Patent families: When do different definitions really matter?

Scientometrics

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 39-63

  Martínez, Catalina ^a  

^a Institute of Public Goods and Policies   (Spain)

Author keywords

Patent equivalents; Patent families; Patent value; Priorities

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649914145     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0251-3     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Adams, S. R. (2006). Information sources in patents (2nd ed.). Munich: K.G. Saur.
2. Deng, Y. (2007). Private value of European patents. European Economic Review, 51, 1785-1812.
3. Dernis, H., Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. OECD STI Review, 27, 129-146. Paris: OECD.
4. Dernis, H., & Khan, M. (2004). Triadic patent families methodology. OECD STI Working Paper 2004/2.
5. EPO. (2009). Guidelines for examination in the European Patent Office. Available at www.epo.org, April 2009.
6. Faust, K., & Schedl, H. (1982). International patent data: their utilisation for the analysis of technological developments. Workshop on patent and innovation statistics. Paris: OECD.
7. Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2010). Transnational patents and international markets. Scientometrics, 82(1), 185-200.
8. Graham, S., & Harhoff, D. (2006). Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of European and US Patents. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5680. London: CEPR.
9. Grupp, H. (1998). Foundations of the economics of innovation. Theory, measurement and practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
10. Grupp, H., Münt, G., & Schmoch, U. (1996). Assessing different types of patent data for describing hightechnology export performance. In Innovation, patents and technological strategies (pp. 271-287). Paris: OECD.
11. Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004). Measuring the globalisation of technology. An approach based on patent data. CEB Working Paper 04-13.
12. Harhoff, D. (2006). Patent constructionism: Exploring the microstructure of patent portfolios. Presentation prepared for the EPO/OECD conference on patent statistics for policy decision making, Vienna, October 23-24, 2006. Available at http://academy.epo.org/schedule/2006/ac04/_pdf/monday/Harhoff.pdf.
13. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 3, 511-515.
14. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1993). Scale, scope and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in ethical drug discovery. Working Paper 3629-93. MIT and NBER.
15. Hingley, P. (2009). Patent families defined as priority forming filings and their descendents. Working paper available at http://forums.epo.org/patstat under "work in progress".
16. Hingley, P., & Nicolas, M. (1999). Improvements to methods for forecasting patent applications using information on patent families. Unpublished paper presented at the international forecasting symposium, Washington, DC.
17. Hingley, P., & Nicolas, M. (Eds.). (2006). Forecasting innovations: Methods for predicting numbers of patent filings. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
18. Hingley, P., & Park, W. G. (2003). Patent family data and statistics at the European Patent Office. Paper presented at the WIPO-OECD workshop on statistics in the patent field, Geneva. Available at http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/resources/studies.html.
19. Martínez, C. (2010). Insight into different types of patent families. OECD Science and Technology Working Paper 2010/2.
20. Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185-201.
21. Nanu, D. (2003). The Derwent patent family and its application in patent statistical analysis. Presented at the WIPO-OECD workshop on statistics in the Patent Field, Geneva.
22. OECD. (2009). Patent statistics manual. Paris: OECD.
23. Pakes, A., & Schankerman, M. (1984). The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, patents and productivity, NBER Conference Series. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24. Putnam, J. (1996). The value of international patent rights. PhD thesis, Yale University.
25. Simmons, E. S. (2009). 'Black sheep' in the patent family. World Patent Information, 31, 11-18.
26. Sternitzke, C. (2009). Defining triadic patent families as a measure of technological strength. Scientometrics, 81(1), 91-109.
27. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & van Zeebroeck, N. (2008). A brief history of space and time: the scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals. Scientometrics, 75(2), 319-338.
28. van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2008). Filing strategies and patent value. CEB working paper 08-016 and CEPR discussion paper 6821.
29. Webb, C., Dernis, H., Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2005). Analysing European and international patent citations: A set of EPO patent database building blocks. OECD STI Working Paper 2005/9. Paris: OECD.
30. WIPO. (2008). World patent report: A statistical review. Geneva: WIPO.