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

TL;DR

This study analyzes regional and organizational strategies in graphene patenting, revealing diversification in regions and entities, with universities mainly licensing patents and corporations engaging in patent transactions.

Contribution

It introduces a comprehensive analysis of patent portfolio strategies in graphene technology at regional and organizational levels, highlighting diversification and specialization patterns.

Findings

Regions invest across all seven identified graphene technology areas.

Large entities tend to diversify their patent portfolios.

Universities primarily license patents rather than develop or sell them.

Abstract

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.