Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Citation rates to technologically important patents

Contents:

Author Info

  • Carpenter, Mark P.
  • Narin, Francis
  • Woolf, Patricia
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to determine whether the average number of citations received by issued U.S. patents from subsequently issued U.S. patents is higher for patents associated with important technological advances than for a group of randomly selected patents. Analysis of examiners' citations to 100 selected patents showed that these selected patents, which underlay technically important products, were more than twice as frequently cited (significance level of 0.0001) as a randomly selected set of 102 control patents. This finding provides strong evidence for the hypothesis that patent citation data can be used in technological indicators development, and in technological policy analysis, since it implies that the location and analysis of groups of highly cited patents can provide a valid indicator of patent areas of technical importance.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5D-469GWKT-1G/2/43c1fe71d07b8eb38c5d89b9e948cdb3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal World Patent Information.

    Volume (Year): 3 (1981)
    Issue (Month): 4 (October)
    Pages: 160-163

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:worpat:v:3:y:1981:i:4:p:160-163

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/654/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/654/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    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. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Martínez, M. Ángeles, 2012. "Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 692-703.
    3. Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari & Hiroshi Shimizu & Andrea Vezzulli, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: evidence from a data-set of R&D awards 1977-2004," Working Papers Department of Economics 2013/09, ISEG - School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, University of Lisbon.
    4. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2008. "Radical versus Non-Radical Inventions," MERIT Working Papers 036, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. van Pottelsberghe, Bruno & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2008. "Filing Strategies and Patent Value," CEPR Discussion Papers 6821, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Bekkers, Rudi & Bongard, René & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2011. "An empirical study on the determinants of essential patent claims in compatibility standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 1001-1015, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Kostoff, Ronald N., 1995. "Research requirements for research impact assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 869-882, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    11. Christiane Götze, 2007. "Netzwerke und Leistungseliten in Forschung und Entwicklung," Jena Research Papers in Business and Economics - Working and Discussion Papers 22/2007, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, School of Economics and Business Administration.
    12. Byeongwoo Kang & Rudi Bekkers, 2013. "Just-in-time inventions and the development of standards: How firms use opportunistic strategies to obtain standard-essential patents (SEPs)," Working Papers 13-01, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2013.
    13. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Shimizu, Hiroshi & Hoshino, Yusuke, 2012. "The Nature of Inventive Activities: Evidence from a Data-Set of the Okouchi Prizes and a Comparison with the R&D 100 Awards," IIR Working Paper 12-02, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    15. Nikulainen, Tuomo & Pajarinen, Mika & Palmberg, Christopher, 2005. "Patents and Technological Change - A Review with Focus on the FEPOCI Database," Discussion Papers 984, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    16. Byeongwoo KANG & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2012. "Determinants of Essential Intellectual Property Rights for Wireless Communications Standards: Manufacturing firms vs. non-manufacturing patentees," Discussion papers 12042, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    17. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    18. 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.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:worpat:v:3:y:1981:i:4:p:160-163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.