Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 425–435 | Cite as

Data-mining the technological importance of government-funded patents in the private sector

  • Jordan A. Comins
Article

Abstract

A perennial challenge for basic research funding agencies is assessing the technological importance of their investments in the private sector. In large measure, this stems from difficulties relating how private sector companies and technologies benefit from the major outputs of science research, such as papers, patents and conference proceedings. Here, we propose a data-mining procedure to assess the technological importance of patents, supported by a basic research funding, beyond academic and public sector entities. We applied this approach to patents partially funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). Our procedure begins by identifying a large sample of AFOSR-funded patents and classifying their most recent patent assignees as listed on the US patent assignment database, where one can find records of patent rights being transferred between individuals or institutions. Next, the patents citing this sample of AFOSR-funded patents is mined and, again, we classify their associated assignees to estimate the downstream technological importance of basic research investments. Interestingly, while patents directly funded by AFOSR are modestly assigned to organizations in the private sector (~20 %), patents citing these AFOSR-funded patents are overwhelmingly assigned to the private sector (~86 %). Following data collection, we consider whether patterns emerging from assignee data of both AFOSR-funded patents and the patents citing AFOSR-funded patents provide insights into real-world examples of the impact of government sponsored invention. As a case study, we investigated the most frequent assignee for patents citing our sample of AFOSR-funded patents: Digimarc Corporation. Examining the relationship between AFOSR-funded invention and Digimarc revealed several highly cited patents were granted based on government-funded academic research in mathematics and signal processing. These patents became the kernel of a tech start-up by the inventors, Cognicity, which was later acquired by Digimarc. These patents continue to contribute to the patent portfolio of this large technology service provider. We find that one can observe both increased downstream effects of publicly funded research on the private sector as well as insights for potential real-world demonstrations of impact in the private sector via our data-mining methodology.

Keywords

Data-mining Citation analysis Patents Invention Science policy Commercialization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Effort sponsored in whole or in part by the Air Force Research Laboratory, USAF, under Partnership Intermediary No. FA9550-13-3-0001. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The author thanks W. Swearingen, T. Hussey, L. Sebby, S. Carmack and two anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript as well as H. Parrott and J. Connelly for performing manual patent-assignment classification.

Conflict of interests

JAC works for the non-profit Virginia Tech Applied Research Corporation (VT-ARC). VT-ARC provides support to the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Air Force Research Laboratory.

References

  1. Albert, M., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20, 251–259. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004873339190055U
  2. Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent Citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(November), http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1997/iv97–26.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.88.4.774
  3. Bikard, M. (2012). Is knowledge trapped inside the ivory tower? Technology Spawning and the Genesis of New Science-Based Inventions. The Genesis of New Science-Based Inventions…, 1–34. Retrieved from http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/seminars/bikard.pdf
  4. Breitzman, A., & Mogee, M. (2002). The many applications of patent analysis. Journal of Information Science, 28, 187–205. Retrieved from http://jis.sagepub.com/content/28/3/187.short
  5. Carpenter, M., Narin, F., & Woolf, P. (1981). Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3, 160–163. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0172219081900983
  6. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 2003(September), 215–218.Google Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 823–833. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733398000936
  9. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. In Discussion Paper FS IV (pp. 9726 http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1997/iv97–26.pdf). Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465399558265
  10. Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79, 957–970. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1831431
  11. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve survey of patentees. American Economic Review, 90, 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, R., Chambers, T., Ding, Y., Zhang, G., & Meng, L. (2014). Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1007–1017. doi: 10.1002/asi.23054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lybbert, T., & Zolas, N. (2014). Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An “algorithmic links with probabilities” approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity. Research Policy, 43(3), 530–542. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733313001637
  14. Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49, 530–542. Retrieved from http://www.akademiai.com/index/R36112LT6562H343.pdf
  15. Narin, F. (1994). Patent Bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30(1), 147–155. Retrieved from http://www.akademiai.com/index/W341X23502200M88.pdf
  16. Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733397000139
  17. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16, 143–155. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004873338790028X
  18. Obama, B. (2011). Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses. In Presidential Memorandum.Google Scholar
  19. Office of Technology Assessment and Forecast, & U.S. Department Commerce, Patent, and T. O. (1976). Sixth report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  20. Press, W. (2013). What’s so special about science (and how much should we spend on it?). Science, 342, 817–822. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/817.short
  21. Russo, D. (2011). Knowledge extraction from patent: Achievements and open problems. A multidisciplinary approach to find functions. In Global Product Development (pp. 567–576). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15973-2
  22. Salter, A., & Martin, B. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733300000913
  23. Serrano, C. (2010). The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents. The RAND Journal of Economics, 41(4), 686–708. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2010.00117.x/full
  24. Thursby, J., Fuller, A., & Thursby, M. (2009). US Faculty Patenting: Inside and Outside the University. Research Policy, 38, 817–822. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873330800214X
  25. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555502
  26. van Bochove, C. (2013). Economic statistics and scientometrics. Scientometrics, 96, 799–818. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-013-0960-5
  27. Weinberg, B., Owen-Smith, J., & Rosen, R. (2014). Science funding and short-term economic activity. Science, 344, 41–43. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6179/41.short

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia Tech Applied Research CorporationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations