IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/anresc/v69y2022i3d10.1007_s00168-022-01131-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Elena M. Tur

    (Eindhoven University of Technology
    University of Gothenburg)

  • Evangelos Bourelos

    (University of Gothenburg)

  • Maureen McKelvey

    (University of Gothenburg)

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether innovation depends on long-term patterns of interactions in technology and science, using patents in nanotechnology. The previous literature has distinguished between a technology’s degree of novelty (science-base) and degree of technological impact, highlighting that links to the science-base will lead to more breakthrough inventions, due to distant recombinations. We extend the debate by distinguishing two types of science linkages, “direct and strong science-base” and “indirect and more diverse science-base.” To find long-term patterns, we developed an empirical strategy to study nanotechnology patents through the metaphor of “sleeping beauties”, e.g., delayed recognition and high impact. We show that sleeping beauties occur more frequently in nanotechnology than in the general population of patents, so nanotechnology is an emerging technology that may delay breakthrough inventions. As expected, both types of science linkages create a higher impact. Contrary to expectations, however, neither “direct and strong science-base” (proxied by university ownership) nor “indirect and more diverse science-base” (proxied by the non-patent literature) are significant. Although this emerging technology has many science linkages, these do not cause a delayed impact. Control variables of IPC application class and company ownership do matter. We conceptualize that these are typical characteristics when firms combine several technologies for industrial innovation. Among other contributions, we propose that the non-patent literature should not be considered a proxy for science linkages in general, but instead this reflects a search amongst various types of codified as well as informal technological and scientific knowledge. We suggest that the long-term patterns of delayed recognition and high impact in science-based technologies may require the firms to recombine multiple technologies, specializations, and industrial applications in order to do industrial invention.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:anresc:v:69:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s00168-022-01131-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00168-022-01131-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00168-022-01131-z
    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/s00168-022-01131-z?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. 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.
    2. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    5. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2003. "Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1371-1390, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    10. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Elena M. Tur, 2018. "Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1319-1348, December.
    11. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    12. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    13. Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna & Onder Nomaler & Bart Verspagen, 2010. "University IPRs and knowledge transfer: is university ownership more efficient?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 627-648.
    14. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    15. Francesco Lissoni & Fabio Montobbio, 2015. "The Ownership of Academic Patents and Their Impact. Evidence from Five European Countries," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(1), pages 143-171.
    16. Corine Genet & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2012. "Which Model of Technology Transfer for Nanotechnology? A Comparison with Biotech and Microelectronics," Post-Print hal-00749152, HAL.
    17. Pao-Long Chang & Chao-Chan Wu & Hoang-Jyh Leu, 2010. "Using patent analyses to monitor the technological trends in an emerging field of technology: a case of carbon nanotube field emission display," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 5-19, January.
    18. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    19. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    20. Carolina Castaldi & Koen Frenken & Bart Los, 2015. "Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 767-781, May.
    21. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    22. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    23. Ratnadeep Dey & Anurag Roy & Tanmoy Chakraborty & Saptarshi Ghosh, 2017. "Sleeping beauties in Computer Science: characterization and early identification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1645-1663, December.
    24. Myriam, Mariani, 2004. "What determines technological hits? Geography vs. firm competencies," Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    25. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    26. Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2011. "Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1077-1083, October.
    27. Asheim, Bjorn T. & Coenen, Lars, 2005. "Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1173-1190, October.
    28. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R. & Furner, Jonathan & Liu, Robert C. & Ma, Hongyan, 2007. "Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 850-863, July.
    29. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00658034, HAL.
    30. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    31. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    32. Azagra-Caro, Joaquín M. & Barberá-Tomás, David & Edwards-Schachter, Mónica & Tur, Elena M., 2017. "Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 463-474.
    33. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    34. Frank Neffke & Martin Henning & Ron Boschma, 2011. "How Do Regions Diversify over Time? Industry Relatedness and the Development of New Growth Paths in Regions," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 87(3), pages 237-265, July.
    35. Jean O. Lanjouw & Ariel Pakes & Jonathan Putnam, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    36. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    37. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2007. "Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 693-713, March.
    38. 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.
    39. E. Bacchiocchi & F. Montobbio, 2009. "Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 169-181, April.
    40. Harhoff, Dietmar & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "The Value of European Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 6848, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    41. Martina Neuländtner & Thomas Scherngell, 2020. "Geographical or relational: What drives technology-specific R&D collaboration networks?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(3), pages 743-773, December.
    42. Albino, Vito & Ardito, Lorenzo & Dangelico, Rosa Maria & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2014. "Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 836-854.
    43. Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty & Bruce A. Banks, 1998. "Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 183-205, June.
    44. Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2012. "What Characterizes Firms' Academic Patents? Academic Involvement in Industrial Inventions in Sweden," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 585-606, October.
    45. Hicks, Diana & Breitzman, Tony & Olivastro, Dominic & Hamilton, Kimberly, 2001. "The changing composition of innovative activity in the US -- a portrait based on patent analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 681-703, April.
    46. Maureen McKelvey & Rögnvaldur J. Saemundsson, 2021. "The grey zones of technological innovation: negative unintended consequences as a counterbalance to novelty," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 79-101, January.
    47. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    48. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Javed Mostafa, 2018. "A note of concern and context: On careful use of terminologies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(3), pages 347-348, March.
    49. Douglas Henrique Milanez & Leandro Innocentini Lopes Faria & Roniberto Morato Amaral & Daniel Rodrigo Leiva & José Angelo Rodrigues Gregolin, 2014. "Patents in nanotechnology: an analysis using macro-indicators and forecasting curves," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1097-1112, November.
    50. Ismael Rafols & Martin Meyer, 2007. "How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 633-650, March.
    51. T. Gorjiara & C. Baldock, 2014. "Nanoscience and nanotechnology research publications: a comparison between Australia and the rest of the world," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 121-148, July.
    52. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 159-167, July.
    53. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "The “Mendel syndrome” in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 177-205, October.
    54. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    55. Beise, Marian & Stahl, Harald, 1999. "Public research and industrial innovations in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 397-422, April.
    56. R. S. Bajwa & K. Yaldram & S. Rafique, 2013. "A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 333-342, January.
    57. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    58. Lanjouw, Jean O & Pakes, Ariel & Putnam, Jonathan, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    59. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis & Woolf, Patricia, 1981. "Citation rates to technologically important patents," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 160-163, October.
    60. Mariani, Myriam, 2004. "What determines technological hits?: Geography versus firm competencies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1565-1582, December.
    61. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    62. Scott D. Bass & Lukasz A. Kurgan, 2010. "Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 217-241, February.
    63. Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
    64. Kang, Byeongwoo & Bekkers, Rudi, 2015. "Just-in-time patents and the development of standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1948-1961.
    65. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang, 2019. "Patent sleeping beauties: evolutionary trajectories and identification methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 187-215, July.
    66. Sadao Nagaoka, 2007. "Assessing the R&D Management of a Firm in Terms of Speed and Science Linkage: Evidence from the US Patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 129-156, March.
    67. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    68. Wolfgang Glänzel & Balázs Schlemmer & Bart Thijs, 2003. "Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 571-586, November.
    69. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    70. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    71. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    72. Ugo Finardi, 2011. "Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 37-50, October.
    73. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Post-Print hal-00658034, HAL.
    74. Martin Henning & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Knowledge, entrepreneurship and regional transformation: contributing to the Schumpeterian and evolutionary perspective on the relationships between them," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 495-501, February.
    75. David Mowery, 2011. "Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 697-711, December.
    76. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    77. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    78. Daniel Coronado & Esther Flores & M. Ángeles Martínez, 2017. "The role of regional economic specialization in the production of university-owned patents," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 59(2), pages 513-533, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    7. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Dornbusch, Friedrich & Neuhäusler, Peter, 2015. "Composition of inventor teams and technological progress – The role of collaboration between academia and industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1360-1375.
    13. Ugo Rizzo & Valerio Sterzi, 2022. "Characterising science-industry patent collaborations: knowledge base, impact and economic value," Working Papers hal-03896633, HAL.
    14. 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).
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    16. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara DiGuardo, 2017. "Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the U.S. communications services industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1334-1361, December.
    17. Sterzi, Valerio, 2011. "Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?," MPRA Paper 34955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. BEKKERS Rudi & RAITERI Emilio & MARTINELLI Arianna & MAS TUR Elena, 2020. "Landscape study of potentially essential patents disclosed to ETSI.: A study carried out in the context of the EC 'Pilot study for essentiality assessment of Standard Essential Patents' project," JRC Research Reports JRC121411, Joint Research Centre.
    19. Zafer Sonmez, 2018. "Interregional inventor collaboration and the commercial value of patented inventions: evidence from the US biotechnology industry," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 61(2), pages 399-438, September.
    20. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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:anresc:v:69:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s00168-022-01131-z. 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.