Capturing the real value of patent analysis for R&D strategies

REFERENCES

• Abraham, B., and S. Morita. 2001. Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation 21, 4: 245–52. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00040-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora, A., A. Fosfuri, and A. Gambardella. 2001. Markets for technology. The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Badaracco, J.L. 1991. The knowledge link. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Basberg, B.L. 1987. Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy 16, 2–4: 131–41. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(87)90027-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann, I., D. Butzke, L. Walter, J.P. Fuerste, M.G. Moehrle, and V.A. Erdmann. 2008. Evaluating the risk of patent infringement by means of semantic patent analysis: The case of DNA chips. R&D Management 38, 5: 550–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonino, D., A. Ciaramella, and F. Corno. 2010. Review of the state-of-the-art in patent information and forthcoming evolutions in intelligent patent informatics. World Patent Information 32, 1: 30–8. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2009.05.008
   Google Scholar
• Cesaroni, F., and M. Mariani. 2001. The market for knowledge in the chemical sector. In Technology and markets for knowledge: Knowledge creation, diffusion and exchange within a growing economy, ed. B. Guilhon, 71–97. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Cesaroni, F., and P. Giuri. 2006. Intellectual property rights and market dynamics. In International handbook on industrial policy, eds. P. Bianchi and S. Labory, 217–42. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H.W. 2006. Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chiaroni, D., V. Chiesa, and F. Frattini. 2010. Unravelling the process from closed to open innovation: Evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries. R&D Management 40, 3: 222–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive-capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 1: 128–52. doi: 10.2307/2393553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J. Walsh. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why us manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
   Google Scholar
• Daim, T.U., G. Rueda, H. Martin, and P. Gerdsri. 2006. Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73, 8: 981–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.P.J. De Jong, T. Kalvet, and W. Vanhaverbeke. 2010. Exploring a theoretical framework to structure the public policy implications of open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22, 8: 877–96. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2010.522771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Di Minin, D. Baglieri, F. Cesaroni, and A. Piccaluga. 2011. Patent-based R&D strategies: The case of STmicroelectronics’ lab-on-chip. In Information technology and innovation trends in organizations,eds. A. D'atri, J.F. George, and P. Spagnoletti, 371–8. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dogson, M. 2000. The management of technological innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst, H. 2003. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information 25, 3: 233–42. doi: 10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00077-2
   Google Scholar
• Gans, J.S., and S. Stern. 2003. The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32, 2: 333–50. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00103-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerdsri, N., P. Assakul, and R.S. Vatananan. 2010. An activity guideline for technology roadmapping implementation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22, 2: 229–42. doi: 10.1080/09537320903498553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuri, P., et al. 2007. Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy 36, 8: 1107–27. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granstrand, O. 1999. The economics and management of intellectual property: Towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Grindley, P.C., and D.J. Teece. 1997. Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review 39, 2: 8–41. doi: 10.2307/41165885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, B.H. 2004. Exploring the patent explosion. NBER working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Helpman, E. 1998. General purpose technologies and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, A., and J. Albors. 2008. Innovation management techniques and tools: A review from theory and practice. R&D Management 38, 2: 113–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, M.B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, and B.Å. Lundvall. 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy 36, 5: 680–93. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, S.J., and N. Rosenberg. 1986. An overview of innovation. In The positive sum strategy. Harnessing technology for economic growth, eds. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, 275–306. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kortum, S., and J. Lerner. 1999. What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy 28, 1: 1–22. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00082-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, N. 1999. Patents on the internet versus patents online: A snapshot in time. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 39, 3: 448–52.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, N. 2004. Internet patent information in the 21st century: A comparison of delphion, micropatent, and qpat. 2004 international chemical information conference & exhibition, Annecy, France.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S., B. Yoon, C. Lee, and J. Park. 2009. Business planning based on technological capabilities: Patent analysis for technology-driven roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 6: 769–86. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., B. Yoon, and Y. Park. 2009. An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation 29, 6–7: 481–97. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., H. Seol, and Y. Park. 2008. Using patent information for designing new product and technology: Keyword based technology roadmapping. R&D Management 38, 2: 169–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, R.C., A.K. Klevorick, R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, R. Gilbert, and Z. Griliches. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1987, 3: 783–831. doi: 10.2307/2534454
   Google Scholar
• Lichtenthaler, U., E. Lichtenthaler, and J. Frishammar. 2009. Technology commercialization intelligence: Organizational antecedents and performance consequences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 3: 301–15. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C.Y., and J.C. Yang. 2008. Decoding patent information using patent maps. Data Science Journal 7, 1: 14–22. doi: 10.2481/dsj.7.14
   Google Scholar
• Liu, S.J., and J. Shyu. 1997. Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis. International Journal of Technology Management 13, 5–6: 661–80. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.1997.001689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield, E. 1981. Composition of r-and-d expenditures – Relationship to size of firm, concentration, and innovative output. Review of Economics and Statistics 63, 4: 610–5. doi: 10.2307/1935857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckelvey, B. 2006. Van de Ven and Johnson's “engaged scholarship”: Nice try, but. Academy of Management Review 31, 4: 822–9. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mille, S., and L. Wanner. 2008. Making text resources accessible to the reader: The case of patent claims. Proceedings of the international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Morocco.
   Google Scholar
• Rivette, K.G., and D. Kline. 1999. Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rycroft, R.W., and D.E. Kash. 1999. The complexity challenge: Technological innovation for the 21st century. London: Pinter Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, C. 2001. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In Innovation policy and the economy, eds. A.B. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern, 119–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public-policy. Research Policy 15, 6: 285–305. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng, Y.H., C.J. Lin, and Y.I. Lin. 2007. Text mining techniques for patent analysis. Information Processing & Management 43, 5: 1216–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A.H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A.H., and P.E. Johnson. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review 31, 4: 802–21. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wipo. 2011. World intellectual property indicators. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y.J. 2006. Assessment of technological innovations in patenting for 3rd party logistics providers. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 19, 5: 504–24. doi: 10.1108/17410390610703648
   Google Scholar