Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

References to literature from the business sector in patent documents: a case study of charging technologies for electric vehicles

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Expansion of government R&D budgets on promoting electric vehicle (EV) adoption and charging infrastructure development is likely to continue to be a key component of ecological innovation policies. Using an original data set of non-patent literature (NPL) references extracted from patent documents pertaining to EV charging technologies, this paper provides new evidence on the flows of knowledge with or without a scientific contribution from the business sector. Three main questions are addressed in this paper for exploring whether different patterns of knowledge flows emerge between contributions involving academics and or the business sector not only contributes towards a better understanding of the interrelations between scientific and technological fields regarding EV charging but also serves the purpose of fostering more partnerships and unlocking further investments in research. First, what information facilitates knowledge flow from science to technology? NPL references with authors from the business sector have received a lower number of patent citations on average, and universities still occupy the primary locus of knowledge production. However, patents citing firm publications have a particular focus on technologies relating to stations and rail vehicles and have a broader scope, a larger family size, more claims and forward citations compared to others on average. Second, are there any differences between the types of author contributions? Firms’ collaborations with academia in NPL references contribute to an even higher index, while the patents published between 2001 and 2005 with citations to collaborative scholarly works from the business sector have been cited less than the others. Finally, how are non-patent citations relevant to assignments of patents and patent applications, as well as other events that affect title or patent ownership? Patents citing firm publications in general have fewer assignments, but more on average and patents citing collaborative works are more likely to be changed in titles or ownerships. The role of firm publication needs to be further explored in a border technological field considering its specific relevance both to generating applied technologies and technology transfer as indicated by EV charging patents.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The eNOVA Strategy Board for the Automobile Future is an alliance of relevant German companies from the automotive, battery, semiconductor components, and electrical engineering and materials sectors. More information can be found at https://www.strategiekreis-automobile-zukunft.de/english

  2. The Lens began serving the scholarly citations in 2014, and by January 25, 2017, over 31 million non-patent citations (resolved and unresolved with unique identifiers) were extracted from around 7.6 million patent records or 4.7 million simple patent families.

  3. PATSTAT Global contains bibliographical data relating to more than 100 million patent documents from leading industrialised and developing countries. It also includes the legal status data from more than 40 patent authorities contained in the EPO worldwide legal status database (INPADOC).

References

  • Adam, M. (2016). Electromobility—The current state. In Accelerating E-Mobility in Germany (pp. 1–13). Springer, Cham.

  • Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics,59(2), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, J., Verhoeven, D., Zhang, L., & Van Looy, B. (2016). Patent citation indicators: One size fits all? Scientometrics,106(1), 187–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, N., Ghisetti, C., Gilli, M., Marin, G., & Nicolli, F. (2016). A survey of the literature on environmental innovation based on main path analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys,30(3), 596–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, N., Marzucchi, A., & Rizzo, U. (2020). Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones? Research Policy,49(2), 103901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMVI—Elektromobilitat Model Region Bremen/Oldenburg. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/UI/modellregion-bremen oldenburg.html?nn=36210.

  • Branstetter, L. (2005). Exploring the link between academic science and industrial innovation. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, 119–142.

  • Callaert, J., Grouwels, J., & Van Looy, B. (2011). Delineating the scientific footprint in technology: Identifying scientific publications within non-patent references. Scientometrics,91(2), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics,69(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. F., & Guttel, W. H. (2005). Knowledge production of firms: Research networks and the" scientification" of business R&D. International Journal of Technology Management,31(1–2), 152–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capgemini. (2012). Managing the Change to E-Mobility. Retrieved from: https://www.capgemini. com/resource-file-access/resource/pdf/Managing_the_Change_to_E-Mobility___Capgemini_

  • Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., & Zuniga, M. (2008). In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links. Industry and Corporate Change 17 (4): 611–646. https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v17y2008i4p611-646.html

  • Copenhagen Electric. (2014). The regional EV secretariat. Retrieved from https://www.cphelectric.dk/.

  • Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,73(8), 981–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation: An integrated framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology,14(4), 541–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Link, A. N. (Eds.). (2001). Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Figenbaum, E., & Kolbenstvedt, M. (2013). Electromobility in Norway-experiences and opportunities with Electric Vehicles (No. 1281/2013).

