3.8 Proceedings Paper

International Collaboration in Nanotechnology from 1991 to 2010 based on Patent Analysis

Journal

MATERIALS IN INDUSTRY AND NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 771, Issue -, Pages 119-124

Publisher

TRANS TECH PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.771.119

Keywords

Nanotechnology; International Collaboration; Patent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanotechnology has heralded the advent of next major techno-paradigm shift that will have pervasive impacts on a wide-range of high-tech sectors. International collaboration will exert important influences over the development of nanotechnology. Patents encompass valuable technological information and collaborative efforts. Therefore, this paper studies international collaboration of nanotechnology from the perspective of patent analysis. The results show that encouraged by the rapid development and ardent enthusiasm for nanotechnology globally, internationally collaborative nanotechnology patents grow steadily. The share of internationally collaborative patents in the world increases from 3.70% in 1991 to 6.52% in 2010. Among the top 20 countries/regions owning nanotechnology patents, the U.S. has the largest number of patents and internationally collaborative patents. However, the share of internationally collaborative patents in the whole U.S. patents is relatively low, which is below 10%. Such is also the case in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In the other countries, the domestic share of internationally collaborative patents varies, ranging from less than 20% to more than 50%. The highest domestic share of internationally collaborative patents (56.1%) is found in Russia. International collaboration in the field of nanotechnology has yet found globally significant in terms of patent quantity, it does nevertheless play an active role in the improvement of citation impacts of nanotechnology patents for most of the top 20 countries, especially China.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available