Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J. (2008). The value of U. S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 923–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38, 428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35(4), 463–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Coombs, J. E., & Bierly, P. E., I. I. I. (2006). Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36(4), 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganley, D., & Lampe, C. (2009). The ties that bind: Social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, 47, 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (1998). Scientometric study of laser patent literature. Scientometrics, 43(3), 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(April), 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49, 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U. S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A. (1985). On patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy, 93(2), 390–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, G., & Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73(7), 793–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternitzke, C., Bartkowski, A., & Schramm, R. (2008). Visualizing patent statistics by means of social network analysis tools. World Patent Information, 30(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. (1999). The effect of technological impact upon patent renewal decisions. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(2), 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (2009). WIPO reformed IPC: Internet publication. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/ipc8/?lang=en.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Service Science, National Tsing Hua University, 100, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan, ROC

    Jyun-Cheng Wang

  2. Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, 100, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan, ROC

    Cheng-hsin Chiang

  3. I-PAT, 100, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan, ROC

    Shu-Wei Lin

Authors
  1. Jyun-Cheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheng-hsin Chiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu-Wei Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jyun-Cheng Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, JC., Chiang, Ch. & Lin, SW. Network structure of innovation: can brokerage or closure predict patent quality?. Scientometrics 84, 735–748 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0211-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0211-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation