Measuring AI innovation with trademark data

When a large language model (LLM) answers a question about a company, it grounds the answer in retrieved web sources, and those sources decide what the model says. Most analysis of AI brand visibility looks at the answer text. This study looks one step earlier, at the citations. We merge three Rankfor.AI datasets covering 128 brands across 12 home markets and 13 languages, and analyse 167,551 URL-grounded citations (189,974 total attribution rows). We classify each citation by domain and source type and measure where AI gets its brand information, by language and by market. Four patterns hold. First, AI grounds brand answers overwhelmingly in third-party sources: 85.7% of citations point to sites the brand does not own, against 14.3% owned. Second, the source base is concentrated and long-tailed: 80% of citations come from about 18% of domains, fitting a Zipf law (alpha = 0.86, R^2 = 0.983). Third, one reference site dominates almost everywhere: Wikipedia is the most-cited domain in 11 of 12 languages, the exception being Lithuanian, where the business daily vz.lt edges it (4.38%). Fourth, the source mix is market-specific at the margin: for 46 Polish national brands the most-cited domain is YouTube, and four HR and careers portals supply 637 citations against 297 for Polish Wikipedia, about twice as many.

How can we design a market of human-generated content for use in training AI models that both enables technological progress and preserves individual incentives for high-quality content creation? Existing approaches take polar positions: a "free-for-all" model based on fair use and a "strong intellectual property rights" model. We show that both fail: Free-for-all does not compensate creators, and -- by modeling as a static Stackelberg game -- strong intellectual property rights also underpower creative incentives. We find this especially true for more innovative creators, a phenomenon we term the "originality penalty." Extending this insight to a dynamic model, we find another market failure undermining AI model performance, even for an initially good model: Such a model induces greater reliance by humans on AI-assisted creation, resulting in homogenized content feeding back into training, which degrades the model performance -- a "curse of precision." We further propose a market design with a data intermediary internalizing cross-creator externalities and subsidizing innovative contributions, thereby restoring efficiency.

Patent databases represent one of the largest public archives of technical knowledge, yet much of this knowledge remains difficult to identify, interpret, and reuse once patent rights expire or lapse. This paper proposes an AI-enabled framework for discovering expired and lapsing patents, identifying technology trends, and translating patent disclosures into business pathways. We use pathways to mean structured commercialization routes such as SaaS products, services, licensing packages, consulting playbooks, training offerings, data products, or internal process tools. The framework treats patent expiry as both a business signal and an archival transition, not primarily as a legal problem. Legal status remains important, but it is one risk-screening input alongside customer need, implementation feasibility, channel access, and market timing. We describe a system architecture that combines patent metadata, maintenance-fee records, legal-status indicators, semantic search, patent-family analysis, market signals, and generative AI workflows. A proof of concept parses all 378 records in an official weekly CIPO ST.96 archive, identifies 20 expired, lapsed, or near-expiry candidates, tests the stability of the transparent scoring model, and uses a locally hosted Qwen3.6 model to populate structured review packets. The evaluation demonstrates reproducible ingestion, stable rankings under weight perturbation, and schema-conformant model output, while also exposing incomplete legal-status coverage and the need for register and expert review. We argue that AI can function as a discovery and translation layer for dormant technical knowledge, but that such systems must explicitly represent legal uncertainty, data limitations, and commercialization risk.