, 81:91 | Cite as

Defining triadic patent families as a measure of technological strength

  • Christian SternitzkeEmail author


A frequently used indicator for assessing technological strengths of nations are patents registered in the triad region, i.e. in North America, Europe, and Asia. Currently these so-called triadic patents are defined as filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). Recent developments suggested that this definition might lack adequacy regarding the offices in Europe and Asia. Our findings propose that in particular Germany and China should be added to this triad definition since in some technology fields patents registered in these countries show the same citation impact as patents registered at the EPO or JPO. Our results also underline that the number of triadic patent families per country is a function of technological specialization and (national) patenting strategies.


Patent Citation 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.


  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BMBF (2004), Bundesbericht Forschung 2004, Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie, Bonn.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchiocchi, E., Montobbio, F. (2004), EPO vs USPTO Citation Lags, CESPRI Working Paper No. 161, (23-Aug-2005).
  4. Basberg, B. L. (1987), Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature, Research Policy, 16: 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U. (2003), Erfindungen kontra Patente: Schwerpunktstudie ‘zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands’: Endbericht, FhG-ISI, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., Woolf, P. (1981), Citation rates to technologically important patents, World Patent Information, 3: 160–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DTI/OST, DTI/OST Technology Group & IPC Subclass Mapping, (June 27, 2006).
  8. Dernis, H., Khan, M. (2004), Triadic patent families methodology, STI Working Paper 2004/2, OECD, (15-Apr-2005).
  9. Eaton, J., Kortum, S., Lerner, J. (2004), International Patenting and the European Patent Office: A Quantitative Assessment, Patents, Innovation, and Economic Performance: OECD Conference (Apr 16, 2007).
  10. EPO (2002), Annual Report 2002, European Patent Office, München,. EPO European Patent Office Website, FAQ on Far East — China: Facts & Figures, (05-Jul-2006).
  11. European Commission (2003), Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators, Directorate-General for Research, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Gehrke, B., Grupp, H. (1994), Innovationspotential und Hochtechnologie: technologische Position Deutschlands im internationalen Wettbewerb, Physica, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Grupp, H. (1998), Foundations of the Economics of Innovation: Theory, Measurement and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M. (2000), Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look, NBER Working Paper No. 7741, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  16. Legler, H., Gehrke, B. (2005), Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2005, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2005), Chinese Statistical Yearbook.Google Scholar
  18. Nunn, H., Oppenheim, C. (1980), A patent-journal citation network on prostaglandin, World Patent Information, 2: 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. OECD (2005), Labour Force Statistics 1984–2004.Google Scholar
  21. Rebel, D. (1993), Handbuch gewerbliche Schutzrechte: Übersichten und Strategien, Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  22. Schmoch, U. & al., (1988), Technikprognosen mit Patentindikatoren: zur Einschätzung zukünftiger industrieller Entwicklungen bei Industrierobotern, Lasern, Solargeneratoren und immobilisierten Enzymen, TÜV Rheinland, Köln.Google Scholar
  23. Schramm, R. (1995), Patentinformationen mittels Science Citation Index, Proceedings 17. DGD-Online-Tagung, Frankfurt, pp. 295–307.Google Scholar
  24. Slama, J. (1981), Analysis by Means of a Gravitation Model of International Flows of Patent Applications in the Period 1967–1978, World Patent Information, 3: 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Täger, U. C. (1989), Probleme des deutschen Patentwesens im Hinblick auf die Innovationsaktivitäten der Wirtschaft: (insbesondere kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen) und Vorschläge zu deren Lösung, Ifo-Inst. für Wirtschaftsforschung, München.Google Scholar
  26. UNCTAD (2005), World Investment Report 2005, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (03-Jul-2006).
  27. Watanabe, C., Tsuji, Y. S., Griffy-Brown, C. (2001), Patent statistics: deciphering a ‘real’ versus a ‘pseudo’ proxy of innovation, Technovation, 21: 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang, D. (2003), The development of intellectual property in China, World Patent Information, 25: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PATON–Landespatentzentrum ThüringenTechnische Universität IlmenauIlmenauGermany
  2. 2.Forschungsgruppe Innovation und KompetenztransferUniversität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations