Opening the Black Box

Analytical Approaches and their Impact on the Outcome of Statistical Patent Analyses
  • Sybille Hinze
  • Ulrich Schmoch


The paper presents methodological approaches to statistical patent analyses. The references to timescales, countries of origin, and patent offices largely determine the outcome of such analyses; in particular, for country comparisons. For instance, considerable differences appear if results are compared based on priority, application, or grant years. For interpreting the patent figures at specific offices it proves important to consider the geostrategic position of the office. Advanced approaches such as the triad concept lead to more balanced results, but their assessment has to include a consideration of international patent flows. For quality indicators it has to be taken into account that patents are always two-dimensional and have technical and economic aspects. In principle early quality indicators primarily cover the technological content. A further issue is the definition of samples aiming at a large number of suitable documents which is sometimes contradictory to the target of completeness.


Patent Application European Patent Office Patent Document Patent Office International Patent Classification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Archibugi, D. (1992). Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: A Review. Science and Public Policy, 10, 357–368.Google Scholar
  2. Basberg, B.L. (1983). Foreign patenting in the US as a technology indicator. Research Policy, 12, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basberg, B.L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, R.S., Nieves, A.L. (1979). Technology indicators base don patent data: The case of catalytic converters. Richland: Batelle Pacific Northwest.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, M.P., Narin, F. (1983). Validation study: Patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence. World Patent Information, 5, 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of Commerce. (2000). Changes to implement eighteen-month publication of patent applications. Federal Register, 65. (183). September 20, 2000, 57024–57061. Washington, D. C.: DOC.Google Scholar
  7. Dernis, H. (2003). OECD triadic patent families. Presentation at the WIPO-OECD Workshop on’ statistics in the Patent field’ in Geneva. September 18 and 19, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. Dernis, H., Guellec, D., van Pottelsberghe, B. (2001). Using patent counts for cross-country comparison of technology output. STI Review (OECD), 27, 129–146.Google Scholar
  9. DPMA (2002). Annual Report 2002. München: DPMA.Google Scholar
  10. EPO (2001). Annual Report 2001. Munich: EPO.Google Scholar
  11. EPO (2002). Annual Report 2002. Munich: EPO.Google Scholar
  12. EPO, JPO, USPTO (2001). Trilateral Statistical Report. 2001 Edition. Munich, Tokyo, Washington, D.C.: EPO, JPO, USPTO.Google Scholar
  13. Faust, K. (1990). Early identification of technological advances on the basis of patent data. Scientometrics, 19, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerstenberger, W. (1992). Zur Wettbewerbsposition der deutschen Industrie im High-Tech-Bereich. Ifo Schnelldienst, 13, 14–23.Google Scholar
  15. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  16. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1999). Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Research Policy, 28, 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grupp, H., Münt, G., Schmoch, U. (1996). Assessing different types of patent data for describing high-technology performance. In OECD (Ed.), Innovation, Patents and Technology Strategies (pp. 271–284). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. Guellec, D., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patents. Economic Letters, 69, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harhoff, D. Scherer, F. M., Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32, 1343–1363.Google Scholar
  20. Hinze, S., Jappe, A., Koschatzky, K. (2002). International Benchmark Club. Innovationsstatistik. Vorstudie Patente und Bibliometrie. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-ISIGoogle Scholar
  21. JPO. (2002). Annual Report 2002. Part III Statistics. Tokyo: JPO.Google Scholar
  22. Kuntze, U., Müller, P., Pfeiffer, R., Rempp, H., Westermann, G. (1975). Erfassung und Bewertung technologischer Entwicklungstrends auf der Basis des im Deutschen Patentamts vorhandenen Datenmaterials und technologischen Wissens. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-ISI.Google Scholar
  23. Narin, F., Noma, E., Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technology strength. Research Policy, 16, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Using patent data as science and technology indicators. Patent Manual 1994. Paris.Google Scholar
  25. Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7, 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmoch, U. (1999a). Eignen sich Patente als Innovationsindikatoren? In R. Boch (Ed.), Patentschutz und Innovation in Geschichte und Gegenwart. (pp. 113–126). Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Schmoch, U. (1999b). Impact of international patent applications on patent indicators. Research Evaluation, 8, 119–131.Google Scholar
  28. Schmoch, U., Frietsch, R. (2001). Patentaktivitäten: Dynamik und Spezialisierung im internationalen Längs-und Querschnitt. In NIW, DIW, Fraunhofer-ISI, ZEW, Stifterverband (Ed.), Indikatorenbericht zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2000/2001 (pp. 100–112). Hannover: NIW.Google Scholar
  29. Schmoch, U., Grupp, H., Mannsbart, W., Schwitalla, B. (1988). Technikprognosen mit Patentindikatoren. Zur Einschätzung zukünftiger industrieller Trends bei Industrierobotern, Lasern, Solargeneratoren und immobilisierten Ernzymen. Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland.Google Scholar
  30. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  31. Soete, L.G., Wyatt. S.M.E. (1983). The use of foreign patenting as an international comparable science and technology output indicator. Scientometrics, 5, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of inventions. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.Google Scholar
  33. USPTO. (2001). Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2001. Washington, D.C.: USPTO.Google Scholar
  34. USPTO. (2002). Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2002. Washington, D.C.: USPTO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sybille Hinze
    • 1
  • Ulrich Schmoch
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation ResearchKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations