Comparing nanotechnology landscapes in the US and China: a patent analysis perspective
- 21 Downloads
The United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China (China) have the most patents in nanotechnology in their own depositories and overall in the international depositories. This paper compares nanotechnology landscapes between 2001 and 2017 as reflected in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). It presents the evolution of nanotechnology patent development in the US and China, the differences between nanotechnology topics addressed in the USPTO and CNIPA patents, key players in nanotechnology fields in both domestic and foreign markets, and the player collaboration patterns. Bibliographic, content, and social network analyses are used. The longitudinal changes of granted patents and ranked countries, patent families, technology fields, and key players in domestic and overseas markets are outlined. Collaboration networks of assignees and the influential players have been identified based on network parameters. Results show that the US market attracts more international collaborations and has a higher level of knowledge exchange and resource sharing than the Chinese market. Companies play a vital role with regard to US nanotechnology development, resulting in more within-industry collaborations. In contrast, universities and research institutes are the dominant contributors to China’s nanotechnology development, leading to more academia-industry collaborations in China’s market.
KeywordsNanotechnology Patent analysis International perspective Development trend Topic evolution Collaboration network Comparative study
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF EFMA-1832926, the National Social Science Fund of China under Grant No. 15BGL037, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71673135. The fourth co-author was supported by the Directorate for Engineering in NSF. The authors thank Questel.com for making patent database available for research and Qingmin Ji at Herbert Gleiter Institute of Nanoscience at Nanjing University of Science and Technology for her help in validating nanotechnology topics and keywords. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the respective supporting agencies.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Barabási A-L (2016) Network science, 1st edn. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Chan J (2017) Robots, not humans: official policy in China. In: New Int. https://newint.org/features/2017/11/01/industrial-robots-china. Accessed 11 Mar 2019
- Chen H, Roco MC (2009) Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge. Springer US, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Flynn H, Hwang D, Holman M (2013) Nanotechnology update: corporations up their spending as revenues for nano-enabled products increase. LuxResearch Inc., Boston Google Scholar
- Govindarajan UH, Trappey AJC, Trappey CV (2018) Immersive technology for human-centric cyberphysical systems in complex manufacturing processes: a comprehensive overview of the global patent profile using collective intelligence. Complexity 2018:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4283634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kendrick I, Bos A, Chen S (2015) Nanotechnology update: U.S. leads in government spending amidst increased spending across Asia. LuxResearch Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
- Morrison WM (2018) China-U.S. trade issues. Available on https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2019
- Schmoch U (2008) Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons. Final report to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), WIPOGoogle Scholar
- The State Council of China (2012) 12th Five Year Plan for the National Development of Strategic Emerging Industries. The State Council of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar