Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstracts

Most approaches to patent citation network analysis are based on single-patent direct citation relation, which is an incomplete understanding of the nature of knowledge flow between patent pairs, which are incapable of objectively evaluating patent value. In this paper, four types of patent citation networks (direct citation, indirect citation, coupling and co-citation networks) are combined, filtered and recomposed based on relational algebra. Then, a method based on comprehensive patent citation (CPC) network for patent value evaluation is proposed, and empirical study of optical disk technology related patents has been conducted based on this method. The empirical study was carried out in two steps: observation of network characteristics over the entire process (citation time lag and topological and graphics characteristics), and measurement verification by independent proxies of patent value (patent family and patent duration). Our results show that the CPC network retains the advantages of patent direct citation, and performs better on topological structure, graphics features, centrality distribution, citation lag and sensitivity than a direct citation network; The verified results by the patent family and maintenance show that the proposed method covers more valuable patents than the traditional method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcácer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., Gittelman, M., & Sampat, B. (2009). Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38(2), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atallah, G., & Rodríguez, G. (2006). Indirect patent citations. Scientometrics, 67(3), 437–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

  • Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 233–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2005). Knowledge networks from patent data: Methodological issues and research targets (613-643), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Huang, M., Hsieh, H., & Lin, C. (2011). Identifying missing relevant patent citation links by using bibliographic coupling in LED illuminating technology. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 400–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Potterie, B. V., & van Zeebroeck, N. (2008). A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals. Scientometrics, 75(2), 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (Vol. 27). London UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dernis, H., & Khan, M. (2004). Triadic patent families methodology. In: OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers.

  • Emmanuel, D., & Megan, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(5), 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1966). Patent citation indexing and notions of novelty similarity and relevance. Journal of Chemical Documentation, 6(2), 536–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2012). Bibliometric methods for detecting and analysing emerging research topics. El Profesional de la Informacion, 2(21), 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M., Chen, D., & Dong, H. (2011). Identify technology main paths by adding missing citations using bibliographic coupling and co-citation methods in photovoltaics. Paper presented at the Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 2011 Proceedings of PICMET’11.

  • Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators*. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Chen, H., Huang, Z., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3), 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Yu, S., Janssens, F., Glänzel, W., Moreau, Y., & De Moor, B. (2010). Weighted hybrid clustering by combining text mining and bibliometrics on a large-scale journal database. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1105–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 25102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). OECD Patent Statistics Manual. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 509–536). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkethly, R. (1997). The valuation of patents: A review of patent valuation methods with consideration of option based methods and the potential for further research. Paper presented at the Judge Institute Working Paper, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mast0140/EJWP0599.

  • Reitzig, M. (2003). What determines patent value?: Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy, 32(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. (2011, 2011-08-30). USPTO patent and citation data, 2013, from http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/boffindata/faces/study/StudyPage.xhtml?globalId=hdl:1902.1/16412.

  • Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. US: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles (Vol. 1). London UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, E. F., & Teece, D. J. (2004). Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy, 33(2), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., Takeda, Y., & Matsushima, K. (2008). Detecting emerging research fronts based on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications. Technovation, 28(11), 758–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1997). Update on science mapping: Creating large document spaces. Scientometrics, 38(2), 275–293.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes—patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USPTO. (2013). U.S. patent grant maintenance fee events file 2013/08/06, from http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-maintenance-fees.html.

  • Vinkler, P. (1998). Comparative investigation of frequency and strength of motives toward referencing. The reference threshold model. Scientometrics, 43(1), 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. D. (1995). Patents as scientific and technical literature. Scarecrow Press.

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. London UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, C., Dernis, H., Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2005). Analysing European and International Patent Citations. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers.

  • Wilson, P. (1995). Unused relevant information in research and development. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(1), 45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiaofan, W., Xiang, L., & Guanrong, C. (2012). Network Science: An Introduction. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1313–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2004). A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool for high-technology trend. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(1), 37–50.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30(1), 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Mao Jin for helpful discussions and several constructive proposals. This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundations of China (NSFC Grant Nos. 71273196; 71403256 and 71303023), and this research was also supported by National Key Technology R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2013BAH21B00).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Science and Technical Information of China, 15 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, People’s Republic of China

    Guan-Can Yang, Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang

  2. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Hubei, People’s Republic of China

    Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li

  3. Beijing Computing Center, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Tong Liu

  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, 10617, Taiwan, ROC

    Dar-Zen Chen

  5. Department of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Mu-Hsuan Huang

Authors
  1. Guan-Can Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chun-Ya Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yun-Hua Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dar-Zen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mu-Hsuan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dar-Zen Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, GC., Li, G., Li, CY. et al. Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value. Scientometrics 105, 1319–1346 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1763-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1763-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation