Innovation systems as patent networks - Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice

home > archives > 13/3 > Innovation systems as patent networks

Innovation systems as patent networks: The Netherlands, India and nanotech

Wilfred Dolfsma
School of Economics and Business, Universiteit van Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PP: 311 - 326

Abstract

Research in the domain of 'Innovation Studies' has been claimed to allow for the study of how technology will develop in the future. Some suggest that the National and Sectoral Innovation Systems literature has become bogged down, however, into case studies of how specific institutions affect innovation in a specific country. A useful notion for policy makers in particular, Balzat and Hanusch (2004 Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14(2): 197-210) argued that there is a need for NIS studies to develop complementary and also quantitative methods in order to generate new insights that are comparable across national borders.

We use data for patents granted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to map innovation systems. Groupings of patents into primary and secondary classes (co-classification) can be used as relational indicators. Knowledge from one class may be more easily used in another class when a co-classification relation exists. Using social network analysis, we map the co-classification of patents among classes and thus indicate what characterizes an innovation system.

A main contribution of this paper is methodological, adding to the repertoire of methods NIS studies use and using information from patents in a different way. Policy makers may also find benefits in the social network analysis of the complete set of patents granted by the WIPO to firms and individuals in a country. Social network analysis indicates what innovation activity occurs in a countries and which fields of technology are likely to give rise to innovative products in the near future. We offer such analysis for the Dutch and Indian Innovation Systems. This social network analysis could also be done for a sector innovation system, and we do so for nanotech to determine empirically the knowledge field relevant for this emerging scientific domain.

Keywords

innovation systems; networks; patent networks; national innovation system

View references

References

Arundel, A. and Kabla I. (1998) What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms, Research Policy 27: 127-141.

Balzat M. and Hanusch H. (2004) Recent trends in the research on national innovation Systems Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14(2): 197-210.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. (2008) Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis, Research Policy 37: 407-429.

Bittlingmayer, G. (1988) Property rights, progress, and the aircraft patent agreement, Journal of Law and Economics 31(1): 227-248.

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. and Malerba, F. (2003) Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification, Research Policy 32(1): 69-87.

Cantner, U. and Graf, H. (2006) The Network of Innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis, Research Policy 35(4): 463-480.

Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M. and Rickne, A. (2002) Innovation Systems: Analytical and methodological issues, Research Policy 31: 233-245.

Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. (1991) On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1: 93-118.

Chittoor, R., Sarkar, M. B., Ray, S. and Aulakh, P. S. (2009) Third-world copycats to emerging multinationals: Institutional changes and organizational transformation in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, Organization Science 20(1): 187-205.

Criscuolo, P. (2006) The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USTPTO and EPO, Scientometrics 66(1): 23-41.

De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V. (2005) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dittrich, K. and Duysters, G. (2007) Networking as a means to strategic change: The case of open innovation in mobile telephony, Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(6): 510-521.

Dolfsma, W. (2008) Knowledge economies. Routledge, London.

Dolfsma, W. (2009) Kennis delen: Micro en macro. In: J.-P. van den Toren (Ed.), Connecting global ambitions: De Nederlandse manier van samenwerken. Den Haag, The Netherlands, Innovatieplatform.

Dolfsma, W. (2011) Patent strategizing, Journal of Intellectual Capital 12(2): 168-178.

Dolfsma, W., Chaminade, C. and Vang, J. (Eds.) (2008) Knowledge dynamics out of balance. Research Policy 37(10): 1657-1658.

Dolfsma, W. and Verburg, R. (2008) Structure, agency and the role of values in processes of institutional change, Journal of Economic Issues 42(4): 1031-1054.

Dosi, G. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy 11: 147-162.

Edquist, C. (2004) Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In: J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Engelsman, E. C. and van Raan, A. F. J. (1994) A patent-based cartography of technology, Research Policy 23(1): 1-26.

Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D. and Verspagen, B. (2008) The value of European patents, European Management Review 5: 69-84.

Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York.

Granstrand, O. (2000) The economics and management of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, VIC.

Griliches, Z. (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators, Journal of Economic Literature 28(4): 1661-1707.

Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (2005) Market value and patent citations, RAND Journal of Economics 36(1): 16-38.

