IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v29y2019i2d10.1007_s00191-018-0603-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system

Author

Listed:
  • François Lafond

    (University of Oxford
    University of Oxford
    University of Oxford)

  • Daniel Kim

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Almost by definition, radical innovations create a need to revise existing classification systems. In this paper, we argue that classification system changes and patent reclassification are common and reveal interesting information about technological evolution. To support our argument, we present three sets of findings regarding classification volatility in the U.S. patent classification system. First, we study the evolution of the number of distinct classes. Reconstructed time series based on the current classification scheme are very different from historical data. This suggests that using the current classification to analyze the past produces a distorted view of the evolution of the system. Second, we study the relative sizes of classes. The size distribution is exponential so classes are of quite different sizes, but the largest classes are not necessarily the oldest. To explain this pattern with a simple stochastic growth model, we introduce the assumption that classes have a regular chance to be split. Third, we study reclassification. The share of patents that are in a different class now than they were at birth can be quite high. Reclassification mostly occurs across classes belonging to the same 1-digit NBER category, but not always. We also document that reclassified patents tend to be more cited than non-reclassified ones, even after controlling for grant year and class of origin.

Suggested Citation

  • François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:29:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s00191-018-0603-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-018-0603-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-018-0603-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Florian Schuett, 2013. "Patent quality and incentives at the patent office," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 313-336, June.
    7. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    8. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2007. "The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 318-339, August.
    11. Chong Xiang, 2005. "New Goods and the Relative Demand for Skilled Labor," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 285-298, May.
    12. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    13. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jeffrey Lin, 2011. "Technological Adaptation, Cities, and New Work," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(2), pages 554-574, May.
    15. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    16. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    17. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    18. Gerald Silverberg & Bart Verspagen, 2003. "Breaking the waves: a Poisson regression approach to Schumpeterian clustering of basic innovations," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 671-693, September.
    19. Chun-Chieh Wang & Hui-Yun Sung & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2016. "Technological evolution seen from the USPC reclassifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 537-553, May.
    20. Kurt Dopfer & John Foster & Jason Potts, 2004. "Micro-meso-macro," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 263-279, July.
    21. Antonelli, Cristiano & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2010. "Recombinant knowledge and growth: The case of ICTs," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 50-69, March.
    22. 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.
    23. Luigi Marengo & Paolo Zeppini, 2016. "The arrival of the new," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 171-194, March.
    24. Thor Berger & Carl Benedikt Frey, 2017. "Industrial renewal in the 21st century: evidence from US cities," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 404-413, March.
    25. Deborah Strumsky & José Lobo & Sander van der Leeuw, 2012. "Using patent technology codes to study technological change," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 267-286, April.
    26. Mauro Caminati & Arsenio Stabile, 2010. "The Pattern Of Knowledge Flows Between Technology Fields," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 364-397, May.
    27. Birgitte Andersen, 1999. "The hunt for S-shaped growth paths in technological innovation: a patent study," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 487-526.
    28. Iain M. Cockburn & Samuel Kortum & Scott Stern, 2002. "Are All Patent Examiners Equal? The Impact of Examiner Characteristics," NBER Working Papers 8980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    30. 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.
    31. Péter Érdi & Kinga Makovi & Zoltán Somogyvári & Katherine Strandburg & Jan Tobochnik & Péter Volf & László Zalányi, 2013. "Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 225-242, April.
    32. Hicks, Diana, 2011. "Structural change and industrial classification," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 93-105, June.
    33. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    34. Klepper, Steven, 1997. "Industry Life Cycles," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 145-181.
    35. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    36. Pier P. Saviotti, 1996. "Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 727.
    37. Raymond Vernon, 1966. "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 190-207.
    38. Blackman, Michael, 2011. "Classification News," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-294, September.
    39. Gianluca Carnabuci, 2013. "The distribution of technological progress," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 1143-1154, June.
    40. Bart Verspagen, 1997. "Measuring Intersectoral Technology Spillovers: Estimates from the European and US Patent Office Databases," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 47-65.
    41. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, February.
    42. Pier Saviotti & Andreas Pyka, 2004. "Economic development by the creation of new sectors," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-35, January.
    43. 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.
    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. Hötte, Kerstin & Pichler, Anton & Lafond, François, 2021. "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Mariani, Manuel Sebastian & Medo, Matúš & Lafond, François, 2019. "Early identification of important patents: Design and validation of citation network metrics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 644-654.
    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. Lorenzo Napolitano & Evangelos Evangelou & Emanuele Pugliese & Paolo Zeppini & Graham Room, 2017. "Technology networks: the autocatalytic origins of innovation," Papers 1708.03511, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2018.
    5. Anton Pichler & Franc{c}ois Lafond & J. Doyne Farmer, 2020. "Technological interdependencies predict innovation dynamics," Papers 2003.00580, arXiv.org.
    6. Fredström, Ashkan & Wincent, Joakim & Sjödin, David & Oghazi, Pejvak & Parida, Vinit, 2021. "Tracking innovation diffusion: AI analysis of large-scale patent data towards an agenda for further research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).

    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. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Maryann Feldman & Dieter Kogler & David Rigby, 2013. "rKnowledge: The Spatial Diffusion of rDNA Methods," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1311, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2013.
    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. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    7. Lisa de Propris & Carlo Corradini, 2013. "Technology Platforms in Europe: An Empirical Investigation. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 34," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46920, December.
    8. Francesco Lamperti & Franco Malerba & Roberto Mavilia & Giorgio Tripodi, 2019. "Does the Position in the Inter-sectoral Knowledge Space affect the International Competitiveness of Industries?," LEM Papers Series 2019/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "ICT's Wide Web: a System-Level Analysis of ICT's Industrial Diffusion with Algorithmic Links," Jena Economic Research Papers 2021-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    10. Tom Broekel & Lars Mewes, 2017. "Analyzing the impact of R&D policy on regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1726, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2017.
    11. David Rigby, 2012. "The Geography of Knowledge Relatedness and Technological Diversification in U.S. Cities," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1218, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2012.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    13. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Stefano Basilico & Holger Graf, 2020. "Bridging Technologies in the Regional Knowledge Space: Measurement and Evolution," Jena Economic Research Papers 2020-012, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    15. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    16. Triulzi, Giorgio & Alstott, Jeff & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Lisa De Propris & Carlo Corradini, 2013. "Technological platforms and global opportunities," ERSA conference papers ersa13p867, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & David L. Rigby, 2015. "The geography and evolution of complex knowledge," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1502, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2015.
    19. Kolja Hesse & Dirk Fornahl, 2020. "Essential ingredients for radical innovations? The role of (un‐)related variety and external linkages in Germany," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(5), pages 1165-1183, October.
    20. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patents; Classification; Reclassification;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    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:joevec:v:29:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s00191-018-0603-3. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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