Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92500
標題: Analyzing Sectoral Dynamics of Technological Development from the Perspective of Patent Assignee
透過專利所有權人類型分析技術發展之動態
作者: 朱彥慈
Yen-Tzu, Chu
關鍵字: 跨學科趨勢;專利多樣性;專利引用分析;專利特徵;專利價值;Interdisciplinarity trend;Patent diversification;Patent citation analysis;Patent characteristics;Patent value
引用: Abraham, B. P., & Moitra, S. D. (2001). Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation, 21(4), 245–252. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00040-7 Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Martínez, M. Á. (2012). Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter? Research Policy, 41(4), 692–703. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.002 Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2009). Organizational emotional capability, product and process innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26(3), 103–130. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2009.06.008 Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259. http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2004). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92(3), 435. Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30(9), 1459–1478. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00162-7 Analysis on Technological Innovation Capability of Nonferrous Metal Industry in Five ASEAN Countries:From Perspective of Patent Information. (n.d.). Technology Economics. Campbell, R. S. (1983). Patent trends as a technological forecasting tool. World Patent Information, 5(3), 137–143. Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., & Woolf, P. (1981). Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3(4), 160–163. http://doi.org/10.1016/0172-2190(81)90098-3 Chen, Y.-H., Chen, C.-Y., & Lee, S.-C. (2011). Technology forecasting and patent strategy of hydrogen energy and fuel cell technologies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(12), 6957–6969. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.03.063 Citations - Intellogist. (n.d.). Retrieved May 14, 2015, from http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/Citations Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 182–195. Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 20–32. Dubarić, E., Giannoccaro, D., Bengtsson, R., & Ackermann, T. (2011). Patent data as indicators of wind power technology development. World Patent Information, 33(2), 144–149. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2010.12.005 Duysters, G., & Hagedoorn, J. (1998). Technological Convergence in the IT Industry: The Role of Strategic Technology Alliances and Technological Competencies. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5(3), 355–368. http://doi.org/10.1080/13571519884431 Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233–242. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00077-2 Griliches, Z. (1998). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools (Working Paper No. 8498). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8498 Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market Value and Patent Citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515. http://doi.org/10.1162/003465399558265 Harhoff, D., & Reitzig, M. (2004). Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants—the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 443–480. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.01.001 Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5 Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2001). Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and US firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9(1), 65–82. Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107. Huang, M.-H., Sung, H.-Y., Wang, C.-C., & Chen, D.-Z. (2012). Exploring patent performance and technology interactions of universities, industries, governments and individuals. Scientometrics, 96(1), 11–26. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0878-3 Keller, W. (2004). International Technology Diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3), 752–782. Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2015). Patent databases for innovation studies: A comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 332–345. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.009 Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankeman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00216.x Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129. http://doi.org/10.2307/2696401 Lerner, J. (1994). The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333. http://doi.org/10.2307/2555833 Ling X. Li. (2000). An analysis of sources of competitiveness and performance of Chinese manufacturers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(3), 299–315. http://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010294307 Liu, S. J., & Shyu, J. (1997). Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(5), 661–680. Magerman, T., Van Looy, B., & Song, X. (2006). Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics: Patentee name harmonization. Marco, A. C. (2005). The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence. Review of Financial Economics, 14(3–4), 323–351. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2004.09.003 McAleer, M., & Slottje, D. (2005). A new measure of innovation: The patent success ratio. Scientometrics, 63(3), 421–429. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0222-2 Nagaoka, S., Motohashi, K., & Goto, A. (2010). Chapter 25 - Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator. In Bronwyn H. Hall and Nathan Rosenberg (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. Volume 2, pp. 1083–1127). North-Holland. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169721810020095 Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155. http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., & Jasinski, D. (1995). The Blurring of Industry Boundaries: an Explanatory Model Applied to Telecommunications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4(4), 755–768. http://doi.org/10.1093/icc/4.4.755 Perko, J. S., & Narin, F. (1997). The transfer of public science to patented technology: A case study in agricultural science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(3), 65–72. Schubert, T. (2011). Assessing the value of patent portfolios: an international country comparison. SCIENTOMETRICS, 88(3), 787–804. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0454-2 Silverberg, G., & Verspagen, B. (2007). The size distribution of innovations revisited: an application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance. Journal of Econometrics, 139(2), 318–339. Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.281 Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper No. 2013/3). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/stiaaa/2013-3-en.html Su, H.-N., Chen, C. M.-L., & Lee, P.-C. (2012). Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010. Scientometrics, 92(1), 181–195. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0716-7 The History of Patents - IP & Science - Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2015, from http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/support/patents/patinf/patentfaqs/history/ Tijssen, R. J. W. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30(1), 35–54. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00080-3 Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics (RAND Journal of Economics), 21(1), 172–187. Von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.001
摘要: 
Interdisciplinarity in technology has been usually investigated by analyzing knowledge flow among different research field or industry. However, very limited researches have compared the innovation capability and evaluated the influence of knowledge among different knowledge owner. This research aims to understand sectoral dynamics of technological development from the perspective of the patent assignee. A total 4,667,855 patents granted by USPTO between 1976 and 2013 are classified into six types of assignees, (1) Individual, (2) Company, (3) Government, (4) University, (5) Hospital, and (6) Private non-profit. Subsequently, Knowledge flow among the six types of assignees is analyzed to understand how each type of assignee influences the others from the twelve characteristics, which are recognized as important indicators for patent valuation. It is observed that Hospital type assignee plays play the most significant role in knowledge flow. The Number of Patent Citation Received and Number of Non-Patent References are more assignee-type sensitive. The inter-assignee dynamics obtained in this study provides a way toward understanding from where technological knowledge is created and how patent assignee moderate the change of patent characteristics.

跨科學跨技術的在學術研究中已透過不同的研究領域或是產業做分析,然而鮮少研究針對專利所有權者及所有權種類做創新能力以及評價其價值亦或是知識流動之影響力的比較。本研究使用美國專利資料庫1976年至2013年的專利資訊,並將4,667,855專利分為六類專利所有權人種類,分別為:一,個人;二,公司;三,政府;四,大學;五,醫院;六,私人/非營利組織。研究由透過單一專利自身資訊擴大至專利之間的引用影響再至專利整體價值之評估:一,了解專利所有權人的專利廣度,將專利所有權人種類的專利廣度依序排序;二,了解專利所有權種類影響力及動態知識流動的程度;三,將專利所有權人種類一專利價值與專利數量定位創新位置,分為天才(Talents)、主要創新者(Key Inventor)、勤勞者(Industrious performer)、創新不佳者(Low performer)。在專利特徵中有十二項專利特徵為專利價值的重要指標,本研究利用其中三項,分別為專利引用數量、專利被引用數量、非專利引用數量,衡量專利創新能力以及知識流動影響力。其餘專利特徵在專利所有權人種類的差異性小,因此並不採納。本研究發現所有專利所有權種類中,醫院的專利廣度最小,但其在專利價值表現、創新表現以及影響力都為第一。本研究之貢獻為提供了一種研究方式了解專利特徵透過專利所有權人種類之引用產生之變化以及透過其變化之差異了解專利所有權種類之影響力。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92500
其他識別: U0005-0107201519065100
Rights: 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,2017-07-07起公開。
Appears in Collections:科技管理研究所

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-104-7102026020-1.pdf1.47 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network   
Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.