Paper detail

Strategic differences between regional investments into graphene technology and how corporations and universities manage patent portfolios

Nowadays, patenting activities are essential in converting applied science to technology in the prevailing innovation model. To gain strategic advantages in the technological competitions between regions, nations need to leverage the investments of public and private funds to diversify over all technologies or specialize in a small number of technologies. In this paper, we investigated who the leaders are at the regional and assignee levels, how they attained their leadership positions, and whether they adopted diversification or specialization strategies, using a dataset of 176,193 patent records on graphene between 1986 and 2017 downloaded from Derwent Innovation. By applying a co-clustering method to the IPC subclasses in the patents and using a z-score method to extract keywords from their titles and abstracts, we identified seven graphene technology areas emerging in the sequence synthesis - composites - sensors - devices - catalyst - batteries - water treatment. We then examined the top regions in their investment preferences and their changes in rankings over time and found that they invested in all seven technology areas. In contrast, at the assignee level, some were diversified while others were specialized. We found that large entities diversified their portfolios across multiple technology areas, while small entities specialized around their core competencies. In addition, we found that universities had higher entropy values than corporations on average, leading us to the hypothesis that corporations file, buy, or sell patents to enable product development. In contrast, universities focus only on licensing their patents. We validated this hypothesis through an aggregate analysis of reassignment and licensing and a more detailed analysis of three case studies - SAMSUNG, RICE UNIVERSITY, and DYSON.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.