Technology Intelligence: New Challenges from Patent Information

Conference paper


Patent information can be used for strategic planning purposes. Conventional patent analysis has commonly focused on factual information and, in particular, on information extraction, visualization and assessment techniques. Less scholarly attention has been devoted to the strategic role of an integrated system of patent intelligence in supporting firm’s decision-making. Since patents can be strategically used by firms to prevent competitors to strengthen their competitive advantage, patent information may be distort or insufficient. We accommodate the “dark side” of firms patenting by underlining pros and cons of patent information. We argue that technology intelligence should take into account such intrinsic limits of patent information.


Patent Application Patent Data Patent Office Technology Intelligence Patent Analysis 
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.


  1. 1.
    Kortum S, Lerner J. 1999. What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy 28(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall B.H. 2004. Exploring the Patent Explosion. In NBER Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kerr C.I.V., Mortara L., Phaal R. and Probert D.R. 2006. A conceptual model for technology intelligence, Int. J. Technol. Intel. Plan. 2(1): 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van de Ven A.H. and Johnson P.E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31, 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKelvey B. 2006. Van de Ven and Johnson’s “Engaged Scholarship”: Nice try, but…. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 822–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van de Ven A.H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arman H. and Foden J. 2010. Combining methods in the technology intelligence process: Application in an aerospace manufacturing firm. R&D Management, 40(2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lichtenthaler E. 2004. Technological change and the technological intelligence process: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malerba F. and Orsenigo L. 1996. Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific. Research Policy, 25, 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tong X. and Frame J.D. 1994. Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Archibugi D. and Pianta M. 1996. Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation 16 (9), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu S. and Shyu J. 1997. Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 13, 661–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Narin G. and Noma E. 1987. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy 16, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bosworth D.L. 1984. Foreign patent flows to and from the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 13, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rivette K.G. and Kline D. 1999. Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basberg B. 1987. Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ernst H. 2003. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miles I., Andersen B., Boden M. and Howells J. 2000. Service production and intellectual property. International Journal of Technology Management, 20, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R. and Walsh J.P. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge (MA).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giuri P., Mariani M., Brusoni S., Crespi G., Francoz D., Gambardella A., Garcia-Fontes W., Geuna A., Gonzales R., Harhoff D., Hoisl K., Le Bas C., Luzzi A., Magazzini L., Nesta L., Nomaler O., Palomeras N., Patel P., Romanelli M., and Verspagen B. 2007. Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy, 36(8), 1107–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cesaroni F. and Mariani M. 2001. The market for knowledge in the chemical sector. In Guilhon. B. (eds.), Technology and markets for knowledge. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cesaroni F. and Giuri P. 2006. Intellectual property rights and market dynamics. In Bianchi, P., & Labory, S. (Ed.), International handbook in industrial policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mille S. and Wanner L. 2008. Making text resources accessible to the reader: The case of patent claims. Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Archontopoulos E., Guellec D., Stevnsborg N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. and van Zeebroeck N. 2007. When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Information Economics and Policy, 19, 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationCarlos III UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche Economico-Aziendali ed AmbientaliUniversità di MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations