Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping inventive activity and technological change through patent analysis: A case study of India and China

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The characteristics of Indian and Chinese patenting activity in the US patent system are examined by delineating two categories of patents; ‘nationally assigned’, and ‘invented not nationally assigned’ patents (not-nationally assigned patents in short). Further within the above two categories, patents are distinguished and analysed in terms of patent types: utility, design, and plant patents. Indian patents are mainly of utility type whereas China's activity falls in both utility and design.In the ‘nationally assigned’ patents, the different types of institutions involved and linkages are much higher for China. However, ‘not-nationally assigned’ patents of both the countries are dominated by industry and inter-institutional collaborations are sparse. Patents addressing technology sectors (analysis based on utility patents) do not exhibit major differences between the two categories in Chinese patents and address with varying degree all technology sectors. Unlike China, India's ‘nationally assigned’ patents are concentrated in chemical and drugs & medical whereas their ‘not-nationally assigned’ patents are similar to that of China in addressing technology sectors. In design patents, Chinese ‘nationally assigned’ patents mainly cover ornamental design of lighting equipments whereas their ‘not-nationally assigned’ patents are mainly in design equipment for production, distribution or transformation of energy. Further, few firms are active in design patents in both the categories. India's design activity is insignificant in both the categories. The paper concludes by examining the results in the policy context.

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

References

  • Basberg, B. (1983), Foreign patenting in USA as a technology indicator: The case of Norway. Research Policy, 12: 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., Nath, P. (2002), Using patent statistics as a measure of ‘technological assertiveness’: A China-India comparison. Current Science, 83 (1): 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S. (2004), Implications for Indian pharmaceutical sector in the new WTO regime. Medicinal Chemistry Research, 13 (forthcoming).

  • European Commission, (1997), Second European Report on S & T Indicators, EUR 17639, p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1999), Patent statistics as economic indicators. Research Policy, 377–396.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M. (2001), The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools, NBER working paper series. NBER working paper 8498, Cambridge.

  • http://www.ipwatchdog.com/design_patents.html

  • 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: 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Rozek, R. P. (1988),Bibliometric analysis of US pharmaceutical industry research performance. Research Policy, 17: 139–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD Patent Manual (1994), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities Using Patent Data as Science and Technology Indicators, Paris: OECD/GD(94)/114.

  • OECD (1996b), Intellectual Property: Technology Transfer and Genetic Resources: An OECD Survey of Current Practices and Policies.

  • Pavitt, K. (1985), Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7: 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (2001), Innovations in Israel 1968-1997: A comparative analysis using patent data. Research Policy, 30: 363–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USPTO, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Edition 8, 2003, Chapter 600, Chapter 1500, Chapter 1600.

  • Wakelin, K. (1997), Trade and Innovation: Theory and Evidence. Edward Elger, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NISTADS National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, (India)

    Sujit Bhattacharya

Authors
  1. Sujit Bhattacharya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhattacharya, S. Mapping inventive activity and technological change through patent analysis: A case study of India and China. Scientometrics 61, 361–381 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045115.23375.50

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045115.23375.50

Keywords

Search

Navigation