Scientometrics

, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 1907–1923

Discovering shifts in competitive strategies in probiotics, accelerated with TechMining

  • Jose M. Vicente-Gomila
  • Anna Palli
  • Begoña de la Calle
  • Miguel A. Artacho
  • Sara Jimenez
Article
  • 136 Downloads

Abstract

Profiling the technological strategy of different competitors is a key element for the companies in a given industry, as well to technology planners and R&D strategists. The analysis of the patent portfolio of a company as well as its evolution in the time line is of interest for technology analysts and decision makers. However, the need for the participation of experts in the field of a company as well as patent specialists, slows down the process. Bibliometrics and text mining techniques contribute to the interpretation of specialists. The present paper tries to offer a step by step procedure to analyze the technology strategy of several companies through the analysis of their portfolio claims, combined with the use of TechMining with the help of a text mining tool. The procedure, complemented with a semantic TRIZ analysis provides key insights in disclosing the technological analysis of some competitors in the field of probiotics for livestock health. The results show interesting shifts in the key probiotic and prebiotic ingredients for which companies claim protection and therefore offers clues about their technology intention in the life sciences industry in a more dynamic, convenient and simple way.

Keywords

Technology strategy Bibliometrics Animal health Tech mining Semantic TRIZ 

Mathematics Subject Classification

68Q55 

JEL Classification

C81 D23 

References

  1. Abbas, A., Zhang, L., & Khan, S. (2014). A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent analysis. World Patent Information, 37, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, H., Levine, T., Bandrick, M., & Casey, T. (2012). Treatment, promotion, commotion: Antibiotic alternatives in food-producing animals. Trends in Microbiology, 21(3), 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Animal Task Force. (2013). Research & innovation for a sustainable livestock sector in Europe. http://www.animaltaskforce.eu/Portals/0/ATF/horizon2020/ATF%20white%20paper%20Research%20priorities%20for%20a%20sustainable%20livestock%20sector%20in%20Europe.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2016.
  4. Abramson, D. (2011). Patent strategies for life sciences companies to navigate the changing patent landscape. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 17, 358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banan-Mwine Daliri, E., & Lee, B. H. (2015). New perspectives on probiotics and disease. Food Science and Human Wellness, 4, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bubela, T., Gold, R., Gregory, G., Cahoy, D., & Castle, D. (2013). Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: Toward consistent and transparent practices. Nature Biotechnology, 31, 202–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chih-Hung, H. (2013). Patent value assessment and commercialization strategy. Technology forecasting & Social Change, 80, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, S., Yoon, J., Kim, K., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, C.-H. (2011). SAO network analysis of patents for technology trends identification: A case study of polymer electrolyte membrane technology in proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Scientometrics, 88, 863–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, M. D., & Gibson, G. (1999). Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: Approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(suppl), 1052S–1057S.Google Scholar
  10. Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolio for strategic technology management. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 15, 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferraro, G., & Wanner, L. (2011). Towards the derivation of verbal content relations from patent claims using deep syntactic structures. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24, 1233–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foligné, B., Daniel, C., & Pot, B. (2013). Probiotics from research to market: The possibilities, risks and challenges. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 16(3), 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerken, J., & Moehrle, M. (2012). A new instrument for technology monitoring: Novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis. Scientometrics, 91, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant, R. (2006). Contemporary strategic analysis (5th ed.). ISBN 1-405-1999-3.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, E., Van den Hof, M., & Gold, R. (2014). Patent landscape analysis: A methodology in need of harmonized standards. World Patent Information, 39, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. He, J., Yamanaka, T., & Kano, S. (2016). Mapping university receptor based on claim embodiment quantitative analysis: A study of 31 cases form the University of Tokio. World Patent Information, 46, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IHS Goldfire. www.ihsmarkit.com. Accessed November 2016.
  18. Kaushik, G. (Ed.) (2015). Applied environmental biotechnology: Present scenario and future trends. Springer. ISBN 978-81-322-2122-7.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, B., Miller, D., & Mahoney, J. (2016). The impact of the timing of patents on innovation performance. Research Policy, 45(2016), 914–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kume, H. (2010). From low power to no power through energy harvesting: Powering up the battery-free world. Nikkei Elctronics Asia; October 31, 2010; Accessed November 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1999). The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. 7345. National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA. http://www.nber.org. Accessed September 2016.
  22. Lee, C., Kim, J., Kwon, O., & Woo, H. G. (2016). Stochastic technology life cycle analysis using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 106(2016), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research-Technology Management, 34(4), 43–49.Google Scholar
  24. Niwa, S. (2016). Patent claims and economic growth. Economic Modelling, 54, 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Noh, H., Jo, Y., & Lee, S. (2015). Keyword selection and processing strategy for applying text mining to patent analysis. World Patent Information, 42, 4348–4360.Google Scholar
  26. O’Callaghan, T. F., Ross, R. P., Stanton, C., & Clarke, G. (2016). The gut micorbiome as a virtual endocrine organ with implicaitons for farm and domestic animal endocrinology. Domestic Animal Endocrinology, 56, S44–S55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pargaonkar, Y. (2016). Leveraging patent landscape analysis and IP competitive intelligence. World Patent Information, 45, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park, H., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2012). Identifiying patent infringement using SAO based semantic technological similarities. Scientometrics, 90, 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park, H., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2013). Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining. Scientometrics, 97, 883–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review. January 2008. 1–17. Reprint R0801E. www.hbrreprints.org.
  31. Porter, A. L., & Cunningham, S. (2005). Tech Mining. Hoboken: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
  32. Porter, A., & Newman, N. (2011). Mining external R&D. Technovation, 31, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32003R1831.
  34. Rose, C., Cronin, J., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Communicating the value of your intellectual property to Wall Street. Research Technology Management, 50(2), 36–40.Google Scholar
  35. Schrezenmeir, J., & De Vrese, M. (2001). Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics—Approaching a definition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73(2), 361s–364s.Google Scholar
  36. Soranzo, B., Nosella, A., & Filippini, R. (2016). Managing firm patents: A bibliometric investigation into the state of the art. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 42, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The patent guide; A handbook for analyzing and interpreting patent data. UK Intellectual patent office.Google Scholar
  39. Tong, X., & Frame, D. (1994). Technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. VantagePoint. www.theVantagePoint.com. Accessed September 20, 2016.
  41. Verberne, S., D’hondt, E., & Oostdijk, N. (2010). Quantifying the challenges in parsing patent claims. In The 1st international workshop on Advances in Patent Information Retrieval (AsPIRe’10), Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Verbitsky, M. (2004). Semantic TRIZ, triz-journal.com. http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2004/.
  43. Vicente-Gomila, J. M. (2014). The contribution of syntactic-semantic approach to the search for complimentary literatures for scientific or technical discovery. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1299-2.Google Scholar
  44. Vicente-Gomila, J. M., & Palop, F. (2013). Combining tech-mining and semantic-TRIZ for a faster and better technology analysis: A case in energy storage systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(6), 725–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang, M., Chiu, T., & Chen, W. (2009). Exploring potential R&D collaborators based on patent portfolio analysis: The case of biosensors. In PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2–6, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Wang, J., Lu, F., & Loh, H. (2015). A two-level parser for patent claim parsing. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weenen, T. C., Pronker, E. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Claasen, E. (2013). Patenting in the European medical nutrition industry: Trends, opportunities and strategies. PharmaNutrition, 1, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Xie, Z., & Miyazaki, K. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of keyword search strategy for patent identification. World Patent Information, 35(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang, Y., & Choct, M. (2009). Dietary modulation of gut microflora in broiler chickens: A review of the role of six kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 65, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang, S.-Y., & Soo, V.-W. (2012). Extract conceptual graphs from plain texts in patent claims. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25, 874–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yoon, J., Park, H., & Kim, K. (2013). Identifying technological competition trends for R&D planning using dynamic patent maps: SAO-bassed content analysis. Scientometrics, 94, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose M. Vicente-Gomila
    • 1
  • Anna Palli
    • 2
  • Begoña de la Calle
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Artacho
    • 1
  • Sara Jimenez
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.IRTA Institut de Recerca AgroalimentáriaCataloniaSpain

Personalised recommendations