IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structural modeling of the value of patent


  • Suzuki, Jun


There is a considerable volume of prior research on the relationship between innovation and patents. Those research studies reveal that patents contain a great deal of noise, and unless a correction is made in terms of the value of individual patents, a simple count of the number of patents does not constitute a very useful indicator. From research that has been conducted for the purpose of finding such an indicator to show the value of individual patents (that is, research to identify the characteristics of valuable patents), many kinds of value indicators have been proposed. Nevertheless, research hitherto has focused primarily on business or private value derived from the possession of patents, and little attention has been paid to value in terms of technical knowledge or social value. In a survey of inventors conducted by RIETI in 2007, terminology describing broad concepts was used when questioning inventors about the value of individual patents, and this has provided an excellent opportunity to analyze the multiple factors lying behind the value of patents and how they impact one another. The purpose of this research is to use data from the RIETI survey of inventors and structural equation modeling methods to elucidate the relationships between the technological and business value of patents, and the latent factors that influence them. The findings show that a scientific-technological motive for inventors would have a positive effect on both the business and technological value, meanwhile, the monetary or promotion motive would not have any direct effects on the value of a patent. The model also suggests that academic linkage would have a strong positive effect on the technological value but a weak negative effect on the business value. Furthermore, these relationships differ more markedly according to technological field.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzuki, Jun, 2011. "Structural modeling of the value of patent," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 986-1000, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:7:p:986-1000

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Don E Kash & William Kingston, 2001. "Patents in a world of complex technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 11-22, February.
    3. Schankerman, Mark & Pakes, Ariel, 1986. "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries during the Post-1950 Period," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(384), pages 1052-1076, December.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Guellec, Dominique & Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno v., 2000. "Applications, grants and the value of patent," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 109-114, October.
    9. 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.
    10. NAGAOKA Sadao & John P. WALSH, 2009. "The R&D Process in the U.S. and Japan: Major findings from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey," Discussion papers 09010, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. 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.
    12. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam & Brusoni, Stefano & Crespi, Gustavo & Francoz, Dominique & Gambardella, Alfonso & Garcia-Fontes, Walter & Geuna, Aldo & Gonzales, Raul & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1107-1127, October.
    13. Karl J├Âreskog, 1978. "Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 43(4), pages 443-477, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    16. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Alessandra Scandura, 2013. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," ERSA conference papers ersa13p128, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Su, Hsin-Ning, 2017. "Collaborative and Legal Dynamics of International R&D- Evolving Patterns in East Asia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 217-227.
    3. Liu, Li-jun & Cao, Cong & Song, Min, 2014. "China's agricultural patents: How has their value changed amid recent patent boom?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 106-121.
    4. repec:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2325-y is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:spr:scient:v:92:y:2012:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0716-7 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:7:p:986-1000. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.