臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

自2000年以來，世界各個國家圍繞LED的研製展開了激烈的技術競賽，專利侵權時有發生，由此也引發了大規模的專利大戰。辨識企業在訴訟關係中的位置角色成爲“知己知彼”訴訟戰略實施的重要課題；另外隱藏在係爭專利背後的知識流動狀況成爲企業專利佈局首要解決的問題。先前的研究大多集中在評估公司持有的專利數量和品質，以提供專利組合和評估的資訊。基於安全性等因素，使用專利的研究往往有一定的資訊獲取局限性，而專利訴訟資訊易於獲取，即使案件數量較少，也能反映專利的重要性。因此本研究提出了以專利訴訟數據為基礎，以訴訟主體構建的專利訴訟網路和以訴訟客體構建的專利引用網路兩方面研究的新思路。
本研究收集了2000-2016年間的LED專利訴訟數據，首先提取訴訟主體資訊，構建專利訴訟網絡，通過網路中心性分析、多變量分析以及位置之角色分析三個步驟完成了專利訴訟網絡之角色研究。結果顯示LED訴訟企業可以分為四群，分別為領先者、核心競爭者、非專利實施主體和潛在威脅者，分群效果良好，與企業所在市場地位相吻合。接著提取訴訟客體資訊，構建係爭專利國家、機構和技術領域引用網路，通過網路可視化、網路拓撲和關鍵節點分析三個視角深入分析了係爭專利網路的結構與屬性。分析結果表明三個引用網路的度分佈都遵循冪律分佈，屬於無標度網路，美國、日本、荷蘭、德國和韓國是國家引用網路中的關鍵節點，機構引用網路中最重要的是Philips, Cree, Nichia, Osram, Seoul Semiconductor and GE，技術領域引用網路中關鍵節點則是H01L、F21V和 H05B。
研究的新視角不僅可以為企業提供專利訴訟戰略和專利佈局的管理意見，而且也可以為後續理論研究提供結構性方法和小樣本研究思路，從而 提高研究的信度與效度。

All countries in the world have started fierce technical competitions around the development of LED since 2000, and patent infringement has occurred from time to time, which has also triggered a large-scale patent war. Identifying the position of the firm in the litigation relationship becomes an important issue in the implementation of the litigation strategy of "Know the enemy, know yourself". In addition, the flow of technological knowledge hidden behind the patent becomes the primary solution to patent layout of the enterprises. Previous studies have mostly focused on assessing the number and quality of patents held by companies to provide information on patent portfolios and assessments. Due to factors such as security, the research based on patents tends to have limited access, patent litigation is easy to access and reflects the importance of the patents well even with a small number of cases. Therefore, this study proposes new ideas on the basis of patent litigation data, two aspects such as the patent litigation network constructed by litigation subject and the patent citation network constructed by litigation object.
This study collected data on LED patent litigation between 2000 and 2016. Firstly, the litigation subject information was extracted and the patent litigation network was constructed. The research on the role of patent litigation network was completed through three steps of network centrality analysis, multivariate analysis and of position & role analysis. The results show that LED litigation companies can be divided into four groups which label leaders, core competitors, Non-practicing entities and potential threats, with good effect of clustering and be consistent with market position of the enterprise. Then, the object of litigation was extracted and the patent citation network of the country, the institution and the technology was built. The structure and properties of the patent citation network were analyzed in depth through three aspects: network visualization, network topology analysis and key nodes analysis. The results show that the distributions of the three patent citation networks follow the power law distribution and belong to the scale-free network. The United States, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany and South Korea are the key nodes in the country citation network. The most important nodes in the institution citation network is Philips, Cree, Nichia, Osram, Seoul Semiconductor and GE, H01L, F21V and H05B are the key nodes in the technology citation network.
The new perspective of research not only can provide enterprises with the management opinions of patent litigation strategy and patent layout, but also can provide structural approach and small sample research ideas for follow-up theoretical research so as to improve the reliability and validity of the research.

