Abstract
Currently, most universities use some indicators to measure the quality of patents. The quality of the metrics may impact sustainability in universities. It is observed that research on patent quality indicators and risk assessment in selecting it can be a relevant contribution to improving the invention-innovation relationship. Moreover, developing ways to evaluate their quality can enhance the results of academic research. The study presents the influential publications in the Patent Quality Indicators, what are the indicators of patent quality for universities, and their potential for generating technological Innovation. The study also presents the risks in choosing Patent Quality Indicators. A systematic literature review was conducted in the University's Patent Quality Indicators and popular digital databases, such as IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Science Direct, Springer Link, and Web of Science (WoS). The sample size is appropriate and significant since all the studied areas are covered. As a result, the ten most significant publications found in the review and a list of the risks are presented. The study can help universities better understand the patent quality indicators and prioritize allocating resources to treat the risks. This study contributes to other researchers' previous findings since most did not cover a systematic literature review and a risk assessment in choosing indicators. This paper aimed to fill this gap by presenting the significant publications and the risks involved. It is believed that the present study will augment the knowledge of the professors and academic professionals in the decision-making process
Publisher
South Florida Publishing LLC
Subject
Materials Science (miscellaneous)
Reference44 articles.
1. Aristodemou, L.; Tietze, F. (2018). The state-of-the-art on Intellectual Property Analytics (I.P.A.): A literature review on artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning methods for analyzing intellectual property (I.P.) data. World Patent Information, 55, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2018.07.002
2. Arts, S.;Cassiman, B.; Gomez, J. C. (2017). Text Matching to Measure Patent Similarity. Strategic Management Journal 39 (1): 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2699
3. Barbastefano, R. G.; Souza, C. G.; Araújo, F. O. (2010). Interação universidade-empresa: Análise de Padrões de Depósitos Conjuntos e Desafios ao Patenteamento Universitário no Brasil. XXX Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção Maturidade e desafios da Engenharia de Produção: competitividade das empresas, condições de trabalho, meio ambiente. São Carlos, SP Brasil. https://abepro.org.br/biblioteca/enegep2010_TN_STO_120_780_17252.pdf
4. Boasson, V.; Boasson, E. (2015). Firm value, spatial knowledge flow, and Innovation: evidence from patent citations. China Finance Review International Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/CFRI-08-2014-0056
5. Boeing, P.; Mueller, E. (2016). Measuring Patent Quality in Cross-Country Comparison. Economics Letters 149, 145–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.10.039