Recent Advances in Patent Analysis Network

  • Javier Gavilanes-Trapote
  • Rosa Río-Belver
  • Ernesto CillerueloEmail author
  • Jaso Larruscain
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)


The databases of patents are considerable, with many authors, as a source of information very valuable within the innovation process. One of the most important methods in patent analysis is based on the citations. The basic concept of patent citation analysis is that there exists a technological linkage between two patents if a patent cites the other. The networks codifying the cited-citing relationship between patents are useful for visualizing the overall status of a given technology and helps the experts in the identification of the technological implications using analysis network techniques. The potential offered by the measuring citations for planning and assessing of policies from Science and Technology is immense. The aim of this paper is to describe the utilities and limitations of the analysis network of patents as well as recent advances.


Patent citation Patent citation network Patent classification Technological knowledge flow Citation frequency 


  1. Bacchiocchi E, Montobbio F (2010) International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect: do USPTO and EPO patent citations tell the same story? Scand J Econ 112(3):441–470Google Scholar
  2. Blondel V, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R et al (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp P10008Google Scholar
  3. Breitzman AF, Narin F (2001) Method and apparatus for choosing a stock portfolio, based on patent indicators. United States Patent 6175824Google Scholar
  4. Cheng YH, Kuan FY, Chuang SC et al (2010) Profitability decided by patent quality? An empirical study of the US semiconductor industry. Scientometrics 82(1):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho TS, Shih HY (2011) Patent citation network analysis of core and emerging technologies in Taiwan: 1997–2008. Scientometrics 89(3):795–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fontana R, Nuvolari A, Verspagen M (2009) Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Econ Innov New Technol 18:311–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garechana G, Rio-Belver R, Cilleruelo E, Gavilanes-Trapote J (2012) Visualizing the scientific landscape using maps of science. In: Industrial engineering: innovative networks, part 2. Springer, London, pp. 103–112. ISBN: 978-1-4471-2320-0Google Scholar
  8. Hacklin F, Marxt C, Fahrni F (2009) Coevolutionary cycles of convergence: an extrapolation from the ICT industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76(6):723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. Rand J Econ 36(1):16–38Google Scholar
  10. Han YJ, Park Y (2006) Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: the case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Inf 28(3):235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM et al (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev Econ Stat 81(3):511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang Z, Chen H, Chen ZK et al (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanopart Res 6:325–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (1999) International knowledge flows: evidence from patent citations. Econ Innov New Technol 8:105–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jin JH, Park SC, Pyon CU (2011) Finding research trend of convergence technology based on Korean R&D network. Expert Syst Appl 38(12):15159–15171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kay L, Newman N, Youtie J et al (2012) Patent overlay mapping: visualizing technological distance. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1208.4380Google Scholar
  16. Ko N, Yoon J, Seo W (2014) Analyzing interdisciplinarity of technology fusion using knowledge flows of patents. Expert Syst Appl 41:1955–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kodama F (1986) Japanese innovation in mechatronics technology. Sci Publ Policy 13(1):44–51Google Scholar
  18. Kostoff R, Stump J, Johnson D et al (2006) The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 8:301–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee H, Kim C, Cho H et al (2009) An ANP-based technology network for identification of core technologies: a case of telecommunication technologies. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):894–908CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee C, Jeon J, Park Y (2011) Monitoring trends of technological changes based on the dynamic patent lattice: a modified formal concept analysis approach. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:690–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L (2012) Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 63(7):1442–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff L, Kushnir D, Rafols I (2014) Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC). Scientometrics 98:1583–1599Google Scholar
  23. Meyer M (2000) What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics 49(2):93–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagaoka S (2005) Patent quality, cumulative innovation and market value: evidence from Japanese firm level panel data. IIR working paper, WP#05-06. Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  25. Narin F (1994) Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics 30(1):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park H, Yoon J (2014) Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: the case of Korean national R&D. Scientometrics 98:853–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Podolny JM, Stuart TE, Hannan M (1996) Networks, knowledge and niches: competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984–1991. Am J Sociol 102(3):659–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schoen A (2011) A global map of technology. Paper presented at the IPTS patent Workshop, Seville, Spain, 13–14 June 2012Google Scholar
  29. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci 24(4):265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sung K, Kim T, Kong H (2010) Microscopic approach to evaluating technological convergence using patent citation analysis. In: U-and E-Service, Science and Technology, pp 188–194Google Scholar
  31. Wallace M, Gingras Y, Duhon R (2009) A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 60(2):240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang SJ (2007) Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics 71(3):509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wartburg T, Teichert KR (2005) Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Res Policy 34(10):1591–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoon J, Kim K (2011) Identifying rapidly evolving technological trends for R&D planning using SAO-based semantic patent networks. Scientometrics 88(1):213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zha X, Chen M (2010) Study on early warning of competitive technical intelligence based on the patent map. J Comput 5(2):274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Gavilanes-Trapote
    • 1
  • Rosa Río-Belver
    • 1
  • Ernesto Cilleruelo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jaso Larruscain
    • 1
  1. 1.Foresight, Technology and Management (FTM) Group, Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of the Basque Country UPV/EHUVitoriaSpain
  2. 2.Foresight, Technology and Management (FTM) Group, Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of the Basque Country UPV/EHUBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations