, Volume 84, Issue 3, pp 735–748 | Cite as

Network structure of innovation: can brokerage or closure predict patent quality?



Patents are important intellectual assets for companies to defend or to claim their technological rights. To control R&D cost, companies should carefully examine their patents by patent quality. Approaches to evaluating patent quality are mostly a posteriori uses of factual information of patent quality. This paper examined whether patent quality can be predicted a priori, i.e., during the early years after a patent is granted, by analyzing information embedded in a network of patent citations. Social network analysis was applied to analyze two network positions occupied by a patent, brokerage and closure to determine whether either position is a good predictor of patent quality. Patent renewal decisions and forward citations were adopted as surrogates of patent quality. The analytical results showed that forward citations can be positively predicted by the brokerage position and negatively predicted by the closure position in the early and mature stages. Renewal decisions can be negatively predicted by the brokerage position in the early stage, and the closure position influences the renewal decision in a different way in the early and mature stages. These analytical results imply that a company should focus on developing patents that bridge different technologies as its technological developments reach maturity.


Patent citation network Social network analysis Brokerage Closure 


  1. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & Mcallister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida, P., & Phene, A. (2004). Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 847–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bessen, J. (2008). The value of U. S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 923–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38, 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgers, W. P., Hill, C. W. L., & Kim, W. C. (1993). A theory of global strategic alliances: The case of the global auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt, R. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31–56). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35(4), 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, S.-B., Lai, K.-K., & Chang, S.-M. (2008). Exploring technology diffusion and classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, C., & Park, Y. (2009). Monitoring the organic structure of technology based on the patent development paths. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 754–768.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York: Collins.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Coombs, J. E., & Bierly, P. E., I. I. I. (2006). Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36(4), 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), 1892–1908.Google Scholar
  16. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganley, D., & Lampe, C. (2009). The ties that bind: Social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, 47, 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (1998). Scientometric study of laser patent literature. Scientometrics, 43(3), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, XXVIII, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  22. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.Google Scholar
  24. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firm’s patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1002.Google Scholar
  27. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(April), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, Y.-G. (2008). Patent licensability and life: A study of U. S. patents registered by South Korean public research institutes. Scientometrics, 75(3), 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, P.-C., Su, H.-N., & Wu, F.-S. (2010). Quantitative mapping of patented technology—The case of electrical conducting polymer nanocomposite. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3), 466–478.Google Scholar
  31. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malewicki, D., & Sivakumar, K. (2004). Patents and product development of antecedents and consequences of patent value. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49, 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U. S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pakes, A. (1985). On patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy, 93(2), 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Park, G., & Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73(7), 793–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sternitzke, C., Bartkowski, A., & Schramm, R. (2008). Visualizing patent statistics by means of social network analysis tools. World Patent Information, 30(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas, P. (1999). The effect of technological impact upon patent renewal decisions. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas, P., & McMillan, G. S. (2001). Using science and technology indicators to manage R&D as a business. Engineering Management Journal, 13(3), 9–14.Google Scholar
  44. Tijssen, R. J. W., Buter, R. K., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2000). Technological relevance of science: Validation and analysis of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics, 47(2), 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Verbeek, A. (2004). Patent related indicators for assessing knowledge-generating institutions: Towards a contextualised approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Andries, P., Zimmermann, E., & Deleus, F. (2002). Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54(3), 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. WIPO. (2009). WIPO reformed IPC: Internet publication. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jyun-Cheng Wang
    • 1
  • Cheng-hsin Chiang
    • 2
  • Shu-Wei Lin
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Service ScienceNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Institute of Technology ManagementNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan, ROC
  3. 3.I-PATHsinchuTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations