A new high‑precision patent classifier shows AI patenting has surged and converged in the U.S. and China, with China recently overtaking the U.S. in annual counts; however, the U.S. remains concentrated in large private incumbents and hubs while China’s AI patenting is more diffuse and university/SOE‑led. AI patents are associated with a substantial market‑value premium in both countries, and cross‑border citations point to continued technological interdependence rather than decoupling.

Main Finding

The paper builds a high-precision AI-patent classifier (the FGYZ classifier) by fine-tuning PatentSBERTa on the USPTO’s manually labeled seed/anti-seed data and applies it to U.S. and Chinese patent universes. The FGYZ classifier substantially improves on the USPTO’s LSTM-based approach (FGYZ: precision 97.0%, recall 91.3%, F1 94.0% vs. USPTO: precision 40.5%, recall 37.5%, F1 ≈39%), generalizes to Chinese patents, and reveals (a) rapid, convergent growth in AI patenting in the U.S. and China, (b) sharp differences in organization and geography of AI innovation (U.S. concentrated in large private incumbents and established hubs; China more geographically diffuse with large roles for universities and SOEs), (c) an AI-related market-value premium for listed firms in both countries, and (d) continued cross-border technological interdependence with asymmetric knowledge flows (Chinese inventors rely more on recent U.S. frontier knowledge than vice versa).

Key Points

• Measurement advance
  • FGYZ (PatentSBERTa fine-tuned) achieves: precision 97.0%, recall 91.3%, F1 94.0% on AIPD test sets; outperforms the USPTO LSTM classifier, which misses a majority of true AI patents and yields many false positives.
  • Evolutionary Computation subfield excluded from main analysis due to limited labeled examples.
• Scale and trends
  • Identified AI patents: 876,668 U.S. patents (1976–2023) and 651,630 Chinese patents (2010–2023), matched to ~400,000 unique inventors.
  • Rapid acceleration of AI patenting since the mid-2010s; China surpasses the U.S. in recent annual AI patent counts.
  • Broad convergence in AI patenting intensity and subfield composition (planning, vision, hardware prominent); differences in timing/intensity in NLP and other subfields.
• Organization and geography
  • U.S.: concentrated AI patenting among a few large private incumbents (e.g., IBM, Microsoft, Google, Amazon) and stable early hubs.
  • China: more institutionally diverse (prominent roles for universities and SOEs alongside large tech firms like Tencent, Baidu, Huawei) and faster spatial diffusion from pioneer cities to secondary locations.
• Economic value
  • AI patents produce a robust stock-market valuation premium for listed firms in both countries, especially in data/software-intensive subfields (machine learning, NLP); absolute values higher in the U.S. but relative AI premia present in both markets.
• Knowledge flows and cross-border links
  • Validation shows FGYZ-identified patents are more tightly embedded in AI knowledge networks (citation connectivity, lexical similarity).
  • Cross-border citations indicate sustained technological coupling: Chinese AI inventors cite U.S. frontier technologies heavily; U.S. citations to Chinese patents are more selective and concentrated outside core AI domains.
• Role of non-market institutions
  • U.S. universities act largely as academic enclaves (limited direct citation uptake by industry).
  • Chinese universities and SOEs show dense reciprocal citation linkages with industry, implying non-market actors in China contribute substantively to economically relevant AI technologies.

Data & Methods

• Raw data
  • USPTO: ~7.7 million granted patents (1976–2023); CNIPA: ~5.4 million granted patents (2010–2023).
  • Text fields used: abstracts, claims, (full text where available). Forward and backward citations retrieved from Google Patents. Assignee-type classification for China via SAIC.
• Classifier development (FGYZ)
  • Base model: PatentSBERTa (a Sentence-BERT variant pre-trained on patent corpora).
  • Training data: USPTO AIPD seed and anti-seed manual labels (eight AI subfields).
  • Procedure: fine-tune PatentSBERTa with contrastive objective; per-subfield binary classifiers; 80/20 train-test split with five-fold CV in training, hyperparameter tuning and early stopping.
  • Performance (aggregate): precision 97.0%, recall 91.3%, F1 94.0%; robust across seven of eight subfields (Evolutionary Computation underpowered).
• Validation strategies
  • Citation-based connectivity: compared connectivity of patents classified as AI by FGYZ, by USPTO, by both, or by neither; FGYZ-only patents show stronger links to the high-confidence AI benchmark.
  • Lexical similarity: TF–IDF–weighted word-distribution comparisons showing FGYZ-only patents align more closely in vocabulary to the AI benchmark than USPTO-only patents.
  • Cross-country validation: applied FGYZ to Chinese patents and compared citation/lexical alignment with U.S. AI patents—showed strong alignment, supporting out-of-sample generalization.
• Downstream analyses
  • Longitudinal and geographic analyses of AI patenting intensity and diffusion.
  • Institutional ownership analyses (firms, universities, SOEs).
  • Market-value analyses: event-study-style valuation of patent disclosures following Kogan et al. (2017) to estimate AI premium.

Implications for AI Economics

• Measurement matters
  • Improved classification (FGYZ) reduces severe attenuation and misclassification bias from prior datasets; results built on USPTO AIPD alone may substantially understate AI activity or mis-attribute technological specialization.
  • Researchers should use higher-precision classifiers (or the FGYZ labels, if available) when studying firm-level innovation, market value effects, or country comparisons.
• Reassessing comparative innovation performance
  • The finding that China now surpasses the U.S. in annual AI patent counts (recent years) and the observed convergence in subfield composition call for re-evaluation of narrative claims about “leadership” based only on older or noisy patent measures.
  • Yet institutional and geographic divergence matters: concentration in U.S. incumbents vs. broader institutional mix in China implies different innovation dynamics and industrial policy implications.
• Firm valuation and investment
  • The AI-related patent premium across countries and subfields signals market recognition of AI-related intangible assets—important for corporate valuation, investor screening, and financing of AI R&D.
  • Strong premia in ML/NLP suggest higher expected returns or strategic value in data- and software-intensive AI technologies.
• Policy and industrial strategy
  • China’s prominent roles for universities and SOEs, and dense industry–nonmarket linkages, suggest state-sector actors can play an active role in producing economically relevant AI knowledge—this affects how policy-makers design R&D funding, technology transfer, and IP strategies.
  • Persistent cross-border knowledge flows (and asymmetric dependence) imply that attempts at full technological decoupling would be costly and difficult; trade and research policies should account for continued international interdependence in knowledge.
• Regional development and innovation policy
  • Different spatial dynamics—U.S. persistence of early hubs vs. China’s rapid diffusion—imply different regional policies: U.S. policies might target sustaining hub strengths and mitigating winner-take-all effects, while Chinese-style diffusion suggests policies that can leverage broader geographic spillovers.
• Future research and data use
  • The FGYZ approach (LLM fine-tuning on patent text) is a promising template for building high-quality technology-specific patent indicators beyond AI.
  • Researchers should combine citation, lexical, and market-value evidence when assessing technological importance, and be cautious using raw or low-precision machine labels for causal inference.

If you’d like, I can: - Produce a one-page executive summary for policymakers emphasizing policy levers implied by the findings. - Extract the paper’s most relevant tables/figures and summarize the quantitative results (growth rates, geographic concentration measures, valuation premia) in a compact form.