, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 69–76 | Cite as

Technological specialization and patenting strategies in East Asia — Insights from the electronics industry

  • Christian SternitzkeEmail author


We elicit filing strategies for patent families in China and Japan in two prominent technology fields: telecommunications and audiovisual technology. For the two destination countries we find substantial heterogeneity in filing strategies among applications from different countries. This heterogeneity cannot be explained with activities in technological subfields.


Technological Specialization European Patent Office Patent Office International Patent Classification Patent Family 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. DTI/OST DTI/OST Technology group & IPC Subclass mapping (June 27, 2006).
  2. EPO (2006), European Patent Office Website: FAQ on Far East — China: Facts & Figures (July 5, 2006).
  3. European Commission (2003), Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators, Directorate-General for Research, Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. Gehrke, B., Grupp, H. (1994), Innovationspotential und Hochtechnologie: technologische Position Deutschlands im internationalen Wettbewerb, Physica, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  5. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Meyer, M. (2008), ’Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world, Scientometrics, 74(1): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grupp, H. (1998), Foundations of the Economics of Innovation: Theory, Measurement and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Legler, H., Gehrke, B. (2005), Zur Technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2005, BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2005), Chinese Statistical Yearbook.Google Scholar
  10. O’Keeffe, M. (2005), Cross comparison of US, EU, JP and Korean companies patenting activity in Japan and in the Peoples Republic of China, World Patent Information, 27: 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. SIPO State Intellectual Property Office Website, http://www.Sipo.Gov.Cn
  12. Sternitzke, C. (2008a), Defining triadic patent families as a measure of technological strength, Scientometrics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Sternitzke, C. (2008b), Intellectual property rights, ineffective legal regimes, and innovative activity — the case of China, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  14. UNCTAD (2005), World Investment Report 2005, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (July 3, 2006).
  15. WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, Statistics on Patents http://www.Wipo.Int/Ipstats/En/Statistics/Patents
  16. Yang, D. (2003), The development of intellectual property in China, World Patent Information, 25: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PATON — Patentzentrum ThüringenTechnische Universität IlmenauIlmenauGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Projektmanagement und Innovation (IPMI)Universität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations