Scientometrics

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 397–419 | Cite as

Inventions shaping technological trajectories: do existing patent indicators provide a comprehensive picture?

Article

Abstract

Since Schumpeter’s (The theory of economic development, 1934) seminal work on economic development, innovation is considered as one of the main drivers of firm performance and economic growth. At the same time, technological innovations vary considerably in terms of impact with only a minority of new inventions contributing significantly to technological progress and economic growth. More recently a number of indicators derived from patent documents have been advanced to capture the nature and impact of technological inventions. In this paper, we compare and validate these indicators within the field of biotechnology. An extensive analysis of the recent history of biotechnology allows us to identify the most important inventions (n = 214) that shaped the field of biotechnology in the time period 1976–2001. A considerable number of these inventions have been patented between 1976 and 2001 (n = 117, 55 %). For all USPTO biotech patents filed between 1976 and 2001 (n = 84,119), relevant indicators have been calculated. In a subsequent step, we assess which indicators allow us to distinguish between the most important patented inventions and their less influential counterparts by means of logistic regression models. Our findings show that the use of multiple, complementary indicators provides the most comprehensive picture. In addition, it is clear that ex-post indicators reflecting impact and value outperform ex-ante indicators reflecting the nature and novelty of the invention in terms of precision and recall.

Keywords

Patent indicators Important technological inventions Validation Biotechnology 

JEL Classification

033 034 

Supplementary material

11192_2013_1045_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (179 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 179 kb)
11192_2013_1045_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (185 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 185 kb)
11192_2013_1045_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (187 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 187 kb)

References

  1. 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, 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arts, S. (2012). Path dependency and recombinant exploration: How established firms can outperform in the creation of technological breakthroughs. FEB Research Report MSI_1228. Google Scholar
  4. Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buchholz, K., & Collins, J. (2010). Concepts in biotechnology history, science and business. Weinheim: Wiley, VCH.Google Scholar
  6. Bud, R. (1993). The uses of life: A history of biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, M., & Narin, F. (1993). Validation study: Patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence. World Patent Information, 5(3), 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. The Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen, C. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, S., & Boyer, H. (1979/1980). Process for producing biologically functional molecular chimeras. US Patent 4,237,224.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, S., Chang, A. C. Y., & Hsu, L. (1972). Nonchromosomal antibiotic resistance in bacteria: Genetic transformation of E. coli by R-factor DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 69, 2110–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technology search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443–475.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman, C. (1992). The economics of hope. New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griliches, Z. (1984). R&D, patents, and productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.Google Scholar
  21. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation—evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hotchkiss, R. D. (1979). The identification of nucleic acids as genetic determinants. In P. R. Srinivasan, J. S. Fruton, & J. T. Edsall (Eds.), The origins of modern biochemistry. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  25. Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations and innovations. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: Report on the NBER/case-western reserve survey of patentees. NBER Working Paper No. W7631.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2012). Breakthrough innovations: Using topic modeling to distinguish the cognitive from the economic: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. Google Scholar
  28. Keener, K., Hoban, T., & Balasubramanian, R. (2012). Biotechnology and its Applications. Retrieved February 22, 2012 from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/foodsci/ext/pubs/bioapp.pdf.
  29. Magerman, T., Van Looy, B., & Song, X. (2010). Exploring the feasibility and accuracy of latent semantic analysis based text mining techniques to detect similarity between patent documents and scientific publications. Scientometrics, 82(2), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGloughlin, M. N., & Re, B. E. (2010). The evolution of biotechnology. From Natufians to nanotechnology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2005). A framework for Biotechnology Statistics.Google Scholar
  33. Reuss, M. (2001). Editorial. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 24(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scherer, F. M., & Harhoff, D. (2000). Policy implications for a world with skew-distributed returns to innovation. Research Policy, 29(4), 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Singh, J., & Fleming, L. (2010). Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality? Management Science, 56(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sinskey, A. J. (1999). Foreword. Metabolic Engineering, 1(3), 3–5.Google Scholar
  38. Stephanopoulos, G. (1999). Metabolic fluxes and metabolic engineering. Metabolic Engineering, 1(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Trajtenberg, M., Jaffe, A., & Henderson, R. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  43. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). The structure of DNA. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 18, 123–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Managerial Economics, Strategy and InnovationFaculty of Business and Economics, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.FWOBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Istituto di ManagementPisaItaly
  4. 4.Expertisecentrum O&O Monitoring (ECOOM) and Research Division INCENTIM, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.School of Management and Governance, University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations