Skip to main content

Triadic citations, country biases and patent value: the case of pharmaceuticals

Abstract

Triadic patents minimise home bias effects in studies that focus on patent counts as a measure of innovative activity. Yet, biases in qualitative patent indicators have been largely neglected. This article advocates that forward patent citations, and triadic citations in particular, can illuminate further on home bias, self citations, and the speed of knowledge flows for drug patents published by the USPTO for the period 1980–2008. The evidence shows that triadic citations help to minimize the home bias in citations as well as to make patent quality more transparent. Also, it indicates that self citations and the age distribution of citations are important factors to consider when explaining cross-country differences in pharmaceutical citations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Lanjouw and Schankerman (2004) and Hall et al. (2005) but also Sampat and Ziedonis (2004).

  2. 2.

    For detailed reviews, see Jaffe and Trajtenberg (1999); Sampat and Ziedonis (2004); Maurseth and Verspagen (2002); Blind and Cremers (2009) and Li (2009).

  3. 3.

    See Hall et al. (2001).

  4. 4.

    For more details on the OECD database, see Dernis and Kahn (2004).

  5. 5.

    Wang (2007), however, warns that triadic threshold does not always identify relatively high realised patent value.

  6. 6.

    This is in terms of triadic counts with the set of countries also including Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Spain, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Island, South Korea, Luxemburg, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Turkey, India, China, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, Russia, the Soviet Union and South Africa. The total of 39 countries included added to 97% of all patents counts for pharmaceuticals.

  7. 7.

    Estimates in all Figures are 2-year moving averages.

  8. 8.

    The early period prior to 1985 was ignored for it was a transitional period when European patents were increasingly filed with the EPO away from national patents offices. On the other end of the timescale, citations analysis excludes patents granted since 2000 to limit the bias associated with the introduction of publication of patents applications prior to grant date (Hinze and Schmoch 2004).

  9. 9.

    All continuous explanatory variables were centred prior to estimation which was by maximum likelihood using robust standard errors to address the impact of misspecification on dispersion. In contrast to the standard Poisson model, we employ an auxiliary logit regression that jointly estimates excess zeros. This regression uses backward 5-year citations, the triadic dummy variable and claims as explanatory factors. For details on the ZINB model, see Long (1997).

References

  1. Alcacer, J., Gittelmanb, M., & Sampatc, B. (2009). Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38(2), 415–427.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aldieri, L. (2008). Technological and geographical proximity effects on knowledge spillovers: Evidence from us patent citations. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atallah, G. & Rodriguez, G. (2006). Indirect patent citations. Scientometrics, 67(3), 437–465.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blind, K., & Cremers, K. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Criscuolo, P. (2006). The ‘home advantage’ effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO. Scientometrics, 66(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), 1892–1908.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Deng, Y. (2008). The value of knowledge spillovers in the US semiconductor industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(4), 1044–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dernis, H., & Kahn, M. (2004). Triadic patent families methodology. New York: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Fischer, M. M., Scherngell, T., & Jansenberger, E. (2009). Patents, patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers in Europe. In C. Karlsson, A. E. Andersson, P. C. Cheshire, & R. R. Stough (Eds.), New directions in regional economic development: Advances in spatial science (pp. 331–345). Berlin: Springer.

  10. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(0), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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: MIT Press.

  12. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., & Scherer, F. M. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harhoff, D., & Reitzig, M. (2004). Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants––The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 443–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hegde, D., Mowery, D., & Graham, S. (2007). Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders: Which firms use continuations in patenting?. Cambridge: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hegde, D., & Sampat, B. (2009). Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Economic Letters, 105, 287–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hinze, S., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Opening the black box: Analytical approaches and their impact on the outcome of statistical patent analyses. In H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 215–236). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  18. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western reserve survey of patentees. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7631.

  21. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1992). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. NBER Working Papers 3993, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  22. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (2002). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. In Patents, citations and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy (pp. 155–178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  24. Johnson, D. K. N., & Popp, D. (2003). Forced out of the closet: The impact of the American Inventors Protection Act on the timing of patent disclosure. Rand Journal of Economics, 34, 96–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(April), 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee, Y. G., Lee, J. D., Song, Y. I., & Lee, S. J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(9), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li, Y. (2009). Borders and distance in knowledge spillovers: Dying over time or dying with age?––Evidence from patent citations. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Li, X., Lin, Y. L., Chen, H. C., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). Journal of Nanopartical Research, 9(6), 977–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Series for Advanced Quantitative Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  30. Mancusi, M. L. (2008). International spillovers and absorptive capacity: A cross-country cross-sector analysis based on patents and citations. Journal of International Economics, 76(2), 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Maurseth, P. B., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Knowledge spillovers in Europe: A patent citations analysis. Scandinavia Journal of Economics, 104(4), 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mehta, A., Rysman, M., & Simcoe, T. (2009). Identifying the age profile of patent citations: New estimates of knowledge diffusion. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 25(7), 1179–1204.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Park, W. G., & Hingley, P. (2009). Patent family data and statistics at the European Patent Office. Peter Hingley: American University.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Patent citations and the economic value of patents: A preliminary assessment. In H. G. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 277–298). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schettino, F. (2007). US patent citations data and industrial knowledge spillovers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 595–633.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stephan, P., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A., & Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. van Zeebroeck, N., de la Potterie, B. V., & Guellec, D. (2009). Claiming more: The increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Research Policy, 38(6), 1006–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. von Warbturg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wang, S. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71(3), 509–522.

    Google Scholar 

  40. World Intellectual Patent Organization. (2009). Handbook on industrial property information and documentation. Geneva: World Intellectual Patent Organization (WIPO).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Jason Nielsen for his valuable research assistance.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Messinis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Messinis, G. Triadic citations, country biases and patent value: the case of pharmaceuticals. Scientometrics 89, 813 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0473-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patents
  • Triadic citations
  • Self-citations
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • OECD countries
  • Biases