中文摘要.................................................I
Abstract.................................................II
誌謝.....................................................IV
表目錄...................................................VII
圖目錄...................................................VIII
第一章 緒論..............................................1
第一節 研究背景..........................................1
第二節 研究問題..........................................4
第三節 研究目的..........................................6
第四節 研究流程..........................................10
第五節 研究範疇..........................................12
第二章 文獻探討..........................................13
第一節 專利分析..........................................13
第二節 社會網路分析(SNA).................................16
第三節 專利訴訟網路......................................25
第四節 專利引用網路......................................28
第三章 研究方法..........................................35
第一節 資料收集與整理....................................35
第二節 專利訴訟網路之角色分析............................42
第三節 系爭專利引用網路結構與屬性分析....................46
第四章LED專利訴訟網路實證分析............................50
第一節 資料來源與處理....................................50
第二節 構建LED專利訴訟網路圖.............................51
第三節 實證分析結果......................................52
第五章 LED係爭專利引用網路實證分析.......................60
第一節 資料來源與處理....................................60
第二節 係爭專利引用網路構建..............................61
第三節 係爭專利國家引用網路..............................62
第四節 係爭專利機構引用網路..............................67
第五節 係爭專利技術領域IPC引用網路.......................72
第六章 結論與討論........................................77
第一節 結論..............................................77
第二節 管理意涵討論......................................81
第三節 研究貢獻與後續研究建議............................83
參考文獻.................................................85
附錄.....................................................97

表目錄
表3- 1 網路拓撲統計量指標定義............................47
表4- 1 各變量值排名前10的企業............................52
表4- 2 轉軸後的成分矩陣..................................53
表4- 3 LED公司訴訟關係網路位置...........................54
表4- 4 位置與位置訴訟次數關係表..........................57
表4- 5 位置與位置訴訟關係強度............................57
表4- 6 位置與位置訴訟關係顯著性..........................57
表5- 1 國家引用網路拓撲分析..............................64
表5- 2 國家引用網路Hub前五名.............................64
表5- 3 國家引用網路Authority前五名.......................65
表5- 4 國家引用網路Broker前五名..........................66
表5- 5 機構引用網路拓撲分析..............................69
表5- 6 機構引用網路Hub前五名.............................70
表5- 7 機構引用網路Authority前五名.......................70
表5- 8 機構引用網路Broker前五名..........................71
表5- 9 技術領域引用網路拓撲分析..........................73
表5- 10 技術領域引用網路Hub前五名........................74
表5- 11 技術領域引用網路Authority前五名..................75
表5- 12 技術領域引用網路Broker前五名.....................76

圖目錄
圖1- 1研究流程圖.........................................11
圖3- 1 Lexis資料庫界面...................................36
图3- 2 USPTO資料庫界面...................................37
圖3- 3 科技產業諮詢室網站搜索界面........................38
图3- 4 Lexis判例搜索界面.................................38
圖3- 5 M-trend搜索界面...................................39
圖4- 1 專利訴訟圖例......................................51
圖4- 2 115間公司訴訟關係網絡.............................51
圖4- 3 ω_h陡坡圖........................................54
圖4- 4 群組散佈圖........................................55
圖4- 5 群組網路位置圖....................................56
圖4- 6 位置之角色圖......................................57
圖5- 1 國家引用網路圖....................................62
圖5- 2 機構引用5K-Core網路圖.............................67
圖5- 3 技術領域5K-Core引用網路圖.........................72

一、英文部分
Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251-259.
Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of modern physics, 74(1), 47.
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (1999). The diameter of the world wide web. arXiv preprint cond-mat/9907038.
Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774-779.
Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2004). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92(3), 435-479.
Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., & Walker, J. H. (2009). Extreme value or trolls on top? The characteristics of the most litigated patents. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158: 1-37.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1997). The exploration of technological diversity and geographic localization in innovation: Start-up firms in the semiconductor industry. Small Business Economics, 9(1), 21-31.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management science, 45(7), 905-917.
Andeberg, M. (1973). Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, H., Havila, V., Andersen, P., & Halinen, A. (1998). Position and role-conceptualizing dynamics in business networks. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(3), 167-186.
Anklam, P. (2002). Knowledge management: the collaboration thread. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 28(6), 8-11.
Aspden, H. (1983). Patent statistics as a measure of technological vitality. World Patent Information, 5(3), 170-173.
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. science, 286(5439), 509-512.
Barberá-Tomás, D., Jiménez-Sáez, F., & Castelló-Molina, I. (2011). Mapping the importance of the real world: The validity of connectivity analysis of patent citations networks. Research Policy, 40(3), 473-486.
Barnes, J. (1954). Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations, 7(1), 39-58.
Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16(2-4), 131-141.
Benassi, M. (1995). Governance factors in a network process approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(3), 269-281.
Benson, C. L., & Magee, C. L. (2015). Quantitative determination of technological improvement from patent data. PloS one, 10(4), e0121635.
Bilke, S., & Peterson, C. (2001). Topological properties of citation and metabolic networks. Physical Review E, 64(3), 036106.
Bonacich, P., & Lloyd, P. (2001). Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Social networks, 23(3), 191-201.
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1997). Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social networks, 19(3), 243-269.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1992). Centrality and power in organizations. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, 191, 215.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 439-462.
Caliński, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods, 3(1), 1-27.
Carpenter, M. P., & Narin, F. (1983). Validation study: Patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence. World Patent Information, 5(3), 180-185.
Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., & Woolf, P. (1981). Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3(4), 160-163.
Chang, S.-B., Lai, K.-K., & Chang, S.-M. (2009). Exploring technology diffusion and classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 107-117.
Chang, Y.-H., Lai, K.-K., Lin, C.-Y., Su, F.-P., & Yang, M.-C. (2017). A hybrid clustering approach to identify network positions and roles through social network and multivariate analysis. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1733-1755.
Chen, C., & Hicks, D. (2004). Tracing knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics, 59(2), 199-211.
Choe, H., Lee, D. H., Kim, H. D., & Seo, I. W. (2016). Structural properties and inter-organizational knowledge flows of patent citation network: The case of organic solar cells. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 361-370.
Choe, H., Lee, D. H., Seo, I. W., & Kim, H. D. (2013). Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: Country, institution, and technology field. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26, 492-505.
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM review, 51(4), 661-703.
Cooter, R. D., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1989). Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution. Journal of Economic Literature, 27(3), 1067-1097.
Cramton, P. C. (1992). Strategic delay in bargaining with two-sided uncertainty. The Review of Economic Studies, 59(1), 205-225.
Cremers, K. (2004). Determinants of patent litigation in Germany.
Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). “Wacky” patents meet economic indicators. Economics letters, 113(2), 131-134.
DiMaggio, P. (1992). TWO Cultural Boundaries and Structural Change: The Extension of the High Culture Model to Theater, Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940. Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality, 21.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120-1171.
Ellis, P., Hepburn, G., & Oppenhein, C. (1978). Studies on patent citation networks. Journal of documentation, 34(1), 12-20.
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411-1454.
ERDdS, P., & WI, A. (1959). On random graphs I. Publ. Math. Debrecen, 6, 290-297.
Ernst, H. (1997). The use of patent data for technological forecasting: the diffusion of CNC-technology in the machine tool industry. Small Business Economics, 9(4), 361-381.
Fontana, R., Nuvolari, A., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(4), 311-336.
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 35-41.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239.
Frost, T. S. (2001). The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries' innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 101-123.
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation Indexes for Science. science, 122(3159), 108-111.
Gibbs, A. (2005). Application of multiple known determinants to evaluate legal, commercial and technical value of a patent. Technical Representative, Patent cafe.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. The bell journal of economics, 92-116.
Griliches, Z. (1998). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey R&D and productivity: the econometric evidence: University of Chicago Press.
Guan, J., Zhang, J., & Yan, Y. (2015). The impact of multilevel networks on innovation. Research Policy, 44(3), 545-559.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511-515.
Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.
Hicks, D., Breitzman, T., Olivastro, D., & Hamilton, K. (2001). The changing composition of innovative activity in the US—a portrait based on patent analysis. Research Policy, 30(4), 681-703.
Hu, A. G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6), 849-880.
Huang, M.-H., Chiang, L.-Y., & Chen, D.-Z. (2003). Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwan's high-tech companies. Scientometrics, 58(3), 489-506.
Hummon, N. P., & Dereian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory. Social networks, 11(1), 39-63.
Hung, S.-W., & Wang, A.-P. (2010). Examining the small world phenomenon in the patent citation network: a case study of the radio frequency identification (RFID) network. Scientometrics, 82(1), 121-134.
Jaffe, A. B., & de Rassenfosse, G. (2017). Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1360-1374.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1-2), 105-136.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. the Quarterly journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 14(1), 10-25.
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2013). Social network analysis of patent infringement lawsuits. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(5), 944-955.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of political economy, 99(3), 483-499.
Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405-432.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129-151.
Lee, D., Kim, J., & Shin, J. (2017). Scale-free network analysis of big data for patent litigation cases in the United States. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 70(4), 431-435.
Lee, P.-C., Su, H.-N., & Wu, F.-S. (2010). Quantitative mapping of patented technology—The case of electrical conducting polymer nanocomposite. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3), 466-478.
Lee, S., Kim, W., Lee, H., & Jeon, J. (2016). Identifying the structure of knowledge networks in the US mobile ecosystems: patent citation analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(4), 411-434.
Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303-1319.
Li, X., Chen, H., Huang, Z., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3), 337-352.
Liu, Y., Hseuh, P.-y., Lawrence, R., Meliksetian, S., Perlich, C., & Veen, A. (2011). Latent graphical models for quantifying and predicting patent quality. Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference. (pp.1145-1153). New York：ACM
Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185-201.
Mina, A., Ramlogan, R., Tampubolon, G., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2007). Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge. Research Policy, 36(5), 789-806.
Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research-Technology Management, 34(4), 43-49.
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive?: A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC：Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
Napolitano, G., & Sirilli, G. (1990). The patent system and the exploitation of inventions: results of a statistical survey conducted in Italy. Technovation, 10(1), 5-16.
Narin, F. (1995). Patents as indicators for the evaluation of industrial research output. Scientometrics, 34(3), 489-496.
Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2-4), 143-155.
Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404-409.
No, H. J., & Park, Y. (2010). Trajectory patterns of technology fusion: Trend analysis and taxonomical grouping in nanobiotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 63-75.
Park, G., & Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 793-812.
Park, I., & Yoon, B. (2013). Identifying potential partnership for open innovation by using bibliographic coupling and keyword vector mapping. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 7, 375-380.
Peng, Y.-S., & Liang, I.-C. (2012). An exploratory study of patent litigation behavior: Evidence from the smartphone industry. Paper presented at the Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET), 2012 Proceedings of PICMET'12:. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 1-55.
Ribeiro, L. C., Ruiz, R. M., e Albuquerque, E. d. M., & Bernardes, A. T. (2011). The diffusion of technological knowledge through interlaced networks. Computer Physics Communications, 182(9), 1875-1878.
Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 97-109.
Schröpfer, V. L. M., Schröpfer, V. L. M., Tah, J., Tah, J., Kurul, E., & Kurul, E. (2017). Mapping the knowledge flow in sustainable construction project teams using social network analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(2), 229-259.
Seidman, S. B. (1983). Network structure and minimum degree. Social networks, 5(3), 269-287.
Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management science, 51(5), 756-770.
Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17-38.
Sonn, J. W., & Storper, M. (2008). The increasing importance of geographical proximity in knowledge production: an analysis of US patent citations, 1975–1997. Environment and Planning A, 40(5), 1020-1039.
Spier, K. E. (1992). The dynamics of pretrial negotiation. The Review of Economic Studies, 59(1), 93-108.
Su, H.-N., Chen, C. M.-L., & Lee, P.-C. (2012). Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010. Scientometrics, 92(1), 181-195.
Tang, V., & Huang, B. (2002). Patent litigation as a leading market indicator. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 1(3), 280-291.
Thompson, P. (2006). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: evidence from inventor-and examiner-added citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 383-388.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990a). Economic analysis of product innovation: The case of CT scanners. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990b). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172-187.
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19-50.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of management journal, 44(5), 996-1004.
Valverde, S., Sole, R. V., Bedau, M. A., & Packard, N. (2007). Topology and evolution of technology innovation networks. Physical Review E, 76(5).056118
Van Zeebroeck, N. (2011). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(1), 33-62.
Van Zeebroeck, N., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2011). Filing strategies and patent value. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(6), 539-561.
Verspagen, B. (2007). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: A study on the history of fuel cell research. Advances in Complex Systems, 10(01), 93-115.
Von Clausewitz, C. (1942). Principles of war (Vol. 82). Harrisburg: Military Service Publishing Company.
Wagner, S., Hoisl, K., & Thoma, G. (2014). Overcoming localization of knowledge—the role of professional service firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(11), 1671-1688.
Wang, J.-C., Chiang, C.-h., & Lin, S.-W. (2010). Network structure of innovation: can brokerage or closure predict patent quality? Scientometrics, 84(3), 735-748.
Ward Jr, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American statistical association, 58(301), 236-244.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). New York: Cambridge university press.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. nature, 393(6684), 440-442.
Webb, C., Dernis, H., Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2005). Analysing european and international patent citations. a set of EPO Patent database building blocks. OECD Science, Technology and Industry WP
Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Social structures: A network approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 730-780.
Yoshikane, F., Suzuki, Y., & Tsuji, K. (2012). Analysis of the relationship between citation frequency of patents and diversity of their backward citations for Japanese patents. Scientometrics, 92(3), 721-733.
二、中文部分
劉軍 (2004)。社會網路分析導論。北京：社會科學文獻出版社.
王建剛、吳潔、張青與尹潔 (2011)。知識流管理與動態能力的關係機理研究。 圖書與情報。6, 33-37.
翁順裕 (2010)。從網絡的結構分析探討「技術位置」與「技術角色」－以保險商業方法專利為例。 管理學報。 27(2), 97-122.
吳菲菲、張輝、黃魯成與喬錚 (2015)。基於專利引用網路度分佈研究技術跨領域應用。 科學學研究。 33(10), 1456-1463.
張傑、李晨穎與翟東升 (2013)。 LED 企業專利訴訟關係網路分析。 情報雜誌。 32(8), 87-91.
張克群、魏曉輝、郝娟、袁建中與耿筠 (2016)。 基於社會網路分析方法的專利價值影響因素研究。 科學學與科學技術管理。 37(5), 67-74.
趙蓉英與王靜 (2011)。 社會網路分析 (SNA) 研究熱點與前沿的視覺化分析。 圖書情報知識。1, 88-94.
劉瑞榮與賴奎魁 (2017)。 識別企業專利侵權訴訟網路位置與角色的結構性方法。 情報雜誌。36(12),106-113.