Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92454
標題: Assessing the Value of Internationalized Inventive Activities
國際化發明活動之價值評估
作者: 邱健哲
Chien-Che Chiu
關鍵字: 專利價值;國際化專利;專利特徵;國際化;Patent Value;International Patent;Patent Characteristic;Internationalization
引用: 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.122 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U Allison, J., Lemley, M., & Walker, J. (2009). Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158(1), 1–37. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2003). Valuable Patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2004). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92(3), 435. Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1988). Using patent information in technology business planning I. Research Technology Management, 31(6), 42–46. Bergek, A., & Bruzelius, M. (2010). Are patents with multiple inventors from different countries a good indicator of international R&D collaboration? The case of ABB. Research Policy, 39(10), 1321–1334. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.002 Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.003 Cantwell, J., & Iammarino, S. (2000). Multinational Corporations and the Location of Technological Innovation in the UK Regions. Regional Studies, 34(4), 317–332. http://doi.org/10.1080/00343400050078105 Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 182–195. Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 20–32. Ernst, H. (2001). Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, 30(1), 143–157. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00098-0 European Patent Office. (2014). EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical (PATSTAT) Database. Autumn 2014 Edition. Gallini, N. T. (1992). Patent policy and costly imitation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 23(1), 52–63. Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69–84. Gibbs, A. (2005). Application of Multiple Known Determinants to Evaluate Legal, Commercial and Technical Value of a Patent. Tech. Rep., Patent cafe. Gilbert, R., & Shapiro, C. (1990). Optimal patent length and breadth. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 106–112. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707. Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69(1), 109–114. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(00)00265-2 Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy, 30(8), 1253–1266. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools (Working Paper No. 8498). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8498 Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market Value and Patent Citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38. 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. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5 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. Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107. Jan Johanson, & Jan‐Erik Vahlne. (1990). The Mechanism of Internationalisation. International Marketing Review, 7(4). http://doi.org/10.1108/02651339010137414 Jeeeun Kim, S. L. (2015). Patent databases for innovation studies: A comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.009 Klemperer, P. (1990). How broad should the scope of patent protection be? The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 113–130. Lanjouw, J. (1998). Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies, 65(4), 671–710. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129. http://doi.org/10.2307/2696401 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. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00081 Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. National Bureau of Economic Research. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151. Lee, P.-C., & Su, H.-N. (2014). How to forecast cross-border patent infringement?—The case of US international trade. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, 125–131. 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2020-5 Lerner, J. (1994). The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333. http://doi.org/10.2307/2555833 Malerba, F., Montobbio, F., & Sterzi, V. (2011). The growth and evolution of advanced technological capabilites in the main emerging countries. A patent analysis. Presented at the the 9th globelics international conference., Buenos Aires. Marco, A. C. (2005). The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence. Review of Financial Economics, 14(3-4), 323–351. Marco, A. C. (2007). The dynamics of patent citations. Economics Letters, 94(2), 290–296. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2006.08.014 Martinez, C. (2010). Insight into different types of patent families. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/5kml97dr6ptl-en Martínez, C. (2010). Patent families: When do different definitions really matter? Scientometrics, 86(1), 39–63. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0251-3 Martinez-Ruiz, A., & Aluja, T. (2008). Structural Model of Patent and Market Value: An Application in Energy Patents. Meyer, K., & Skak, A. (2002). Networks, Serendipity and SME Entry into Eastern Europe. European Management Journal, 20(2), 179–188. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00028-2 Meyer, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2004). Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration. Scientometrics, 61(3), 443–456. