Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patent applicants and examiners do not always have the same point of view when conducting a prior-art search. Although several studies have suggested differences between citations by applicants and examiners, the data and range of empirical studies are too incomplete to generalize the characteristics of relationships between citation types and the value of a technology or invention. To overcome this limitation, it is crucial to compare citations by applicants and by examiners in depth, with diverse perspectives and data, to determine the value of patent information for technological innovation. Thus, this paper suggests that the differences in the composition of technical information and patent quality in patent-level investigations as well as the locus of the knowledge source and knowledge recentness in knowledge-level investigations according to patent citation type (by applicants and examiners) reflect Pavitt’s perspective on the nature, impact, and source of technological innovation. We found that the quality of patents cited by applicants is higher than that of those by examiners in four industries, excluding a supplier-dominated industry. The citation types are related to the locus of the knowledge source in four industries, excluding the supplier-dominated industry. In particular, the patents cited by examiners tended to be more recently issued in all sectoral fields. This research contributes to confirming the technological value of patents based on the citation behaviors of applicants and examiners through empirical analysis. The results can be utilized to investigate signals or noise in technological innovation and improve processes or systems of patent examination. In addition, it can help applicants conduct more thorough prior-art searches by comprehending the examiner’s perspective toward citations to increase the probability of patent registration.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. NACE (Nomenclature des Activités Économiques dans la Communauté Européenne) is the European statistical classification of economic activities.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., Perruchas, F., & Mattsson, P. (2009). What do patent examiner inserted citations indicate for a region with low absorptive capacity? Scientometrics, 80(2), 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Mattsson, P., & Perruchas, F. (2011). Smoothing the lies: The distinctive effects of patent characteristics on examiner and applicant citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1727–1740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16(2), 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, I. M., Kortum, S., & Stern, S. (2002). Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of examiner characteristics. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), 1892–1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, R. S. (2004). Obvious to whom-evaluating inventions from the perspective of PHOSITA. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19, 885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2002). Finding the organizational sources of technological breakthroughs: the story of Hewlett-Packard’s thermal ink-jet. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(5), 1059–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frakes, M. D., & Wasserman, M. F. (2016). Is the time allocated to review patent applications inducing examiners to grant invalid patents? Evidence from micro-level application data. Review of Economics and Statistics. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, C., & Rogers, M. (2006). The value of innovation: The interaction of competition. R&D and IP. Research Policy, 35(4), 562–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

  • Hegde, D., & Sampat, B. (2009). Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Economics Letters, 105(3), 287–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Fogarty, M. S., & Banks, B. A. (1998). Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. K. (2002). The OECD Technology Concordance (OTC): Patents by industry of manufacture and sector of use. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2002/05. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/521138670407.

  • Kesan, J. P. (2002). Carrots and sticks to create a better patent system. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17(2), 763–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S., & Putnam, J. (1997). Assigning patents to industries: Tests of the Yale technology concordance. Economic Systems Research, 9(2), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K.-K., & Wu, S.-J. (2005). Using the patent co-citation approach to establish a new patent classification system. Information Processing and Management, 41(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levene, H. (1961). Robust tests for equality of variances. Contributions to probability and statistics. Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 279–292).

  • Li, R., Chambers, T., Ding, Y., Zhang, G., & Meng, L. (2014). Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1007–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liston-Heyes, C., & Pilkington, A. (2004). Inventive concentration in the production of green technology: A comparative analysis of fuel cell patents. Science and Public Policy, 31(1), 15–25.

    Article  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 

  • Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, B. S. (2006). Peer to patent: Collective intelligence, open review, and patent reform. Harv. JL & Tech., 20, 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachys, F. (2012). Patent citation: The inventor, examiner, application, differences USPTO-case report: Patent No.-4,237,224. Examiner, Application, Differences USPTO-Case Report: Patent (4,237,224).

  • Patent and Trademark Office, US Dep't of Commerce. (1998). Manual of patent examining procedure.

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U., Laville, F., Patel, P., & Frietsch, R. (2003). Linking technology areas to industrial sectors. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Research, 1.

  • Setsuo, Y. (2010). How important is examiner citation? On the usefulness of examiner citation as an indicator of patent value. Economic Review, 61(3), 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8), 1109–1124.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. (2014). Finding the signal in the noise of patent citations: How to focus on relevance for strategic advantage. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(9), 36–44. http://timreview.ca/article/830.

  • Tan, D., & Roberts, P. W. (2010). Categorical coherence, classification volatility and examiner-added citations. Research Policy, 39(1), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2006). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: evidence from inventor-and examiner-added citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 383–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Pavitt, K., & Bessant, J. (2001). Managing innovation (Vol. 3). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555502.

  • Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verspagen, B., Moergastel, T. v., & Slabbers, M. (1994). MERIT concordance table: IPC-ISIC (rev. 2).

  • Yoon, B., & Lee, S. (2010). Open innovation models in SMEs. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 13(1), 160–183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014R1A1A2054892).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Dongguk University, Pil-dong 3-ga, Chung-gu, Seoul, 100-715, Korea

    Inchae Park, Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon

Authors
  1. Inchae Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yujin Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Byungun Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byungun Yoon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, I., Jeong, Y. & Yoon, B. Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners. Scientometrics 111, 665–691 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2323-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2323-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation