Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to propose an early precaution method which allows predicting probability of patent infringement as well as evaluating patent value. To obtain the purposes, a large-scale analysis on both litigated patents and non-litigated patents issued between 1976 and 2010 by USPTO are conducted. The holistic scale analysis on the two types of patents (3,878,852 non-litigated patents and 31,992 litigated patents in total) issued by USPTO from 1976 to 2010 has not been conducted in literatures and need to be investigated to allow patent researchers to understand the overall picture of the USPTO patents. Also, by comparing characteristics of all litigated patents to that of non-litigated patents, a precaution method for patent litigation can be obtained. Both litigated patents and non-litigated patents are analyzed to understand the differences between the two types of patents in terms of different variables. It is found that there are statistically significant differences for the two types of patents in the following 11 variables: (1) No. of Assignee, (2) No. of Assignee Country, (3) No. of Inventor, (4) Inventor Country, (5) No. of Patent Reference, (6) No. of Patent Citation Received, (7) No. of IPC, (8) No. of UPC, (9) No. of Claim, (10) No. of Non-Patent Reference, and (11) No. of Foreign Reference. Finally, logistic regression is used for predicting the probability of occurrence of a patent litigation by fitting the 11 characteristics of 3,910,844 USPTO patents to a logistic function curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agliardi, E., & Agliardi, R. (2011). An application of fuzzy methods to evaluate a patent under the chance of litigation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 13143–13148.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, J., Lemley, M., Moore, K., & Trunkey, R. (2004). Valuable patents. The Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, J. R., Lemley, M., & Walker, J. (2009). Extreme value or trolls on top? The characteristics of the most-litigated patents. 158 U PA L REV 1, 5, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. (2005). The patent litigation explosion. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 05–18.

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2007). What’s wrong with the patent system? Fuzzy boundaries and the patent tax. First Monday, 12(6). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1867/1750. Accessed 4 June 2007.

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J. P. (2007). On understanding the increase in us patent litigation. American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 182–195.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. K., Pindyck, R. S., & Davis, G. A. (1994). Investment under uncertainty (Vol. 15). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H., & Omland, N. (2010). The patent asset index—A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios. World Patent Information.

  • FTI Consulting. (2011). Retrieved from www.fticonsulting.com/global/resources/documents/2010-intellectual-property-statistics.pdf.

  • Gallini, N. T. (1992). Patent policy and costly imitation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 23(1), 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, A. (2005). Application of multiple known determinants to evaluate legal, commercial and technical value of a patent. Technical Representative, Patent cafe.

  • Gilbert, R., & Shapiro, C. (1990). Optimal patent length and breadth. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 106–112.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69(1), 109–114. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(00)00265-2.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy, 30(8), 1253–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2007). An empirical analysis of patent litigation in the semiconductor industry. University of California at Berkeley working paper.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., & Reitzig, M. (2004). Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants—The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 443–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2001). Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and US firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9(1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intellogist. (2011). LitAlert. Retrieved from http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/LitAlert.

  • Klemperer, P. (1990). How broad should the scope of patent protection be? The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. (1998). Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies, 65(4), 671–710.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J., 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. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-G. (2009). What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach. Scientometrics, 79(3), 623–633. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2020-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marco, A. C. (2005). The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence. Review of Financial Economics, 14(3–4), 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Ruiz, A., & Aluja, T. (2008). Structural model of patent and market value: An application in energy patents. Presented at the DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2008 PhD Conference.

  • Merz, J. F., & Pace, N. M. (1994). Trends in patent litigation: The apparent influence of strengthened patents attributable to the court of appeals for the Federal circuit. Journal Patent & Trademark Office Society, 76, 579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A. (2000). Judges, Juries, and patent cases—An Empirical peek inside the black box. Michigan Law Review, 99, 365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—Validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., & Heath, C. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of. Research Policy, 36(1), 134–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. (1965). Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1097–1125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. (1996). Protecting early innovators: Should second-generation products be patentable? The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(2), 322–331.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S., & Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverberg, G., & Verspagen, B. (2007). The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance. Journal of Econometrics, 139(2), 318–339.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, J. (2011). Structural modeling of the value of patent. Research Policy, 40(7), 986–1000. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, V., & Huang, B. (2002). Patent litigation as a leading market indicator. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 1(3), 280–291. doi:10.1504/IJTTC.2002.001789.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trappey, A. J. C., Trappey, C. V., Wu, C.-Y., & Lin, C.-W. (2012). A patent quality analysis for innovative technology and product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(1), 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Du Plessis, M., & Magerman, T. (2006). Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics: Patentee sector allocation. Belgium: Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (2008). WIPO IPC-Technology Concordance Table. Retrieved September 22, 2011. From http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/wipo_ipc_technology.pdf.

  • Zhang, X., Fang, S., Tang, C., Xiao, G. H., Hu, Z. Y., & Gao, L. D. (2009). Study on indicator system for core patent documents evaluation. Presented at the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.issi2009.org/agendas/issiprogram/public/documents/indicator%20system%20on%20core%20patent%20evaluation-101829.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank National Science Council of Republic of China, Taiwan, for the financial support under the contract: NSC 100-2410-H-005-059-MY2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Technology Management, National Chung Hsing University, 250 KuoKuang Road, Taichung, 402, Taiwan

    Hsin-Ning Su

  2. Science and Technology Policy Research and Information Center, National Applied Research Laboratories, 14 F., No. 106, Sec. 2, He-Ping East Road, Taipei, 106, Taiwan

    Carey Ming-Li Chen & Pei-Chun Lee

Authors
  1. Hsin-Ning Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carey Ming-Li Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pei-Chun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pei-Chun Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Su, HN., Chen, C.ML. & Lee, PC. Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010. Scientometrics 92, 181–195 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0716-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0716-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation