Global Interdependence of Collaborative R&D-Typology and Association of International Co-Patenting
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. International R&D as a Key Driver of Global Economy
2.2. Social Network Theory for Understanding International R&D
2.3. Patent for Investigating International Collaboration Network
3. Data and Method
3.1. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Data
3.2. Identifying and Classifying International Patents
3.3. Characterizing Patents
3.4. Depicting International Collaboration by Social Network Theory
- : the shortest path between j and k that contains i.
- : the shortest path between j and k.
3.5. Mining Association Rule for Identifying Collaboration Interdependency
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Internationalization and Industry
4.2. Cross-Country Analysis
4.3. Creation of International Collaboration Network
4.4. Typology of International Patents and Patent Characteristics
- (1)
- II: A patent only contains inventors from different countries and has no assignee information.
- (2)
- IA: A patent has (at least) one inventor and one assignee from different countries, and this patent is neither Inventor–Inventor international nor Assignee–Assignee international.
- (3)
- II-IA: A patent meets two criteria. i.e., Inventor–Inventor and Inventor–Assignee internationalization (II-IA = InvInv ∩ InvAss).
- (4)
- IA-AA: A patent meets two criteria, i.e., Inventor–Assignee and Assignee–Assignee internationalization (IA-AA = InvAss ∩ AssAss).
- (5)
- II-IA-AA a patent meets three criteria, i.e., Inventor–Inventor, Inventor–Assignee and Assignee–Assignee internationalization (II-IA-AA = InvInv ∩ InvAss ∩ AssAss).
4.5. Characterizing International Patents
4.5.1. Inventor and Assignee
4.5.2. Backward Citation—Patent References, Non-Patent References and Foreign References
4.5.3. Forward Citation—Patent Citations Received
4.5.4. Degree Centrality
4.5.5. IPC and UPC
4.5.6. Claim
4.6. Global Interdependency of Collaboration R&D
5. Conclusions
5.1. Management Implication
5.2. Management Implications of Five Types of International Patents
5.2.1. II Type
5.2.2. IA Type
5.2.3. II-IA Type
5.2.4. IA-AA Type
5.2.5. II-IA-AA Type
5.3. Contribution to Theory
5.4. Research Limitation
5.5. Future Research
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Ranking | II | IA | II-IA | |||||||||
LHS ≥ RHS | Support | Confidence | Lift | LHS ≥ RHS | Support | Confidence | Lift | LHS ≥ RHS | Support | Confidence | Lift | |
1 | {TH} ≥ {HK} | 0.002 | 0.314 | 15.061 | {MY} ≥ {SG} | 0.001 | 0.292 | 14.042 | {LI} ≥ {AT} | 0.002 | 0.573 | 22.032 |
2 | {HK} ≥ {TH} | 0.002 | 0.077 | 15.061 | {SG} ≥ {MY} | 0.001 | 0.059 | 14.042 | {AT} ≥ {LI} | 0.002 | 0.060 | 22.032 |
3 | {BY} ≥ {RU} | 0.001 | 0.500 | 14.060 | {HK} ≥ {CN} | 0.003 | 0.276 | 10.144 | {MY} ≥ {SG} | 0.001 | 0.202 | 10.548 |
4 | {RU} ≥ {BY} | 0.001 | 0.033 | 14.060 | {CN} ≥ {HK} | 0.003 | 0.101 | 10.144 | {SG} ≥ {MY} | 0.001 | 0.068 | 10.548 |
5 | {LI} ≥ {CH} | 0.002 | 0.567 | 8.000 | {CN} ≥ {TW} | 0.008 | 0.299 | 9.457 | {LU} ≥ {BE} | 0.001 | 0.374 | 7.605 |
6 | {CH} ≥ {LI} | 0.002 | 0.035 | 8.000 | {TW} ≥ {CN} | 0.008 | 0.258 | 9.457 | {BE} ≥ {LU} | 0.001 | 0.030 | 7.605 |
7 | {UA} ≥ {RU} | 0.002 | 0.227 | 6.374 | {AU} ≥ {AT} | 0.001 | 0.062 | 3.193 | {LI} ≥ {CH} | 0.001 | 0.538 | 5.783 |
8 | {RU} ≥ {UA} | 0.002 | 0.070 | 6.374 | {AT} ≥ {AU} | 0.001 | 0.054 | 3.193 | {CH} ≥ {LI} | 0.001 | 0.016 | 5.783 |
9 | {SG} ≥ {AU} | 0.002 | 0.174 | 5.479 | {FI} ≥ {SE} | 0.002 | 0.118 | 3.026 | {NO} ≥ {SE} | 0.002 | 0.178 | 5.210 |
10 | {AU} ≥ {SG} | 0.002 | 0.056 | 5.479 | {SE} ≥ {FI} | 0.002 | 0.050 | 3.026 | {SE} ≥ {NO} | 0.002 | 0.049 | 5.210 |
11 | {NZ} ≥ {AU} | 0.001 | 0.158 | 4.974 | {KR} ≥ {SG} | 0.001 | 0.059 | 2.829 | {DK} ≥ {SE} | 0.003 | 0.158 | 4.645 |
12 | {AU} ≥ {NZ} | 0.001 | 0.042 | 4.974 | {SG} ≥ {KR} | 0.001 | 0.055 | 2.829 | {SE} ≥ {DK} | 0.003 | 0.077 | 4.645 |
13 | {NO} ≥ {SE} | 0.002 | 0.187 | 4.924 | {BB} ≥ {CA} | 0.001 | 0.241 | 2.737 | {FI} ≥ {SE} | 0.002 | 0.154 | 4.531 |
14 | {SE} ≥ {NO} | 0.002 | 0.054 | 4.924 | {CA} ≥ {BB} | 0.001 | 0.012 | 2.737 | {SE} ≥ {FI} | 0.002 | 0.068 | 4.531 |
15 | {FI} ≥ {SE} | 0.003 | 0.180 | 4.752 | {LI} ≥ {DE} | 0.003 | 0.466 | 2.653 | {TW} ≥ {CN} | 0.007 | 0.209 | 4.461 |
Ranking | IA-AA | II-IA-AA | ||||||||||
LHS ≥ RHS | Support | Confidence | Lift | LHS ≥ RHS | Support | Confidence | Lift | |||||
1 | {CY} ≥ {HU} | 0.001 | 0.800 | 354.789 | {CH,US} ≥ {LU} | 0.001 | 0.077 | 14.631 | ||||
2 | {HU} ≥ {CY} | 0.001 | 0.571 | 354.789 | {FI} ≥ {SE} | 0.002 | 0.283 | 10.999 | ||||
3 | {FR,TW} ≥ {KY} | 0.001 | 1.000 | 191.630 | {SE} ≥ {FI} | 0.002 | 0.096 | 10.999 | ||||
4 | {CN,FR,TW} ≥ {KY} | 0.001 | 1.000 | 191.630 | {LU,US} ≥ {CH} | 0.001 | 0.349 | 7.470 | ||||
5 | {CN,FR} ≥ {KY} | 0.001 | 0.857 | 164.254 | {CZ} ≥ {BE} | 0.001 | 0.267 | 6.658 | ||||
6 | {CZ} ≥ {BE} | 0.001 | 0.667 | 66.333 | {BE} ≥ {CZ} | 0.001 | 0.031 | 6.658 | ||||
7 | {BE} ≥ {CZ} | 0.001 | 0.103 | 66.333 | {LU} ≥ {CH} | 0.001 | 0.235 | 5.039 | ||||
8 | {BB} ≥ {CA} | 0.001 | 0.471 | 19.795 | {CH} ≥ {LU} | 0.001 | 0.026 | 5.039 | ||||
9 | {CA} ≥ {BB} | 0.001 | 0.043 | 19.795 | {TW} ≥ {CN} | 0.167 | 0.883 | 4.399 | ||||
10 | {CN,KY} ≥ {FR} | 0.001 | 1.000 | 15.855 | {CN} ≥ {TW} | 0.167 | 0.831 | 4.399 | ||||
11 | {CN,KY,TW} ≥ {FR} | 0.001 | 1.000 | 15.855 | {DK} ≥ {SE} | 0.002 | 0.092 | 3.583 | ||||
12 | {KY,TW} ≥ {FR} | 0.001 | 0.778 | 12.332 | {SE} ≥ {DK} | 0.002 | 0.075 | 3.583 | ||||
13 | {AT} ≥ {KR} | 0.002 | 0.292 | 8.914 | {JP,US} ≥ {PL} | 0.002 | 0.011 | 3.214 | ||||
14 | {KR} ≥ {AT} | 0.002 | 0.075 | 8.914 | {AT} ≥ {DE} | 0.012 | 0.558 | 3.095 | ||||
15 | {ES} ≥ {GB} | 0.001 | 0.386 | 8.215 | {DE} ≥ {AT} | 0.012 | 0.064 | 3.095 |
Appendix B
Country | Outdegree Centrality | Indegree Centrality | Degree Centrality | Closeness Centrality | Betweenness Centrality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 36.00 | 49.00 | 85.00 | 0.55 | 975.01 |
France | 24.00 | 25.00 | 49.00 | 0.48 | 264.13 |
Switzerland | 22.00 | 22.00 | 44.00 | 0.52 | 241.26 |
Germany | 21.00 | 21.00 | 42.00 | 0.49 | 438.07 |
Sweden | 16.00 | 16.00 | 32.00 | 0.47 | 172.30 |
Belgium | 14.00 | 13.00 | 27.00 | 0.44 | 38.21 |
United Kingdom | 13.00 | 13.00 | 26.00 | 0.45 | 174.39 |
Austria | 12.00 | 12.00 | 24.00 | 0.43 | 31.74 |
South Korea | 12.00 | 12.00 | 24.00 | 0.49 | 215.47 |
China | 10.00 | 10.00 | 20.00 | 0.37 | 2.86 |
Japan | 10.00 | 10.00 | 20.00 | 0.46 | 66.82 |
Netherlands | 10.00 | 10.00 | 20.00 | 0.44 | 9.66 |
Canada | 9.00 | 9.00 | 18.00 | 0.44 | 105.98 |
Italy | 9.00 | 9.00 | 18.00 | 0.40 | 4.19 |
Taiwan | 9.00 | 9.00 | 18.00 | 0.38 | 13.35 |
Australia | 8.00 | 8.00 | 16.00 | 0.44 | 112.58 |
Singapore | 8.00 | 8.00 | 16.00 | 0.44 | 106.66 |
Hong Kong | 7.00 | 7.00 | 14.00 | 0.40 | 62.89 |
India | 6.00 | 6.00 | 12.00 | 0.43 | 14.22 |
Denmark | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.44 | 23.11 |
Spain | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Finland | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.35 | 9.87 |
Ireland | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.47 | 90.67 |
Israel | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Liechtenstein | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 |
Luxembourg | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.48 | 49.46 |
Russia | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.40 | 111.04 |
Mexico | 4.00 | 2.00 | 6.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Norway | 4.00 | 4.00 | 8.00 | 0.35 | 0.00 |
Czech Republic | 3.00 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 0.34 | 0.00 |
Cayman Islands | 3.00 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 0.43 | 15.38 |
Poland | 3.00 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 0.37 | 0.00 |
Argentina | 2.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Barbados | 2.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0.31 | 0.00 |
Bermuda | 2.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Hungary | 2.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0.34 | 90.00 |
Malaysia | 2.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0.31 | 0.00 |
New Zealand | 2.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0.39 | 3.69 |
Philippines | 2.00 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Thailand | 2.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 0.37 | 0.00 |
Turkey | 2.00 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Brazil | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 |
Belarus | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.29 | 0.00 |
Colombia | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Costa Rica | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Cyprus | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.25 | 0.00 |
Romania | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Saudi Arabia | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
Sao Tome and Principe | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 |
South Africa | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.31 | 0.00 |
References
- Smith, H.L.; Dickson, K.; Smith, S.L. There are two sides to every story: Innovation and collaboration within networks of large and small firms. Res. Policy 1991, 20, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodgson, M. The strategic management of R&D collaboration. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1992, 4, 227–244. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.L.; Eisenhardt, K.M. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 343–378. [Google Scholar]
- Duysters, G.; Hagedoorn, J. Technological Convergence in the IT Industry: The Role of Strategic Technology Alliances and Technological Competencies. Int. J. Econ. Bus. 1998, 5, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahuja, G. The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G.; Zahra, S.A.; Wood, D.R. The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 577–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGill, J.; Santoro, M. Alliance Portfolios and Patent Output: The Case of Biotechnology Alliances. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2009, 56, 388–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1992, 18, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baum, J.A.; Calabrese, T.; Silverman, B.S. Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 267–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohnen, P.; Hoareau, C. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2003, 24, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritsch, M. Measuring the quality of regional innovation systems: A knowledge production function approach. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2002, 25, 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonin, B.L. Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: An empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1999, 30, 463–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonin, B.L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 595–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brakman, S.; Garretsen, H. Foreign Direct Investment and the Multinational Enterprise; Mit Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hsu, C.-W.; Lien, Y.-C.; Chen, H. R&D internationalization and innovation performance. Int. Bus. Rev. 2015, 24, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
- Bohnstedt, A.; Schwarz, C.; Suedekum, J. Globalization and strategic research investments. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernst, D.; Kim, L. Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1417–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, K.; Lewis, D. Birth of the Multinational: Two Thousand Years of Ancient Business History, from Ashur to Augustus; Copenhagen Business School Press: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Criscuolo, P.; Narula, R.; Verspagen, B. The Relative Importance of Home and Host Innovation Systems in the Internationalisation of MNE R&D: A Patent Citation Analysis; Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS): Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Narula, R. R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation 2004, 24, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, C.-S.; Inkpen, A.C. Cross-border R&D alliances, absorptive capacity and technology learning. J. Int. Manag. 2005, 11, 313–329. [Google Scholar]
- Georghiou, L. Global cooperation in research. Res. Policy 1998, 27, 611–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Beers, C.; Berghäll, E.; Poot, T. R&D internationalization, R&D collaboration and public knowledge institutions in small economies: Evidence from Finland and the Netherlands. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 294–308. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J. Global R&D alliances in China: Collaborations with universities and research institutes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2010, 57, 78–87. [Google Scholar]
- Srivastava, A.; Srivastava, M.; Rai, S.K. Managing Research and Development in a Global Environment through the Collaboration of Developed and Developing Economies. Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Stud. 2013, 3, 935–942. [Google Scholar]
- Di Minin, A.; Bianchi, M. Safe nests in global nets: Internationalization and appropriability of R&D in wireless telecom. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2011, 42, 910–934. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Z.; Lee, Y. Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980–2005. Technovation 2008, 28, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picci, L. The internationalization of inventive activity: A gravity model using patent data. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 1070–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbott, L.F. Industry and Enterprise: An International Survey of Modernization and Development; Industrial Systems Research: Manchester, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Tsukada, N.; Nagaoka, S. International R&D Collaborations in Asia: A First Look at Their Characteristics Based on Patent Bibliographic Data. In Globalization and Innovation in East Asia; ERIA Research Project Report 2010-04; Hahn, C.H., Narjoko, D., Eds.; ERIA: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2011; pp. 410–451. [Google Scholar]
- Ernst, D. Innovation Offshoring: Asia’s Emerging Role in Global Innovation Networks; East-West Center Special Reports; U.S.-Asia Pacific Council: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Serapio, M.G.; Dalton, D.H. Globalization of industrial R&D: An examination of foreign direct investments in R&D in the United States. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 303–316. [Google Scholar]
- Florida, R. The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Res. Policy 1997, 26, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Noya, A.; García-Canal, E. Technological capabilities and the decision to outsource/outsource offshore R&D services. Int. Bus. Rev. 2011, 20, 264–277. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Q.; Jiang, C.X. Location advantages and subsidiaries’ R&D activities in emerging economies: Exploring the effect of employee mobility. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2007, 24, 341–358. [Google Scholar]
- Criscuolo, P. On the road again: Researcher mobility inside the R&D network. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1350–1365. [Google Scholar]
- Guellec, D.; de la Potterie, B.V.P. The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 1253–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.; Lee, Y.; Chen, C.-F.P. Booming or emerging? China’s technological capability and international collaboration in patent activities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippetti, A.; Frenz, M.; Ietto-Gillies, G. Are innovation and internationalization related? An analysis of European countries. Ind. Innov. 2011, 18, 437–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerybadze, A.; Reger, G. Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 251–274. [Google Scholar]
- Keller, W. Geographic localization of international technology diffusion. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 120–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffe, A.B.; Trajtenberg, M.; Henderson, R. Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Q. J. Econ. 1993, 108, 577–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P. Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: Evidence from inventor- and examiner-added citations. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2006, 88, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, G. The effectiveness of international knowledge spillover channels. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2006, 50, 2075–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branstetter, L. Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers? Evidence from Japan’s FDI in the United States. J. Int. Econ. 2006, 68, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G.M.; Helpman, E. Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1991, 35, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotabe, M.; Dunlap-Hinkler, D.; Parente, R.; Mishra, H.A. Determinants of cross-national knowledge transfer and its effect on firm innovation. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2007, 38, 259–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinthal, D.A.; March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furman, J.L.; Kyle, M.K.; Cockburn, I.M.; Henderson, R. Public & private spillovers, location and the productivity of pharmaceutical research. Ann. Econ. Stat. 2005, 79, 165–188. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, J. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 77–96. [Google Scholar]
- Alnuaimi, T.; Singh, J.; George, G. Not with my own: Long-term effects of cross-country collaboration on subsidiary innovation in emerging economies versus advanced economies. J. Econ. Geogr. 2012, 12, 943–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branstetter, L.; Li, G.; Veloso, F. The Rise of International Co-invention. In The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Schilling, M.A.; Phelps, C.C. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag. Sci. 2007, 53, 1113–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, J.; James, A.D.; Gamlen, P. Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: A case study using social network analysis. RD Manag. 2007, 37, 179–196. [Google Scholar]
- Granovetter, M.S. The Strength of Weak Ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78, 1360–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, D.J. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Wasserman, S.; Galaskiewicz, J. Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Wellman, B.; Berkowitz, S.D. Social Structures: A Network Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Marsden, P.V.; Campbell, K.E. Measuring tie strength. Soc. Forces 1984, 63, 482–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Prato, G.; Nepelski, D. Global R&D Network. A Network Analysis of International R&D Centres; Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre: Seville, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, J.; Liu, N. Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, P.; Pavitt, K. Large firms in the production of the world’s technology: An important case of “non-globalisation”. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1991, 22, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, P.; Vega, M. Patterns of internationalisation of corporate technology: Location vs. home country advantages. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Bas, C.; Sierra, C. “Location versus home country advantages” in R&D activities: Some further results on multinationals’ locational strategies. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 589–609. [Google Scholar]
- Almeida, P. Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the US semiconductor industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penner-Hahn, J.; Shaver, J.M. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joly, P.B.; de Looze, M.A. An analysis of innovation strategies and industrial differentiation through patent applications: The case of plant biotechnology. Res. Policy 1996, 25, 1027–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abraham, B.P.; Moitra, S.D. Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation 2001, 21, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faber, J.; Hesen, A.B. Innovation capabilities of European nations—Cross-national analyses of patents and sales of product innovations. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artz, K.W.; Norman, P.M.; Hatfield, D.E.; Cardinal, L.B. A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 725–740. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.; Lee, S. Patent databases for innovation studies: A comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 92, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Using Patent Counts for Cross—Country Comparisons of Technology Output; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Measuring Globalisation: OECD Economic Globalisation Indicators 2010; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Goto, A.; Motohashi, K. Construction of a Japanese Patent Database and a first look at Japanese patenting activities. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 1431–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archambault, É. Methods for using patents in cross-country comparisons. Scientometrics 2002, 54, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuniga, P.; Guellec, D.; Dernis, H.; Khan, M.; Okazaki, T.; Webb, C. OECD Patent Statistics Manual; OECD Publications: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, L.C. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1978, 1, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brass, D.J.; Burkhardt, M.E. Centrality and power in organizations. Netw. Organ. Struct. Form Action 1992, 191, 215. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, R.; Imielinski, T.; Swami, A. Database mining: A performance perspective. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1993, 5, 914–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, R.; Imieliński, T.; Swami, A. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In ACM SIGMOD Record; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 1993; Volume 22, pp. 207–216. [Google Scholar]
- Aher, S.B.; Lobo, L.M.R.J. A comparative study of association rule algorithms for course recommender system in e-learning. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2012, 39, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
- Erlandsson, F.; Bródka, P.; Borg, A.; Johnson, H. Finding Influential Users in Social Media Using Association Rule Learning. Entropy 2016, 18, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, H.-J.; Na, K.-Y.; Yoon, C.-H. The Role of ICT in Korea’s Economic Growth: Productivity Changes across Industries since the 1990s. Telecommun. Policy 2013, 37, 292–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Looy, B.; du Plessis, M.; Magerman, T. Data Production Methods for Harmonized Patent Statistics: Patentee Sector Allocation. KUL Working Paper No. MSI 0606. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=944464 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.944464 (accessed on 4 April 2017).
- Cantwell, J.; Piscitello, L. Recent location of foreign-owned research and development activities by large multinational corporations in the European regions: The role of spillovers and externalities. Reg. Stud. 2005, 39, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergek, A.; Berggren, C. Technological internationalisation in the electro-technical industry: A cross-company comparison of patenting patterns 1986–2000. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 1285–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Criscuolo, P.; Narula, R.; Verspagen, B. Role of home and host country innovation systems in R&D internationalisation: A patent citation analysis. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2005, 14, 417–433. [Google Scholar]
- Tijssen, R.J.W. Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: Patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grupp, H.; Schmoch, U. Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: New legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamin, M.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Richardson, C. Internationalisation of innovative activity in Finnish multinational enterprises. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2014, 8, 310–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, M.; Haidar, J.I. Trade facilitation and country size. Empir. Econ. 2014, 47, 1441–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.F.; Khan, M.S. Why Is China Growing So Fast? Staff Pap. 1997, 44, 103–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemet, G.F.; Johnson, E. Do important inventions benefit from knowledge originating in other technological domains? Res. Policy 2012, 41, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trajtenberg, M. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econ. 1990, 21, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, M.B.; Avery, D.; Narin, F.; McAllister, P. Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Res. Policy 1991, 20, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanjouw, J.O.; Schankerman, M. Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. RAND J. Econ. 2001, 32, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harhoff, D.; Scherer, F.M.; Vopel, K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 1343–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marco, A.C. The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence. Rev. Financ. Econ. 2005, 14, 323–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allison, J.R.; Lemley, M.A.; Moore, K.A.; Trunkey, R.D. Valuable patents. Georgetown Law J. 2004, 92, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blind, K.; Cremers, K.; Mueller, E. The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, B.H.; Jaffe, A.B.; Trajtenberg, M. The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Lerner, J. The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. RAND J. Econ. 1994, 25, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, X.; Frame, J.D. Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Res. Policy 1994, 23, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanjouw, J.O.; Schankerman, M. Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. Econ. J. 2004, 114, 441–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.-J. From interpersonal networks to inter-organizational alliances for university–industry collaborations in Japan: The case of the Tokyo Institute of Technology. RD Manag. 2011, 41, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorsteinsdottir, H. External research collaboration in two small science systems. Scientometrics 2000, 49, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.Y.; Cai, F.; Li, Z. The China Miracle: Development Strategy and Economic Reform; Chinese University Press: Hong Kong, China, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kogut, B. Country capabilities and the permeability of borders. Strateg. Manag. J. 1991, 12, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Patent Number | Inventor Country | Assignee Country | Type of International Patent |
---|---|---|---|
8,263,590 | France, Japan, Switzerland | - | II |
8,492,351 | US, Australia, Singapore | US, Australia, Singapore | II-IA-AA |
7,273,848 | Germany | France, Germany, Switzerland | IA-AA |
5,281,710 | UK, US, Austria, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan | US | II-IA |
6,544,605 | UK | Germany | IA |
Patent Characteristics | Mean Value | ANOVA Test | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
II (C) | IA(B) | II-IA(D) | IA-AA(E) | II-IA-AA(G) | Non-International | F-Value | p-Value | |
No. of Inventors | 3.21 (1.76) | 2.10 (1.41) | 4.02 (2.24) | 2.48 (1.71) | 4.38 (2.41) | 2.38 (1.65) | 763,092 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Inventor Countries | 2.05 (0.25) | 1.00 (0.02) | 2.08 (0.31) | 1.00 (0.60) | 2.10 (0.36) | 1.00 (0.00) | 1,198,710 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Assignee | 0.00 (0.02) | 1.00 (0.07) | 1.02 (0.16) | 2.06 (0.43) | 2.10 (0.43) | 1.02 (0.18) | 154,946 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Assignee Countries | 0.00 (0.02) | 1.00 (0.05) | 1.00 (0.00) | 1.99 (0.16) | 2.01 (0.19) | 1.00 (0.00) | 160,581 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Patent References | 17.00 (51.03) | 19.42 (54.22) | 25.94 (77.07) | 22.42 (55.49) | 19.35 (40.80) | 18.28 (46.96) | 6123 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Non-Patent References | 5.80 (23.96) | 4.37 (20.53) | 9.15 (33.46) | 4.72 (33.69) | 10.09 (38.81) | 4.08 (21.81) | 12,742 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Foreign References | 2.67 (8.43) | 3.56 (11.31) | 5.05 (16.22) | 3.78 (13.53) | 4.86 (13.43) | 3.19 (9.75) | 10,710 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Patent Citations Received 10 | 8.58 (15.80) | 8.08 (14.69) | 10.49 (18.70) | 11.33 (18.18) | 9.66 (16.72) | 8.74 (15.70) | 8190 | <0.000 *** |
Degree Centrality | 28.08 (57.43) | 27.52 (57.65) | 34.76 (80.49) | 29.69 (58.66) | 26.15 (44.41) | 29.01 (53.09) | 14,015 | <0.000 *** |
Degree Centrality 10 | 19.50 (23.84) | 18.44 (21.75) | 23.17 (28.67) | 24.32 (32.18) | 22.18 (27.94) | 19.50 (23.92) | 10,710 | <0.000 *** |
No. of IPCs | 3.82 (3.31) | 3.32 (2.91) | 3.55 (3.56) | 2.98 (2.75) | 3.64 (4.61) | 3.66 (3.01) | 558.8 | <0.000 *** |
No. of UPCs | 10.29 (8.07) | 9.33 (8.17) | 9.01 (8.51) | 8.30 (8.90) | 8.87 (9.05) | 10.33 (8.05) | 8190 | <0.000 *** |
No. of Claims | 16.01 (12.55) | 16.13 (12.16) | 18.21 (14.03) | 16.51 (11.94) | 16.78 (12.74) | 15.44 (12.41) | 14,015 | <0.000 *** |
© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Su, H.-N. Global Interdependence of Collaborative R&D-Typology and Association of International Co-Patenting. Sustainability 2017, 9, 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040541
Su H-N. Global Interdependence of Collaborative R&D-Typology and Association of International Co-Patenting. Sustainability. 2017; 9(4):541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040541
Chicago/Turabian StyleSu, Hsin-Ning. 2017. "Global Interdependence of Collaborative R&D-Typology and Association of International Co-Patenting" Sustainability 9, no. 4: 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040541