A study of influencing factors of patent value based on social network analysis

This study proposes a different angle to evaluate patent value, namely regarding patent value as a combination of static characteristics and dynamic relationship. On one hand, a majority of patent static characteristics are fixed in their application, which means these characteristics are controlled by the owner of patent; on the other hand, the dynamic citation relationship is formed by forward citation and backward citation, which means not controlled by the owner. If a patent takes an important position in other citation relationships, this implies the patent has more chance to gain and control technology and knowledge, and to have an important influence on subsequent patents. In other words, this patent is valuable. This study applies social network analysis to carry out the research purpose, regarding patent as a node and citation as the connection between nodes to build patent citation network. This study can provide a thinking mode based on social network analysis for companies; offer a more rational way to evaluate patent value from the perspective of dynamic development; construct an effective early warning mechanism for patent litigation.

[1]  Cheng-Hsin Chiang,et al.  Network Structure of Innovation: Can Brokerage or Closure Predict Patent Quality? , 2009, HICSS.

[2]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[3]  Patricia E. Tweet.  Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital , 2006 .

[4]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[5]  Wei Zhou,et al.  Patent Deployment Strategies and Patent Value in LED Industry , 2015, PloS one.

[6]  Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie,et al.  The vulnerability of patent value determinants , 2011 .

[7]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[8]  Kuei-Kuei Lai,et al.  Exploring technology diffusion and classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network , 2009 .

[9]  Bruno Crépon,et al.  estimating the innovation function from patent numbers: gmm on count panel data ¤ , 1997 .

[10]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  A. Jaffe.  Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms&Apos; Patents, Profits and Market Value , 1986 .

[12]  C. Collins,et al.  STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES, TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM SOCIAL NETWORKS, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES IN CREATING ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE , 2003 .

[13]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[14]  Anthony Breitzman,et al.  Using Patent Citation Analysis to Target/Value M&A Candidates , 2002 .

[15]  Knut Blind,et al.  The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios , 2009 .

[16]  Yiling Deng,et al.  Private value of European patents , 2007 .

[17]  Pei-Chun Lee,et al.  Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[18]  R. Tijssen.  Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows , 2001 .

[19]  C. Haythornthwaite.  Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange☆ , 1996 .

[20]  Mark P. Carpenter,et al.  Linkage Between Basic Research Literature and Patents , 1980 .

[21]  Yu-Hsin Chang,et al.  Valuable patent or not? Depends on the combination of internal patent family and external citation , 2010, PICMET 2010 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH.

[22]  Hyoungshick Kim,et al.  Social network analysis of patent infringement lawsuits , 2013 .

[23]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .

[24]  Jean O. Lanjouw,et al.  How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data , 1996 .

[25]  Francis Narin,et al.  Citation rates to technologically important patents , 1981 .

[26]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[27]  Zhen-Zhen Wang,et al.  Network closure, brokerage, and structural influence of journals: a longitudinal study of journal citation network in Internet research (2000–2010) , 2013, Scientometrics.

[28]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Valuable Patents , 2003 .

[29]  R. Burt.  The Social Structure of Competition , 2004 .

[30]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[31]  Deepak Somaya.  Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation , 2003 .

[32]  J. Davidson Frame,et al.  Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data , 1994 .

[33]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[34]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition , 2001 .

[35]  J. Lerner.  The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis , 1994 .

[36]  Mukti Khaire,et al.  Business Method Patents as Real Options: Value and Disclosure as Drivers of Litigation , 2007 .

[37]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most Litigated Patents , 2009 .

[38]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.