Abstract
The purpose of this article is to map the evolving patterns of patent assignees’ collaboration networks and build a latent collaboration index (LCI) model for evaluating the collaboration probability among assignees. The demonstration process was carried on the field of industrial biotechnology (IB) from 2000 to 2010. The results show that the number of assignees in the field of IB grew steadily, while the number of patents decreased slowly year by year after it reached peak in 2002 and 2003. Densification and growth analysis, average degree, density and components analysis showed that the collaboration networks tended to density. Especially the diameter analysis indicated that the IB field had come into a mature mode after finishing the topological transition occurred in about 2002 or 2003. The nodes had degree k followed a power law distribution, which implied a preferential linking feature of the network evolving and thus provided a foundation for link prediction from the aspect of network evolving. Basing on this, two network-related factors had been brought into the LCI model, which were degree and network distance. Their values were positive and negative for link prediction respectively. In addition, types of assignees, geographical distances and topics similarities had also been added into the LCI model. Different types of assignees had also different probabilities to be linked, such as corporations had been collaborated more frequently, while universities ranked lowest based on collaborations. Assignees from the same countries seemed to be likely to collaborate to each other. It have to been noted that the LCI model is flexible that can be adjusted of the factors or their weights according to different subjects, time or data. For instance, the topics similarities between assignees would be removed from the LCI model for link prediction in the field of IB because of the poor inference from topics similarities to collaborations. Actually, many promising pairs of assignees that seemed to have the potential to collaborate to each other according to one or more of these factors have never collaborated. One possible reason might be that collaboration is not popular behaviours among assignees during the process of patent application or maintain. Another reason could be the competitions between assignees. Many a time the promising pairs are competing pairs. Therefore, it was hard to carry out regression analysis basing on those four factors to get usable coefficients set of the four factors. The LCI model could only be used to make qualitative analysis on collaboration potential when it was revised.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albert, R., & Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Kaiser, D. I., & Kaur, J. (2009). Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 210–221.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(4–5), 993–1022.
Dorogovtsev, S. N., & Mendes, J. F. F. (2002). Evolution of networks. Advances in Physics, 51(4), 1079–1187.
Dou, H., & Bai, Y. (2007). A rapid analysis of Avian Influenza patents in the Esp@cenet database-R&D strategies and country comparisons. World Patent Information, 29, 26–32.
Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233–242.
Gress, B. (2010). Properties of the USPTO patent citation network 1963–2002. World Patent Information, 32(1), 3–21.
Guns R. (2011). Bipartite networks for link prediction: Can they improve prediction performance? Proceedings of ISSI 2011. 4–7, July, 2011, Durban, South Africa–13th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Vol 1, (pp. 249–260).
Han, Y.-J., & Park, Y. (2006). Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: the case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Information, 28(3), 235–247.
Hanaki, N., Nakajima, R., & Ogura, Y. (2010). The dynamics of R&D network in the IT industry. Research Policy, 39(3), 386–399.
Hung, S. W., & Wang, A. P. (2010). Examining the small world phenomenon in the patent citation network: a case study of the radio frequency identification (RFID) network. Scientometrics, 82(1), 121–134.
Lee, S., & Kim, M.-S. (2010). Inter-technology networks to support innovation strategy: an analysis of Korea’s new growth engines. Innovation: Management Policy and Practice, 12, 88–104. 1: Network Analysis Application in Innovation Studies).
Leskovec, J., Kleinberg, J. & Faloutsos, C. (2005). “Graphs over Time: Densification Laws, Shrinking Diameters and Possible Explanations” ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD). (pp. 177–187).
Linton, K., Stone, P., & Wise, J. (2008). Patenting trends & innovation in industrial biotechnology. Industrial Biotechnology, 4(4), 367–390.
NWB Team (2006). “Network Workbench Tool,” Indiana University, Northeastern University, and University of Michigan. http://nwb.slis.indiana.edu/. Accessed 10 Mar 2010.
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.
Segev, A., & Kantola, J. (2012). Identification of trends from patents using self-organizing maps. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(18), 13235–13242.
Sternitzke, C., Bartkowski, A., & Schramm, R. (2008). Visualizing patent statistics by means of social network analysis tools. World Patent Information, 30(2), 115–131.
Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.
Whitfield, J. (2008). Group theory. Nature, 455, 720–723.
Yang, Y. Y., Akers, L., Yang, C. B., et al. (2010). Enhancing patent landscape analysis with visualization output. World Patent Information, 32(3), 203–220.
Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2011). Identifying rapidly evolving technological trends for R&D planning using SAO-based semantic patent networks. Scientometrics, 88(1), 213–228.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the fellows from the four organizations of CAS, which are Biotechnology Part of Bureau of S & T Development, Chengdu Library, Institute of Microbiology and Shanghai Information Center for Life sciences. They gave a lot of advises in cleaning the assignees in IB field. The paper did benefit greatly from detailed comments by an anonymous reviewer. This work is funded in part by the Main Direction Program of Knowledge Innovation of Chinese Academy of Sciences (KSCX2-EW-G-9).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, Y., Fang, S. Mapping the evolving patterns of patent assignees’ collaboration networks and identifying the collaboration potential. Scientometrics 101, 1215–1231 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1304-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1304-9