Innovation Capability of Firms: A Big Data Approach with Patents

  • Linda PontaEmail author
  • Gloria Puliga
  • Luca Oneto
  • Raffaella Manzini
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the International Neural Networks Society book series (INNS, volume 1)


Capabilities and, in particular, Innovation Capability (IC), are fundamental strategic assets for companies in providing and sustaining their competitive advantage. IC is the firms’ ability to mobilize and create new knowledge applying appropriate process technologies and it has been investigated by means of its main determinants, usually divided into internal and external factors. In this paper, starting from the patent data, the patent’s forward citations are used as proxy of IC and the main patents’ features are considered as proxy of the determinants. In details, the main purpose of the paper is to understand the patent’s features that are relevant to predict IC. Three different algorithms of machine learning, i.e., Least Squares (RLS), Deep Neural Networks (DNN), and Decision Trees (DT), are employed for this investigation. Results show that the most important patent’s features useful to predict IC refer to the specific technological areas, the backward citations, the technological domains and the family size. These findings are confirmed by all the three algorithms used.


Innovation Capability Patents’ data Least Squares Deep Neural Networks Decision Trees 



This work has been supported by LIUC - Cattaneo University under Grant “Data Analytics”.


  1. 1.
    Adler, P.S., Shenbar, A.: Adapting your technological base: the organizational challenge. Sloan Manag. Rev. 32(1), 25–37 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anguita, D., Boni, A., Ridella, S.: Evaluating the generalization ability of support vector machines through the bootstrap. Neural Process. Lett. 11(1), 51–58 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barney, J., Wright, M., Ketchen Jr., D.J.: The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after 1991. J. Manag. 27(6), 625–641 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bessen, J.: The value of us patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 37(5), 932–945 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, J.F.: Asset profiles for technological innovation. Res. Policy 24(5), 727–745 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cincotti, S., Gallo, G., Ponta, L., Raberto, M.: Modeling and forecasting of electricity spot-prices: computational intelligence vs classical econometrics. AI Commun. 27(3), 301–314 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davila, T.: An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Acc. Organ. Soc. 25(4–5), 383–409 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dechezleprêtre, A., Ménière, Y., Mohnen, M.: International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators. Scientometrics 111(2), 793–828 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donders, A.R.T., van der Heijden, G.J.M.G., Stijnen, T., Moons, K.G.M.: Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59(10), 1087–1091 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerssens-van Drongelen, I., Nixon, B., Pearson, A.: Performance measurement in industrial R&D. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2(2), 111–143 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghelardoni, L., Ghio, A., Anguita, D.: Energy load forecasting using empirical mode decomposition and support vector regression. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4(1), 549–556 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A.: Deep Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyon, I., Elisseeff, A.: An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1157–1182 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall, B.H., Thoma, G., Torrisi, S.: The marker value of patents and R&D: evidence from european firms. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2007(1), 1–6 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hardy, M.A.: Regression with Dummy Variables. Sage, Newbury Park (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harhoff, D., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K.: Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 32(8), 1343–1363 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M.: Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories: modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 93(23), 12671–12677 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R.: An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kogut, B., Zander, U.: Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(3), 383–397 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohavi, R., et al.: A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., Kwon, D.: Early identification of emerging technologies: a machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 127, 291–303 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahnken, T.A., Moehrle, M.G.: Multi-cross-industry innovation patents in the usa-a combination of patstat and orbis search. World Patent Inf. 55, 52–60 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manzini, R., Lazzarotti, V.: Intellectual property protection mechanisms in collaborative new product development. R&D Manag. 46(S2), 579–595 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moaniba, I.M., Su, H.N., Lee, P.C.: Knowledge recombination and technological innovation: the important role of cross-disciplinary knowledge. In: Innovation, pp. 1–27 (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Molnar, C.: Interpretable machine learning (2018).
  26. 26.
    Oneto, L.: Model selection and error estimation without the agonizing pain. WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 8(4), e1252 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reitzig, M.: Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Res. Policy 33(6–7), 939–957 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Romijn, H., Albaladejo, M.: Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast england. Res. Policy 31(7), 1053–1067 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shalev-Shwartz, S., Ben-David, S.: Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stern, S., Porter, M.E., Furman, J.L.: The determinants of national innovative capacity. Technical report National bureau of economic research (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ussahawanitchakit, P.: Innovation capability and export performance: and empirical study of the textile businesses in Thailand. J. Int. Bus. Strategy 7(1) (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Ponta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gloria Puliga
    • 1
  • Luca Oneto
    • 2
  • Raffaella Manzini
    • 1
  1. 1.LIUC Cattaneo UniversityCastellanzaItaly
  2. 2.DIBRIS - University of GenoaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations