Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we empirically investigate the role of references in patents in a firm’s technological learning and innovation when the patents are transferred (i.e., technology licensing activities) to these firms. This study is based on a sample of 68 Chinese high-tech firms that engaged in patent technology licensing while using a matching sample of non-licensee firms, and it examines covered patents in licensee agreements that were originally registered in the European Patent Office between 2000 and 2005. Empirical results indicate that the reference scope (defined as the number of different patent classes—classes that the examined patent does not belong to—in the backward citations) and the time lag of the backward citations each has a positive effect and a negative effect on the licensee firms’ innovation outcomes respectively, measured as the number of Chinese patent applications during the 5 years after the licensing year. However, it failed to find a positive effect of the science-based citations (defined as backward citations to journal articles) as we predicted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Versus backward citations are forward citations received by a patent, which are typically informative of the subsequent impact of an invention. In this study we only focus on the references registered in the patent documents, the so-called backward citations (“prior art”). In empirical work, we control for forward citations.

References

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Fernández, A. (2009). Exploring the quality of environmental technology in Europe: Evidence from patent citations. Scientometrics, 80(1), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C.-M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiners citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 775–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anton, J. J., & Yao, D. A. (2002). The sale of ideas: Strategic disclosure, property rights, and contracting. Review of Economic Studies, 69(3), 513–531.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, C. (2010). The economic complexity of technology and innovation. Regional Studies, 44(6), 801–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. (1995). Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the markets for know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(3), 775–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1993). Determinants of inward technology licensing intentions: An empirical analysis of Australian engineering firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(3), 230–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2012). Access to universities’ public knowledge: Who’s more nationalist? Scientometrics, 91(3), 671–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2010). International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect. Do USPTO & EPO patent citations tell the same story? Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112(3), 441–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., & Meyer, M. (2003). Large firms and the science-technology interface patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films. Scientometrics, 58(2), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., & Price, B. (1991). Regression analysis by example. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2012). Using the entropy-based patent measure to explore the influences of related and unrelated technological diversification upon technological competences and firm performance. Scientometrics, 90(3), 825–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17(2), 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., & Ra, W. (2002). How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices: A theory development note. Journal of International Management, 8(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, D., & Park, W. H. (1988). The adoption and diffusion of imported technology: The case of Korea. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fosfuri, A., Giarratana, M. S., & Luzzi, A. (2008). The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software products. Organization Science, 19(2), 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(supplement), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H. (1998). Foundations of the economics of innovation—Theory, measurement and practice. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). Market value and patent citations. NBER working paper, Paris.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. In A. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.), Patents, citations, and innovations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    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 

  • Hausman, J. A., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Economic and Political Weekly, 27, 909–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, E. (2007). Patent and technology licensing. Computer & Internet Lawyer, 24(10), 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S.-L., Lo, S., & Chang, W. H. (2009). How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies. Scientometrics, 79(3), 563–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S.-L., Yu, Y.-C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2011). Emerging firms in an emerging field: An analysis of patent citations in electronic-paper display technology. Scientometrics, 89(1), 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. K. N. (2002). ‘Learning-by-licensing’: R&D and technology licensing in Brazilian invention. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 11(3), 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. K., & Lanctot, J. A. (2001). Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katrak, H. (1990). Imports of technology and the technological effort of Indian enterprises. World Development, 18(3), 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, E. H., & Bierly, P. E. (2000). Internal vs. external learning in new product development: Effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management, 30(3), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 20(2), 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, B. (2002). Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval: Generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers. Scientometrics, 54(2), 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Leone, M. I., & Torrisi, S. (2010). Technological exploration through licensing: New insights from the licensee’s point of view. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(3), 871–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2005). Making a technological catch-up: Barriers and opportunities. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13, 97–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leone, M. I., & Reichstein, T. (2012). Licensing fosters rapid innovation! The effect of the grant-back-clause and technological unfamiliarity. Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 965–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2012). Integrated knowledge exploitation: The complementarity of product development and technology licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 513–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, B.-W. (2003). Technology transfer as technological learning: A source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Management, 33(3), 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. (2005). China’s development model: An alternative strategy for technological catch-up. Working paper, Finland, Hitotsubashi.

  • Lowe, J., & Taylor, P. (1998). R&D and technology purchase through license agreements: Complementary strategies and complementary assets. R&D Management, 28(4), 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F. (1992). Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Economic Journal, 102(413), 845–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., Romeo, A., Schwartz, M., Teece, D., Wagner, S., & Brach, P. (1982). Technology transfer, productivity, and economic policy. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, J. A., & Cho, D. S. (1999). Combinative capabilities and organizational learning in latecomer firms: The case of the Korean semiconductor industry. Journal of World Business, 34(2), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messinis, G. (2011). Triadic citations, country biases and patent value: The case of pharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 89(3), 813–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (1999). Patent citations in a novel field of technology—What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151–178.

    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 

  • Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527–539.

    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 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1993). Patent citation cycles. Library Trends, 41(4), 700–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemet, G. F., & Johnson, E. (2012). Do important inventions benefit from knowledge originating in other technological domains? Research Policy, 41(1), 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A. (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49(2), 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, R. (1999). The evolution of technology in multinational enterprises: The role of creative subsidiaries. International Business Review, 8(2), 125–148.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, C., & Soete, L. (1988). Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In G. E. A. Dosi (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory. New York: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkethly, R. H. (2001). Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: Patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy, 30(3), 425–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    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 

  • Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, K. (1997). The impact of technological complexity and interfirm cooperation on business survival. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 339–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Fox-Kean, M. (2005). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment. American Economic Review, 95(1), 450–460.

    Article  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 

  • Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2009). External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese technological innovation survey. Research Policy, 38(3), 518–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K.-H., Hsieh, M.-H., & Hultink, E. J. (2011). External technology acquisition and product innovativeness: The moderating roles of R&D investment and configurational context. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(3), 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M. (1995). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2013). The dual role of local sites in assisting firms with developing technological capabilities: Evidence from China. International Business Review, 22(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Roijakkers, N., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chen, J. (2012). How Chinese firms employ open innovation to strengthen their innovative performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 59(3/4), 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by Sichuan University’s Special Research Program for the Philosophy Social Science from the Subordinate Universities of Ministry of Education’s Basic Research Foundation (SKX201004; SKYB-201302), and National Science Foundation of China (NSFC, grant No. 71003061; 71033001) and National Social Science Foundation of China (NSSFC, grant No. 12&ZD098; 12&ZD199).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Sichuan University, Wangjiang Road 29, Chengdu, 610064, China

    Yuandi Wang & Xin Gu

  2. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research Institute, Sichuan University, Wangjiang Road 29, Chengdu, 610064, China

    Yuandi Wang & Xin Gu

  3. Faculty of Management and Economics, Dalian University of Technology, Linggong Road 2, Dalian, 116023, China

    Xiongfeng Pan

  4. School of Economic Management, China Institute for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Zhejiang University of Technology, No. 288, Liuhe Road, Hangzhou, 310023, China

    Yantai Chen

Authors
  1. Yuandi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiongfeng Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yantai Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yantai Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Pan, X., Chen, Y. et al. Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?. Scientometrics 95, 731–752 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0962-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0962-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation