2−xNixAs2," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-7, October.
    83. Sam Youl Lee & Meansun Noh & Ji Yung Seul, 2017. "Government-led regional innovation: a case of ‘Pangyo’ IT cluster of South Korea," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 848-866, May.
    84. Shih-Yu Li & Cheng-Hsiung Yang & Chin-Teng Lin & Li-Wei Ko & Tien-Ting Chiu, 2013. "Chaotic Motions in the Real Fuzzy Electronic Circuits," Abstract and Applied Analysis, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-8, February.
    85. Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Hélène Dernis & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2013/3, OECD Publishing.
    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. Liu, Zhenfeng & Feng, Jian & Uden, Lorna, 2023. "Technology opportunity analysis using hierarchical semantic networks and dual link prediction," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Chuanming Yu & Haodong Xue & Lu An & Gang Li, 2023. "A lightweight semantic‐enhanced interactive network for efficient short‐text matching," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 283-300, February.
    4. Su, Yu-Shan & Huang, Hsini & Daim, Tugrul & Chien, Pan-Wei & Peng, Ru-Ling & Karaman Akgul, Arzu, 2023. "Assessing the technological trajectory of 5G-V2X autonomous driving inventions: Use of patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Puccetti, Giovanni & Giordano, Vito & Spada, Irene & Chiarello, Filippo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2023. "Technology identification from patent texts: A novel named entity recognition method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).

    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. 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.
    2. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    4. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    5. 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).
    6. Corradini, Carlo & De Propris, Lisa, 2017. "Beyond local search: Bridging platforms and inter-sectoral technological integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 196-206.
    7. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    12. Leonie Koch & Martin Simmler, 2020. "How Important are Local Knowledge Spillovers of Public R&D and What Drives Them?," EconPol Working Paper 42, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    13. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Daniele Rotolo & Vito Albino, 2014. "Determinants of Patent Citations in Biotechnology: An Analysis of Patent Influence Across the Industrial and Organizational Boundaries," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-05, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Stephan, Annegret & Bening, Catharina R. & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Schwarz, Marius & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2019. "The role of inter-sectoral knowledge spillovers in technological innovations: The case of lithium-ion batteries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Koch, Leonie & Simmler, Martin, 2020. "How important are local knowledge spillovers of public R&D and what drives them?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    16. 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.
    17. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:177:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522000919. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.