  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal,25, 909–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research policy,35(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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 

  • Hu, X., & Rousseau, R. (2015). A simple approach to describe a company’s innovative activities and their technological breadth. Scientometrics,102(2), 1401–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review,90(2), 215–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, O. A., Jaffe, A., Ashton, D., Warren, B., Koellhofer, D., Dulleck, U., et al. (2018). Mapping the global influence of published research on industry and innovation. Nature Biotechnology,36(1), 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, N., Haščič, I., & Popp, D. (2010). Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: Evidence based on patent counts. Environmental and Resource Economics,45(1), 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenbrunner, W. (2017). Situated Knowledge Production (pp. 1–21). International Impact: Changing Publishing Practices in a German Engineering Department. Minerva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, R. (2013). Innovationslobbying: Eine Analyse am Beispiel der Elektromobilität. Berlin: Springer.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics,25(2), 319–333.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Marco, A. C., Myers, A. F., Graham, S. J., D'Agostino, P. A., & Apple, K. (2015). The USPTO patent assignment dataset: Descriptions and analysis.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Sinilainen, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2003). Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics,58(2), 321–350.

    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, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems.

  • Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research policy,23(5), 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patelli, A., Cimini, G., Pugliese, E., & Gabrielli, A. (2017). The scientific influence of nations on global scientific and technological development. Journal of Informetrics,11(4), 1229–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change,18(6), 1033–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (2012). Personal knowledge. Routledge.

  • Ponds, R., Oort, F. V., & Frenken, K. (2009). Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography,10(2), 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp, D. (2017). From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions. Research Policy,46(9), 1580–1594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, U., Barbieri, N., Ramaciotti, L., et al. (2018). The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions. J Technol Transf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9688-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, P., Fucito, P., & Coggins, W. (2013). USPTO and EPO Announce Launch of Cooperative Patent Classification System. Washington: USPTO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanden, B. (2013). Systems perspectives on electromobility 2013, Chalmers University of Technology. ISBN 978-91-980973-1-3.

  • Sapsalis, E., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Navon, R. (2006). Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy,35(10), 1631–1645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwedes, O., Kettner, S., & Tiedtke, B. (2013). E-mobility in Germany: White hope for a sustainable development or Fig leaf for particular interests? Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 72–80. Retrieved from https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1462901112001839.

  • Sierzchula, W., & Nemet, G. (2015). Using patents and prototypes for preliminary evaluation of technology-forcing policies: Lessons from California's Zero Emission Vehicle regulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,100, 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy,33(10), 1615–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squicciarini, M. "Measuring patent quality and radicalness: new indicators." 4th IPTS Workshop on “The Output of R&D activities: Harnessing the Power of Patents Data”. Sevilla. 2012.

  • Squicciarini, M., H. Dernis and C. Criscuolo (2013), “Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013/03, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4522wkw1r8-en

  • Tagscherer, U., & Frietsch, R. (2014). E-mobility in China: Chance or daydream? (No. 40). Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis.

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2002). Science dependence of technologies: Evidence from inventors and their inventions. Research Policy,31(4), 509–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, X., & Davidson, J. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy,23, 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovation. RAND Journal of Economics,21(1), 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Deventer, P. et al. (2011). Governing the transition to e-mobility: small steps towards a giant leap. Retrieved from https://www.nsob.nl/EN/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/e-mobility-webversie.pdf.

  • Yang, G. C., Li, G., Li, C. Y., Zhao, Y. H., Zhang, J., Liu, T., et al. (2015). Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value. Scientometrics,105(3), 1319–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, F., & Miyazaki, K. (2017). Trajectory identification as proxies for discerning the dynamic nature of technological change—the case of electric vehicles industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,14(01), 1740006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuniga, P., Guellec, D., Dernis, H., Khan, M., Okazaki, T., & Webb, C. (2009). OECD patent statistics manual. Francia: OECD Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank for financial supports provided by the China Scholarship Council (No.201506060153), the National Science Foundation of China (No.71673036) and the Consulting Project of Chinese Academy of Engineering (2016-XZ-03–05).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Universitätsstr. 3b, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Zhao Qu

  2. Department 2, German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Schützenstr. 6a, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Zhao Qu

  3. Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Tangshan Normal University, Tangshan, 063000, China

    Shanshan Zhang

Authors
  1. Zhao Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shanshan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhao Qu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qu, Z., Zhang, S. References to literature from the business sector in patent documents: a case study of charging technologies for electric vehicles. Scientometrics 124, 867–886 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03518-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03518-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation