Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Inventor- and Examiner-added Citations

By Peter Thompson. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2006

289 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb5e773756ff3bf9441c7aa6af8562aa85ce099f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

Localized Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: A Distance-Based Approach (2014, methodology): “Although Thompson (2006) shows that inventor citations are more likely to match the state or CMSA of their originating patents than examiner citations, this result may be biased as well, given our result that the matching rate tests are subject to the two aggregation problems.”
The Increasing Importance of Geographical Proximity in Knowledge Production: An Analysis of US Patent Citations, 1975–1997 (2008, methodology): “JTH's method cannot detect all localized technological spillovers, as shown by Breschi and Lissoni (2003), and Thompson and Fox-Kean (2005).”
Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices (2017, unknown): “Thompson (2006) compares the extent of localization in citations listed by the inventor to those added by the examiner.”
The city as innovation machine (2017, background): “…highly localized, finding that local patents were more likely to be cited by an inventor than similar patents from beyond a labour market (see also Acs, Audretsch, & Feldman, REGIONAL STUDIES 1992; Anselin, Varga, & Acs, 1997; Jaffe, 1989; Jaffe et al., 1993; Thompson, 2006; Trajtenberg, 1990).”
Breakthrough Inventions and Migrating Clusters of Innovation (2009, background): “…example, Arzaghi and Henderson (2008), Carlino et al. (2007), Carlino and Hunt (2007), Delgado et al. (2008, 2009), Ellison et al. (2009), Glaeser and Kerr (2009), Jacobs (1970), Ja¤e et al. (1993), Marshall (1920), Rosenthal and Strange (2003), Thompson (2006), and Thompson and Fox-Kean (2005).”
Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting (2015, unknown): “…proposed by L UX (2001): in this version the stopping rule is modi ﬁ ed with a higher threshold so that the tail includes fewer observations from the central part of the distribution. geographically too distant from each other to allow for frequent knowledge spillovers (e.g., T HOMPSON , 2006).”
Spreading the Word: Geography, Policy, and Knowledge Spillovers (2013, background): “[31] Thompson, Peter (2006), Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Inventor- and Examiner-Added Citations,Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2): 383-388”
Distributed R&D, Cross-Regional Knowledge Integration and Quality of Innovative Output (2008, methodology): “…patent includes information regarding geographic location of its inventors.5 For inventors with U.S. addresses, we follow Jaffe et al (1993) and Thompson (2006) in using metropolitan area as the relevant definition of a geographic “region”.6 While we would have liked an analogous definition of…”
Spreading the Word: Geography, Policy and University Knowledge Diffusion (2010, background): “In the U.S., academic institutions spent $48 billion on R&D, accounting for 56 percent of basic research and 33 percent of total research in the U.S. (National Science Board, 2008).”
Local Industrial Conditions and Entrepreneurship: How Much of the Spatial Distribution Can We Explain? (2009, unknown): “in the transfer of ideas, and studies of patent citations highlight the importance of local proximity for scientific exchanges (e.g., Jaffe et al., 1993; Thompson and Fox-Kean, 2005; Thompson, 2006).”
California Dreamin’: The Feeble Case for Cluster Policies (2011, background): “Despite a very high level of care in the data work, subsequent research has disputed these findings and the current wisdom is that the local bias in citations is possibly no higher than 25% and short-lived as knowledge may diffuse nationally quite rapidly (Thompson, 2006).”
Not Invented Here? Innovation in Company Towns (2009, methodology): “…patent remains as the “best” possible control, then we select the patent closest to the focal patent in terms of issue date as the control (in the event of a tie, we select randomly).12 10We fully appreciate the critiques of this method presented in Thompson and Fox-Kean (2005) and Thompson (2006).”
Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host country firms (2007, background): “A specific issue is that patent examiners insert a significant fraction of citations, with these examiner-added citations being systematically less likely to represent true knowledge flows (Alcacer and Gittelman, 2006; Thompson, 2006).”
Knowledge flows across European regions (2009, background): “Almost 90% of EPO citations are traced by the examiners (Criscuolo and Verspagen 2006) while the corresponding proportion for a sample of USPTO patents is around 40% (Thompson 2006).”