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045120.04489.80 Montobbio, F., & Sterzi, V. (2013). The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on the Determinants of International Patent Collaborations. World Development, 44, 281–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.017 Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1), 77–99. Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and Abuses of Patent Statistics. In Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology (pp. 509–536). Sole Distributors for the U.S.A. And Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co. Perko, J. S., & Narin, F. (1997). The transfer of public science to patented technology: A case study in agricultural science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(3), 65–72. Picci, L. (2010). The internationalization of inventive activity: A gravity model using patent data. Research Policy, 39(8), 1070–1081. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.007 Pohlmann, T., & Opitz, M. (2013). Typology of the patent troll business. R&D Management, 43(2), 103-120. Putnam, J. (1996). The value of international patent rights (PhD thesis). Yale University. Ramon Casadesus‐Masanell, & Joan E. Ricart. (2010). Competitiveness: business model reconfiguration for innovation and internationalization. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 8(2), 123–149. http://doi.org/10.1108/1536-541011066470 Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 939–957. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.02.004 Reitzig, M. (2004). Strategic management of intellectual property. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(3, Spring), 35–40. 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. Scherer, F. M. (1965). Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1097–1125. Scotchmer, S. (1996). Protecting early innovators: should second-generation products be patentable? The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(2), 322–331. Scotchmer, S., & Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 131–146. 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. Somaya, D. (2002). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38. Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper No. 2013/3). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/stiaaa/2013-3-en.html Suzuki, J. (2011). Structural modeling of the value of patent. Research Policy, 40(7), 986–1000. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.006 Tijssen, R. J. W. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30(1), 35–54. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00080-3 Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics (RAND Journal of Economics), 21(1), 172–187. 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.005 Von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.001 Von Zedtwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. (2002). Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31(4), 569–588. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00125-1 Zhang, X., Fang, S., Tang, C., Xiao, G. H., Hu, Z. Y., & Gao, L. D. (2009, July). 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
摘要: 
This paper aims to evaluate the value of internationalized inventive activities by analyzing characteristics of patent inventions based on international collaboration, and unveil how degree of internationalization and patent characteristics can be correlated to each other. To obtain the objective of this study, a total of 4,667,855 USPTO utility patents by USPTO between 1976 and 2013 are downloaded and characterized, and subsequently the number of inventor countries as well as the number of assignee countries are compared with selected 15 patent characteristics such as Family Size, Number of Patent Reference, Number of Patent Citation Received, Number of Non-Patent Reference, Number of Claim, etc. The degree of internationalization is depend on the number of inventor countries as well as the number of assignee countries. The results show 457,296 Inventor-Assignee international patents, 188,588 Inventor international patents and 28,644 Assignee international patents granted. In addition, the degree of internationalization and patent characteristics including patent family sizes, Number of Patent Reference, Number of Claim can be confirmed and therefore the value of international R&D can be more quantitatively evaluated. This paper not only finds out that the patent characteristics of international patents are significantly different with non-international patent, but also shows higher degree of patent internationalization implies that more patent values in term of patent characteristics.

本研究藉由分析發明專利之專利特徵致力於評估國際化發明活動的價值,並以此分析國際化合作及討論不同程度的國際化和專利特徵之間的關係會如何交互影響。 為了獲得客觀性,分析專利下載於1976年到2013年間美國專利資料庫核准的4,667,855件發明專利並將以特徵化,其中連續的發明人國家數量以及所有權人國家數量被用來和選定的15項專利特徵比較,像是專利家族大小、引用專利次數、被引用專利次數、引用非專利文獻次數、權利範圍等。不同程度的國際化是基於發明人國家數量以及所有權人國家數量。研究結果表示有457,296件發明人-所有權人國際化專利,188,588件發明人國際化專利,28,644件所有權人國際化專利。此外,不同程度的國際化和專利特徵包含專利家族大小、專利引用次數、權利範圍的關係可以被確定,因此國際化發明活動的價值可以被量化評估。本研究不僅發現國際化專利之專利特徵和非國際化專利之專利特徵顯著不同,並且指出越高程度的國際化展現越高的價值就專利特徵而言。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92454
其他識別: U0005-2407201516183000
Rights: 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,2018-07-29起公開。
Appears in Collections:科技管理研究所

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-104-7102026002-1.pdf1.81 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network   
Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.