Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 181–195 | Cite as

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

  • Hsin-Ning Su
  • Carey Ming-Li Chen
  • Pei-Chun Lee
Article

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.

Keywords

Patent characteristics Patent litigation Precaution Logistic model 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison, J., Lemley, M., Moore, K., & Trunkey, R. (2004). Valuable patents. The Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. (2005). The patent litigation explosion. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 05–18.Google Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, J. P. (2007). On understanding the increase in us patent litigation. American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 182–195.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixit, A. K., Pindyck, R. S., & Davis, G. A. (1994). Investment under uncertainty (Vol. 15). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, H., & Omland, N. (2010). The patent asset index—A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios. World Patent Information.Google Scholar
  13. Gallini, N. T. (1992). Patent policy and costly imitation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 23(1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs, A. (2005). Application of multiple known determinants to evaluate legal, commercial and technical value of a patent. Technical Representative, Patent cafe.Google Scholar
  16. Gilbert, R., & Shapiro, C. (1990). Optimal patent length and breadth. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 106–112.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy, 30(8), 1253–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2007). An empirical analysis of patent litigation in the semiconductor industry. University of California at Berkeley working paper.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Intellogist. (2011). LitAlert. Retrieved from http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/LitAlert.
  27. Klemperer, P. (1990). How broad should the scope of patent protection be? The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanjouw, J. (1998). Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies, 65(4), 671–710.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  30. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marco, A. C. (2005). The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence. Review of Financial Economics, 14(3–4), 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Moore, K. A. (2000). Judges, Juries, and patent cases—An Empirical peek inside the black box. Michigan Law Review, 99, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—Validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Scotchmer, S. (1996). Protecting early innovators: Should second-generation products be patentable? The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(2), 322–331.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scotchmer, S., & Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suzuki, J. (2011). Structural modeling of the value of patent. Research Policy, 40(7), 986–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Looy, B., Du Plessis, M., & Magerman, T. (2006). Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics: Patentee sector allocation. Belgium: Leuven.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.
  54. 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.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hsin-Ning Su
    • 1
  • Carey Ming-Li Chen
    • 2
  • Pei-Chun Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Technology ManagementNational Chung Hsing UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  2. 2.Science and Technology Policy Research and Information CenterNational Applied Research LaboratoriesTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations