, Volume 95, Issue 2, pp 731–752 | Cite as

Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?



In this study, we empirically investigate the role of references in patents in a firm’s technological learning and innovation when the patents are transferred (i.e., technology licensing activities) to these firms. This study is based on a sample of 68 Chinese high-tech firms that engaged in patent technology licensing while using a matching sample of non-licensee firms, and it examines covered patents in licensee agreements that were originally registered in the European Patent Office between 2000 and 2005. Empirical results indicate that the reference scope (defined as the number of different patent classes—classes that the examined patent does not belong to—in the backward citations) and the time lag of the backward citations each has a positive effect and a negative effect on the licensee firms’ innovation outcomes respectively, measured as the number of Chinese patent applications during the 5 years after the licensing year. However, it failed to find a positive effect of the science-based citations (defined as backward citations to journal articles) as we predicted.


Patent citations Inward technology licensing Reference scope Reference time lag Science-based citations 


  1. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Fernández, A. (2009). Exploring the quality of environmental technology in Europe: Evidence from patent citations. Scientometrics, 80(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C.-M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiners citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anton, J. J., & Yao, D. A. (2002). The sale of ideas: Strategic disclosure, property rights, and contracting. Review of Economic Studies, 69(3), 513–531.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonelli, C. (2010). The economic complexity of technology and innovation. Regional Studies, 44(6), 801–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arora, A. (1995). Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the markets for know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(3), 775–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1993). Determinants of inward technology licensing intentions: An empirical analysis of Australian engineering firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(3), 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2012). Access to universities’ public knowledge: Who’s more nationalist? Scientometrics, 91(3), 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2010). International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect. Do USPTO & EPO patent citations tell the same story? Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112(3), 441–470.Google Scholar
  12. Bhattacharya, S., & Meyer, M. (2003). Large firms and the science-technology interface patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films. Scientometrics, 58(2), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatterjee, S., & Price, B. (1991). Regression analysis by example. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, K.-C. (2012). Using the entropy-based patent measure to explore the influences of related and unrelated technological diversification upon technological competences and firm performance. Scientometrics, 90(3), 825–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collins, P., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17(2), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Contractor, F. J., & Ra, W. (2002). How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices: A theory development note. Journal of International Management, 8(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 14(5), 375–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ernst, D., & Park, W. H. (1988). The adoption and diffusion of imported technology: The case of Korea. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  23. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fosfuri, A., Giarratana, M. S., & Luzzi, A. (2008). The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software products. Organization Science, 19(2), 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(supplement), 29–47.Google Scholar
  27. Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grupp, H. (1998). Foundations of the economics of innovation—Theory, measurement and practice. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). Market value and patent citations. NBER working paper, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. In A. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.), Patents, citations, and innovations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hausman, J. A., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Economic and Political Weekly, 27, 909–938.Google Scholar
  33. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horwitz, E. (2007). Patent and technology licensing. Computer & Internet Lawyer, 24(10), 28–40.Google Scholar
  35. Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hung, S.-W., & Wang, A.-P. (2010). Examining the small world phenomenon in the patent citation network: A case study of the radio frequency identification (RFID) network. Scientometrics, 82(1), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jang, S.-L., Lo, S., & Chang, W. H. (2009). How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies. Scientometrics, 79(3), 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jang, S.-L., Yu, Y.-C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2011). Emerging firms in an emerging field: An analysis of patent citations in electronic-paper display technology. Scientometrics, 89(1), 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, D. K. N. (2002). ‘Learning-by-licensing’: R&D and technology licensing in Brazilian invention. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 11(3), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, G. K., & Lanctot, J. A. (2001). Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Katrak, H. (1990). Imports of technology and the technological effort of Indian enterprises. World Development, 18(3), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kessler, E. H., & Bierly, P. E. (2000). Internal vs. external learning in new product development: Effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management, 30(3), 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 20(2), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larsen, B. (2002). Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval: Generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers. Scientometrics, 54(2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laursen, K., Leone, M. I., & Torrisi, S. (2010). Technological exploration through licensing: New insights from the licensee’s point of view. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(3), 871–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, K. (2005). Making a technological catch-up: Barriers and opportunities. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13, 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leone, M. I., & Reichstein, T. (2012). Licensing fosters rapid innovation! The effect of the grant-back-clause and technological unfamiliarity. Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 965–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2012). Integrated knowledge exploitation: The complementarity of product development and technology licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 513–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lin, B.-W. (2003). Technology transfer as technological learning: A source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Management, 33(3), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liu, X. (2005). China’s development model: An alternative strategy for technological catch-up. Working paper, Finland, Hitotsubashi.Google Scholar
  54. Lowe, J., & Taylor, P. (1998). R&D and technology purchase through license agreements: Complementary strategies and complementary assets. R&D Management, 28(4), 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malerba, F. (1992). Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Economic Journal, 102(413), 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mansfield, E., Romeo, A., Schwartz, M., Teece, D., Wagner, S., & Brach, P. (1982). Technology transfer, productivity, and economic policy. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  57. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mathews, J. A., & Cho, D. S. (1999). Combinative capabilities and organizational learning in latecomer firms: The case of the Korean semiconductor industry. Journal of World Business, 34(2), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Messinis, G. (2011). Triadic citations, country biases and patent value: The case of pharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 89(3), 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyer, M. (1999). Patent citations in a novel field of technology—What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 67–93.Google Scholar
  66. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1993). Patent citation cycles. Library Trends, 41(4), 700–709.Google Scholar
  67. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nemet, G. F., & Johnson, E. (2012). Do important inventions benefit from knowledge originating in other technological domains? Research Policy, 41(1), 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nerkar, A. (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49(2), 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pearce, R. (1999). The evolution of technology in multinational enterprises: The role of creative subsidiaries. International Business Review, 8(2), 125–148.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Perez, C., & Soete, L. (1988). Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In G. E. A. Dosi (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory. New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  72. Pitkethly, R. H. (2001). Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: Patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy, 30(3), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  74. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Singh, K. (1997). The impact of technological complexity and interfirm cooperation on business survival. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 339–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thompson, P., & Fox-Kean, M. (2005). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment. American Economic Review, 95(1), 450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2009). External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese technological innovation survey. Research Policy, 38(3), 518–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tsai, K.-H., Hsieh, M.-H., & Hultink, E. J. (2011). External technology acquisition and product innovativeness: The moderating roles of R&D investment and configurational context. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(3), 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Utterback, J. M. (1995). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  82. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2013). The dual role of local sites in assisting firms with developing technological capabilities: Evidence from China. International Business Review, 22(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wang, Y., Roijakkers, N., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chen, J. (2012). How Chinese firms employ open innovation to strengthen their innovative performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 59(3/4), 235–254.Google Scholar
  85. Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuandi Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiongfeng Pan
    • 3
  • Yantai Chen
    • 4
  • Xin Gu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ManagementSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research Institute, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
  3. 3.Faculty of Management and EconomicsDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  4. 4.School of Economic Management, China Institute for Small and Medium Sized EnterprisesZhejiang University of TechnologyHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations