, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 127–157 | Cite as

Capturing the economic value of triadic patents

  • Leila TahmooresnejadEmail author
  • Catherine Beaudry


This study provides a comprehensive analysis of patent family characteristics of triadic patents. We test specific features of triadic patent families to highlight common correlation patterns between patent value, as measured by patent forward citation data, and the structure of triadic patent families that cover the same invention at the international level. Our results suggest that the share of USPTO, EPO and JPO patents in the patent family, and the time span between the earliest priority application and latest priority application, are positively associated with the value of inventions in the triadic patent families.


Triadic patent families Patent value Priority applications 


  1. 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
  2. Archontopoulos, E., Guellec, D., Stevnsborg, N., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Van Zeebroeck, N. (2007). When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Information Economics and Policy, 19(2), 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A., Bakshi, R., & Sanyal, M. K. (2017). Valuation of patent: A classification of methodologies. Research Bulletin, 42(4), 158–174.Google Scholar
  4. Bessen, J. (2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chanchetti, L. F., Diaz, S. M. O., Milanez, D. H., Leiva, D. R., de Faria, L. I. L., & Ishikawa, T. T. (2016). Technological forecasting of hydrogen storage materials using patent indicators. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(41), 18301–18310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby, M. (2000). Patents, innovation and growth. Economic Record, 76(234), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Rassenfosse, G., Dernis, H., Guellec, D., Picci, L., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2013). The worldwide count of priority patents: A new indicator of inventive activity. Research Policy, 42(3), 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dechezleprêtre, A., Ménière, Y., & Mohnen, M. (2017). International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators. Scientometrics, 111(2), 793–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dernis, H., Guellec, D., & de la Potterie van, B. V. P. (2001). Using patent counts for cross country comparisons of technology output. Science Technology Industry Review, 27, 128–146.Google Scholar
  12. Frakes, M. D., & Wasserman, M. F. (2015). Does the US patent and trademark office grant too many bad patents: evidence from a quasi-experiment. Stanford Law Review, 67, 613.Google Scholar
  13. Frietsch, R., Neuhäusler, P., Jung, T., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Patent indicators for macroeconomic growth—the value of patents estimated by export volume. Technovation, 34(9), 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). Transnational patents and international markets. Scientometrics, 82(1), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimaldi, M., Cricelli, L., Di Giovanni, M., & Rogo, F. (2015). The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grupp, H. (1998). Foundations of the economics of innovation. Theory, measurement and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Guellec, D., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69(1), 109–114.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Guellec, D., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2002). The value of patents and patenting strategies: countries and technology areas patterns. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guellec, D., & de La Potterie, B. V. P. (2007). The economics of the European patent system: IP policy for innovation and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hikkerova, L., Kammoun, N., & Lantz, J. S. (2014). Patent life cycle: new evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaffe, A. B., & De Rassenfosse, G. (2017). Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1360–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  27. Jeong, Y., & Yoon, B. (2015). Development of patent roadmap based on technology roadmap by analyzing patterns of patent development. Technovation, 39, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, Y. G. (2009). What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach. Scientometrics, 79(3), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lerner, J. (1994). The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez, C. (2010). Patent families: When do different definitions really matter? Scientometrics, 86(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Messinis, G. (2011). Triadic citations, country biases and patent value: The case of pharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 89(3), 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moser, P., Ohmstedt, J., & Rhode, P. W. (2017). Patent citations—an analysis of quality differences and citing practices in hybrid corn. Management Science, 64(4), 1926–1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pakes, A., & Schankerman, M. (1984). The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In R&D, patents, and productivity (pp. 73-88). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1–2), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Popp, D. (2005). Using the triadic patent family database to study environmental innovation. Environment Directorate Working Paper ENV/EPOC/WPNEP/RD (p. 2).Google Scholar
  41. Sapsalis, E., & van de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2007). The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scherer, F. M., & Harhoff, D. (2000). Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tong, X., & Frame, J. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Zeebroeck, N. (2011). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(1), 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Zeebroeck, N., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Guellec, D. (2009). Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Research Policy, 38(6), 1006–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Industrial EngineeringPolytechnique MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations