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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
See Hall et al. (2001).
For more details on the OECD database, see Dernis and Kahn (2004).
Wang (2007), however, warns that triadic threshold does not always identify relatively high realised patent value.
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.
Estimates in all Figures are 2-year moving averages.
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).
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).
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.
Aldieri, L. (2008). Technological and geographical proximity effects on knowledge spillovers: Evidence from us patent citations. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Atallah, G. & Rodriguez, G. (2006). Indirect patent citations. Scientometrics, 67(3), 437–465.
Blind, K., & Cremers, K. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436.
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.
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.
Deng, Y. (2008). The value of knowledge spillovers in the US semiconductor industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(4), 1044–1058.
Dernis, H., & Kahn, M. (2004). Triadic patent families methodology. New York: OECD.
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.
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(0), 29–47.
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.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.
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.
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.
Hegde, D., Mowery, D., & Graham, S. (2007). Pioneers, submariners, or thicket-builders: Which firms use continuations in patenting?. Cambridge: NBER.
Hegde, D., & Sampat, B. (2009). Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Economic Letters, 105, 287–289.
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.
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.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 105–136.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(April), 441–465.
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.
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.
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.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Series for Advanced Quantitative Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
Maurseth, P. B., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Knowledge spillovers in Europe: A patent citations analysis. Scandinavia Journal of Economics, 104(4), 531–545.
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.
Park, W. G., & Hingley, P. (2009). Patent family data and statistics at the European Patent Office. Peter Hingley: American University.
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.
Schettino, F. (2007). US patent citations data and industrial knowledge spillovers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 595–633.
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.
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.
von Warbturg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.
Wang, S. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71(3), 509–522.
World Intellectual Patent Organization. (2009). Handbook on industrial property information and documentation. Geneva: World Intellectual Patent Organization (WIPO).
I am grateful to Jason Nielsen for his valuable research assistance.
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
- Triadic citations
- OECD countries