Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology

Scientometrics

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 217-241

  Bass, Scott D ^a   Kurgan, Lukasz A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Classification; Feature selection; Machine learning; Nanotechnology; Patent; Patent value

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952879915     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0008-z     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20, 251-259.
2. Baldini, N., & Grimaldi, R. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70, 333-354.
3. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38, 321-325.
4. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5-32.
5. Breitzman, A. F., & Mogee, M. E. (2002). The many applications of patent analysis. Journal of Information Science, 28, 187-205.
6. Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., & Woolf, P. (1981). Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3, 160-163.
7. Chen, D., Lin, W. C., & Huang, M. (2007a). Using essential patent index and essential technological strength to evaluate industrial technological innovation competitiveness. Scientometrics, 71, 101-116.
8. Chen, H., Li, X., & Lin, Y. (2007b). Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, 977-1002.
9. Cohen, W. (1995). Fast effective rule induction. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on machine learning (pp. 115-123). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
10. Connolly, R. A., & Hirschey, M. (1988). Market value and patents: A Bayesian approach. Economics Letters, 27, 83-87.
11. Debackere, K., Verbeek, A., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology-II: The multiple uses of technometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 213-231.
12. Domingos, P. (1999). MetaCost: A general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 155-164). New York: ACM Press.
13. Gay, C., & Le Bas, C. (2005). Uses without too many abuses of patent citations or the simple economics of patent citations as a measure of value and flows of knowledge. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14, 333-338.
14. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661-1707.
15. Gupta, V. K. (1999). Technological trends in the area of fullerenes using bibliometric analysis of patents. Scientometrics, 44, 17-31.
16. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365-1379.
17. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16-38.
18. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 511-515.
19. Hilario, M. & Kalousis, A. (2000). Quantifying the resilience of inductive classification algorithms. In Proceedings of the 4th European conference on principles of data mining and knowledge discovery (pp. 106-115). France: Lyon.
20. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z. K., & Roco, M. C. (2004). International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 325-354.
21. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Li, X., & Roco, M. C. (2006). Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 859-879.
22. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Yip, A., Ng, G., Guo, F., Chen, Z.-K., et al. (2003). Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 333-363.
23. Hullmann, A. (2007). Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70, 739-758.
24. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58, 507-527.
25. John, G. H. & Langley, P. (1995). Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In Proceedings of the eleventh conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 338-345). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
26. Karki, M. (1997). Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool. World Patent Information, 19, 269-272.
27. Kononenko, I. (1994). Estimation attributes: analysis and extensions of RELIEF. In Proceedings of the 1994 European conference on machine learning (pp. 171-182). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
28. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70, 565-601.
29. Kostoff, R., Stump, J., Johnson, D., Murday, J., Lau, C., & Tolles, W. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 301-321.
30. Le Cessie, S., & van Houwelingen, J. C. (1992). Ridge estimators in logistic regression. Applied Statistics, 41, 191-201.
31. Lee, L. L., Chan, C. K., Ngaim, M., & Ramakrishna, S. (2006). Nanotechnology patent landscape 2006. Nano, 1(2), 101-113.
32. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Scientometrics, 70, 207-222.
33. Lo, S.-C. (2008). Patent coupling analysis of primary organizations in genetic engineering research. Scientometrics, 74, 143-151.
34. Marinova, D., & Mcaleer, M. (2003). Nanotechnology strength indicators: International rankings based on US patents. Nanotechnology, 14, R1-R7.
35. Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51, 163-183.
36. Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics, 70, 779-810.
37. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42, 195-205.
38. Narin, F. (1993). Technology indicators and corporate strategy. Review of Business, 14, 19-23.
39. Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30, 147-155.
40. Narin, F., Breitzman, A. F., & Thomas, P. (2004). Using patent citation indicators to manage a stock portfolio. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S& T systems (pp. 553-568). Netherlands: Springer.
41. Narin, F., & Hamilton, K. S. (1996). Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics, 36, 293-310.
42. Quinlan, R. (1993). C4. 5: Programs for machine learning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
43. Reitzig, M. (2003). What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy, 32, 13-26.
44. Rozhkov, S., & Ivantcheva, L. (1998). Scientometrical indicators of national science & technology policy on patent statistics data. World Patent Information, 20, 161-166.
45. Sampat, B. (2004). Examining patent examination: An analysis of examiner and applicant generated prior art. Working Paper, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology.
46. Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1992). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23, 133-141.
47. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 172-187.
48. Trippe, A. J. (2003). Patinformatics: Tasks to tools. World Patent Information, 25, 211-221.
49. van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tussen, R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66, 295-310.
50. van Someren, M., & Urbancic, T. (2005). Applications of machine learning: Matching problems to tasks and methods. Knowledge Engineering Review, 20, 363-402.
51. Verbeek, A., & Debackere, K. (2006). Patent evolution in relation to public/private R& D investment and corporate profitability: Evidence from the United States. Scientometrics, 66, 279-294.
52. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology-I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 179-211.
53. Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97, 261-275.
54. Wang, S. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71, 509-522.
55. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.