Innovatieplatform (2004) Voorstellen Sleutelgebieden-aanpak. Den Haag, The Netherlands, Innovatieplatform.

Innovatieplatform (2009) Voortgang Sleutelgebieden en tussentijdse evaluatie Sleutelgebieden-aanpak. Den Haag, The Netherlands, Innovatieplatform.

Islam, N. and Miyazaki, K. (2009) Nanotechnology innovation system: Understanding hidden dynamics of nanoscience fusion trajectories, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76: 128-140.

Kamada, T. and Kawai, S. (1989) An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs, Information Processing Letters 31(1): 7-15.

Kleinknecht, A., van Montfort, K. and Brouwer, E. (2002) The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11: 109-121.

Lanjouw, J. O. and Schankermann, M. (2004) Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? Journal of Law and Economics 47: 45-74.

Lemley, M. A. and Shapiro, C. (2005) Probabilistic patents, Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(2): 75-98.

Lenocini, R. and Montresor, S. (2000) Network analysis of eight technological systems, International Review of Applied Economics 14(2): 213-234.

Lerner, J. (1995) Patenting in the shadow of competitors, Journal of Law and Economics 38: 463-495.

Lerner, J. (2009) The empirical impact of intellectual property rights on innovation: Puzzles and clues, American Economic Review 99(2): 343-348.

Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1987) Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3: 783-832.

Leydesdorff, L. (2004) The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55(11): 991-1001.

Leydesdorff, L. (2008a) Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(10): 1582-1597.

Leydesdorff, L. (2008b) The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update, Scientometrics 76(1): 159-167.

Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W. and van der Panne, G. (2006) Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among 'Technology, Organization, and Territory' Research Policy 35(2): 181-199.

Leydesdorff, L. and Fritsch, M. (2006) Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics Research Policy 35(10): 1538-1553.

Leydesdorff, L. and Rafols, I. (2011) Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies: An exploration of patterns of network formation, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(5): 846-860.

Leydesdorff, L. and Schank, T. (2008) Dynamic animations of journal maps: Indicators of structural changes and interdisciplinary developments, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(11): 1810-1818.

Liu, X. and White, S. (2001) Comparing innovation systems: A framework and application to China's transitional context, Research Policy 30: 1091-1114.

Lotti, F. and Santarelli, E. (2001) Linking knowledge to productivity: A German-Italy comparison using the CIS database, Empirica 28: 293-317.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988) Innovation as an interactive process - From user-producer interaction to national systems of innovation. In: G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory. Pinter Publishers, London.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.) (1992) National systems of innovation. Pinter Publishers, London.

Malerba, F. and Orsenigo, L. (1997) Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities, Industrial and Corporate Change 6: 83-117.

Ministry of Economic Affairs (2005) Onderscheidend vermogen - Sleutelgebieden-aanpak: Samen werken aan innovatie op kansrijke gebieden. The Hague, The Netherlands, Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Nelson, A. J. (2009) Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion, Research Policy 38: 994-1005.

Nelson, R. R. (Ed.) (1993) National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, New York.

Nooteboom, B. and Stam, E. (Eds.) (2008) Microfoundations for innovation policy. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (1994) The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Using patent data as science and technology indicators (Vol. OCDE/GD(94)114). OECD, Paris. Accessed http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/62/2095942.pdf (Accessed July 2011).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (1997) Patents and innovation in the international context. OECD, Paris.

Rip, A. and Kemp, R. (1998) Technological Change. In S. Rayner and L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change. Resources and Technology, Vol 2. Washington, DC, Batelle Press, pp. 327-399.

Scheu, M., Veefkind, V., Verbandt, Y., Galan, E. M., Absalom, R. and Förster, W. (2006) Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach, World Patent Information 28: 204-211.

Storz, C. (2008) Dynamics in innovation systems: Evidence from Japan's game software industry, Research Policy 37: 1480-1491.

Verspagen, B. (1997) Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: Estimates from the European and US patent office databases, Economic Systems Research 9(1): 47-64.

Verspagen, B. (2006) University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems, Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607-632.

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. and Uzzi, B. (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge, Science 316: 1036-1039.

Navigate: Archives | Contents | Top of page