Technology Protectionism and the Patent System: Evidence from China

Rassenfosse, Gaétan de; Raiteri, Emilio

doi:10.1111/joie.12261

Cited by 14 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9 From a technical viewpoint, this method is superior to other approaches that have used unsupervised embeddings relying either on a single‐layered neural network such as Word2Vec (Whalen et al 2020) or more basic methods such as one‐hot encoding (Arts, Cassiman and Gomez 2018) and TF‐IDF (Younge and Kuhn 2016). It has already been used in academic research, for instance, in de Rassenfosse and Raiteri (2022).…”

Section: The Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replicable Patent Indicators Using the Google Patents Public Datasets

Abi Younes,

de Rassenfosse

2024

Australian Economic Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognising the increasing accessibility and importance of patent data, the article underscores the need for standardised and transparent data analysis methods. We illustrate the construction and relevance of commonly used patent indicators derived from Google Patents Public Datasets. The indicators range from citation counts to more advanced metrics like patent text similarity. The BigQuery code is available in an open Kaggle notebook, explaining operational intricacies and potential data issues. By providing clear, adaptable queries and emphasising transparent methods, this article hopes to contribute to the standardisation and accessibility of patent analysis, offering a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners alike.

show abstract

Section: The Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replicable Patent Indicators Using the Google Patents Public Datasets

Abi Younes,

de Rassenfosse

2024

Australian Economic Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Economic nationalism and the home court advantage

Choudhury,

Jandhyala,

Nandkumar

2024

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryPolitical and regulatory actors routinely adopt or enforce policies to protect domestic firms at the expense of foreign firms. However, since courts are expected to be neutral and act independently, a question arises whether (and why) they discriminate against foreign firms. We argue that the courts are nationalistic, which emanates from judges differentiating between in‐group (domestic) and out‐group (foreign) members. In a sample of 58,754 patent disputes adjudicated by US federal district courts between 1983 and 2016, we find domestic patent holders and challengers are more successful than their foreign counterparts. Rulings involving foreign firms are more likely to exhibit nationalistic rhetoric. Judicial ideology moderates the differential odds of success between domestic and foreign firms. Thus, the legal system is another source of economic nationalism.Managerial SummaryMultinational firms might face a disadvantage relative to domestic firms because politicians and regulators are nationalistic; they routinely adopt policies that favor domestic firms. If courts are neutral, this disadvantage should not exist in litigation between multinational and domestic firms. On the contrary, if courts are also nationalistic, domestic firms should enjoy an advantage and greater success than multinational firms in judicial verdicts. Using data on patent disputes in the United States observed over a 33‐year period, we find domestic patent holders and challengers are more successful than their foreign counterparts suggesting that the legal system is another source of economic nationalism. Rulings involving multinationals are more likely to exhibit nationalistic rhetoric. Judicial ideology moderates the differential odds of success between domestic and multinational firms.

show abstract