The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO

Scientometrics

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 23-41

  Criscuolo, Paola ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30744458336     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0003-6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. ARCHIBUGI, D. (1992), Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: a review, Science and Public Policy, 19 : 357-368.
2. ARCHIBUGI, D., PIANTA, M. (1992), Specialization and size of technological activities in industrial countries: The analysis of patent data, Research Policy, 21 : 79-93.
3. BERTIN, G. V., WYATT, S. (1988), Multinationals and Industrial Property. The Control of the World's Technology, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.
4. CANTWELL, J., HODSON, C. (1991), Global R&D and UK competitiveness. In: CASSON, M. (Ed.), Global Research Strategy and International Competitiveness, Basil Blackwell, London.
5. COHEN, W. M., NELSON, R. R., WALSH, J. (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Finns Patent (or not), NBER Working Paper Series No. 7552.
6. CRISCUOLO, P. (2004), R&D Internationalisation and Knowledge Transfer, Ph.D thesis, MERIT (Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology), University of Maastricht.
7. CRISCUOLO, P., PATEL, P. (2003), Large firms and internationalisation of &D: 'hollowing out' of national technological capacity?, Paper presented at SETI Workshop, May 15-16, Rome.
8. DERNIS, H., KHAN, M. (2004), Triadic Patent Families Methodology, OECD STI working paper No. 2004/2.
9. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (1997), Second European Report on S&T Indicators. Bruxelles, European Commission.
10. FAUST, K., SCHEDL, H. (1982), International patent data: their utilisation for the analysis of technological developments, Workshop on Patent and Innovation Statistics, Paris, OECD.
11. GRUPP, H., MÚNT, G., SCHMOCH, U. (1996), Assessing different types of patent data for describing high-technology export performance. In: OECD (Ed.), Innovation, Patents and Technological Strategies. OECD, Paris.
12. 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.
13. HALL, B., JAFFE, A., TRAJTENBERG, M. (2001), The NBER Patent Citations Data File; Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools, NBER Working Paper No. 8498.
14. HINGLEY, P., PARK, W. (2003), Patent family data and statistics at the European Patent Office, WIPO-OED Workshop on Statistics in the Patent Field, Geneva.
15. LANJOUW, J. O., SCHANKERMAN, M. (1999), The Quality Of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators, NBER Working Paper No. 7345.
16. LE BAS, C., SIERRA, C. (2002), Location versus country advantages in R&D activities: some further results on multinationals' locational strategies, Research Policy, 31 : 589-609.
17. LEVIN, R., KLEVORICK, A., NELSON, R. R., WINTER, S. (1987), Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 783-820.
18. MICHEL, J., BETTLES, B. (2001), Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports, Scientometrics, 51 : 795-816.
19. OST (2002), Science et Technologie: Indicateurs. Economica, Paris.
20. PAKES, A., SCHANKERMAN, M. (1984), The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In: GRILICHES, Z. (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
21. PATEL, P., PAVITT, K. (1991), Large firms in the production of the world's technology: an important case of non-globalisation, Journal of International Business Studies, 22 : 1-21.
22. PATEL, P., VEGA, M. (1999), Patterns of internationalisation of corporate technology: location vs. home country advantages, Research Policy, 28 : 145-155.
23. SCHERER, F. M. (1965), Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions, American Economic Review, 55 : 1097-1125.
24. SCHMOCH, U., SCHNÖRING, T. (1994), Technological strategies of telecommunications equipment manfucturers, Telecommunications Policy, 18 : 397-413.
25. SOETE, J. (1981), A general test for the technology gap theory, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 17 : 638-660.
26. STRAUS, J. (1997), The Present State of the Patent System in the European Union as Compared with the Situation in the US and Japan, EUR 1704 EN.
27. TRAJTENBERG, M. (1990), A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations, RAND Journal of Economics, 20 : 172-187.
28. TRAJTENBERG, M., JAFFE, A., HENDERSON, R. (1997), University versus corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5 : 19-50.
29. VERSPAGEN, B., SCHOENMAKERS, W. (2004), The spatial dimension of patenting by multinational firms in Europe, Journal of Economic Geography, 4 : 23-42.