IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v79y2012i1p16-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Changyong
  • Cho, Yangrae
  • Seol, Hyeonju
  • Park, Yongtae

Abstract

The anticipation and forecast of technological changes are of vital importance, as technological advances become increasingly fast and complex. What is at the core is identification of the current technologies that will drive technological changes over the coming few years. In this respect, numerous approaches have been devised to assess future technological impacts based on patent citation information, but do not provide a fair reflection of dynamic and idiosyncratic aspects of technological impacts as they are deterministic methods based on simple citation counts. We propose a stochastic patent citation analysis that can assess future technological impacts in a time period of interest by employing the future citation count as a proxy. At the heart of the proposed approach is a Pareto/NBD (Negative Binomial Distribution) model for taking into account the dynamic and idiosyncratic aspects of technological impacts. A patent citation matrix is first constructed for each time unit with citation patterns of the past. The future technological impacts are then derived by Pareto/NBD sub-model and gamma–gamma sub-model. A case study of the display technology patents is presented to illustrate the proposed approach. We believe our method can be employed in various research fields, from narrow patent valuation, to broad technological analysis and planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Changyong & Cho, Yangrae & Seol, Hyeonju & Park, Yongtae, 2012. "A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 16-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:79:y:2012:i:1:p:16-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.06.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162511001338
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.06.009?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. Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1999. "International Knowledge Flows: Evidence From Patent Citations," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1-2), pages 105-136.
    2. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    3. Danny P. Wallace, 1986. "The relationship between journal productivity and obsolescence," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 37(3), pages 136-145, May.
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Blackman, Michael, 1995. "Provision of patent information: a national patent office perspective," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 115-123, June.
    8. Yin-Hui Cheng & Fu-Yung Kuan & Shih-Chieh Chuang & Yun Ken, 2010. "Profitability decided by patent quality? An empirical study of the U.S. semiconductor industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 175-183, January.
    9. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1986. "Specification Test for Poisson Regression Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(3), pages 689-706, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Karki, M. M. S., 1997. "Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 269-272, December.
    12. Ernst, Holger, 2003. "Patent information for strategic technology management," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 233-242, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Shin, Juneseuk & Park, Yongtae, 2007. "Building the national ICT frontier: The case of Korea," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 249-277, June.
    15. Fabio Montobbio & E. Bacchiocchi, 2004. "EPO vs. USPTO Citation Lags," KITeS Working Papers 161, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Sep 2004.
    16. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2000. "Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization: Definitions and relations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(11), pages 1004-1017.
    17. David C. Schmittlein & Donald G. Morrison & Richard Colombo, 1987. "Counting Your Customers: Who-Are They and What Will They Do Next?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-24, January.
    18. Iansiti, Marco, 1995. "Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 521-542, July.
    19. Quentin L. Burrell, 2003. "Predicting future citation behavior," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 372-378, March.
    20. 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.
    21. Quentin L. Burrell, 2002. "The nth-citation distribution and obsolescence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 309-323, March.
    22. Quentin L. Burrel, 2001. "Stochastic modelling of the first-citation distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(1), pages 3-12, September.
    23. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    24. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    25. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2001. "Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 35-54, January.
    26. Park, Yongtae & Yoon, Byungun & Lee, Sungjoo, 2005. "The idiosyncrasy and dynamism of technological innovation across industries: patent citation analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 471-485.
    27. Han, Yoo-Jin & Park, Yongtae, 2006. "Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: The case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 235-247, 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. Jang, Hyun Jin & Woo, Han-Gyun & Lee, Changyong, 2017. "Hawkes process-based technology impact analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 511-529.
    2. Park, Jongyong & Lee, Hakyeon & Park, Yongtae, 2009. "Disembodied knowledge flows among industrial clusters: A patent analysis of the Korean manufacturing sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 73-84.
    3. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Hui-Yun Sung & Chun-Chieh Wang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2013. "Exploring patent performance and technology interactions of universities, industries, governments and individuals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 11-26, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Seh-Hyun Yoo & Chang-Yang Lee, 2023. "Technological diversification, technology portfolio properties, and R&D productivity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2074-2105, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. C. Gay & C. Le Bas, 2005. "Uses without too many abuses of patent citations or the simple economics of patent citations as a measure of value and flows of knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 333-338.
    12. 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.
    13. Rost, Katja, 2011. "The strength of strong ties in the creation of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 588-604, May.
    14. Chihmao Hsieh, 2011. "Explicitly searching for useful inventions: dynamic relatedness and the costs of connecting versus synthesizing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 381-404, February.
    15. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    16. Altuntas, Serkan & Dereli, Turkay & Kusiak, Andrew, 2015. "Analysis of patent documents with weighted association rules," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 249-262.
    17. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin & Schneider, Cédric, 2011. "“Wacky” patents meet economic indicators," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 131-134.
    18. Eun Han & So Sohn, 2015. "Patent valuation based on text mining and survival analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 821-839, October.
    19. Dibiaggio, Ludovic & Nasiriyar, Maryam & Nesta, Lionel, 2014. "Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1582-1593.
    20. Choe, Hochull & Lee, Duk Hee & Seo, Il Won & Kim, Hee Dae, 2013. "Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: Country, institution, and technology field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 492-505.

    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:79:y:2012:i:1:p:16-29. 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.