Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92458
標題: Evaluating the Impact of Patent Characteristics and Patent Litigation Probability on Firm Performance – The Case of Pharmaceutical Industry
專利特徵與專利訴訟機率對公司績效之影響力評估:以製藥產業為例
作者: 李卓恆
Cho-Heng Michael Lee
關鍵字: 專利訴訟機率;相關係數分析;專利指標;公司績效;格蘭傑因果分析;patent litigation probability;correlation coefficient;patent characteristics;firm performance;Granger Causality
引用: 1.Adams, C., & Brantner, V. (2006). Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars? Health Aff (Millwood), 25(2), 420–428. 2.Ajinkya, B., Bhojraj, S., & Sengupta, P. (2005). The association between outside directors, institutional investors and the properties of management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(3), 343–376.doi:10.1111/j.1475-679X.2005.00174.x 3.Allayannis, G., & Weston, J. P. (2001). The use of foreign currency derivatives and firm market value. Review of Financial Studies, 14(1), 243–276. doi:10.1093/rfs/14.1.243 4.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. 5.Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2000). The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Economics, 22(6), 615–625. doi:10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00050-5 6.Asuero, A., Sayago, A., & Gonzalez, A. (2006). The Correlation Coefficient: An Overview. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 36(1), 41–59. 7.Barry, C., Arad, R., Ansell, L., & Clark, E. (2013). 2013 Patent Litigation Study: Big cases make headlines, while patent cases proliferate. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/en_us/us/forensic-services/publications/assets/2013-patent-lit igation-study.pdf 8.Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, Real Options and Firm Performance.The Economic Journal, 112(478), C97–C116. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00022 9.Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Reenen, J. van. (1999). Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms. The Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 529–554. doi:10.1111/1467-937X.00097 10. Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009). Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(3), 186–198. doi:10.1038/nrn2575 11. Cho, H. J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth,profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575. doi:10.1002/smj.461 12. DeCarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 953–968. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097 0266(199910)20:10<953::AID-SMJ59>3.0.CO;2-3 13. DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W., & Grabowski, H. G. (2003). The price of innovation:new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics, 22(2), 151–185. 14. Dowell, G., Hart, S., & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46(8), 1059–1074.doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.8.1059.12030 15. Drucker, P. F. (1998). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 76(6),149–157. 16. ERNST, H. (1995). PATENTING STRATEGIES IN THE GERMAN MECHANICAL-ENGINEERING INDUSTRY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO COMPANY PERFORMANCE. Technovation, 15(4), 225–240. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(95)96605-S 17. Ernst, H., & Omland, N. (2011). The Patent Asset Index – A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios. World Patent Information, 33(1), 34–41. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2010.08.008 18. Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the 'Probable Error' of a Coefficient of Correlation Deduced from a Small Sample. Retrieved from http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/15169 19. Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 379–399. doi:10.1257/aer.89.3.379 20. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 21. Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.366.14420 22. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). INVESTIGATING CAUSAL RELATIONS BY ECONOMETRIC MODELS AND CROSS-SPECTRAL METHODS.Econometrica (pre-1986), 37(3), 424. 23. Granstrand, O., & Oskarsson, C. (1994). Technology diversification in MUL-TECH corporations. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, 41(4), 355–364. 24. Gray, N. (2006, May). Keeping Pace with the Evolving Pharmaceutical Business Model. Pharmaceutical Executive, 92–101. 25. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market Value and Patent Citations.The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38. doi:10.2307/1593752 26. Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (1996). Quality awards and the market value of the firm: An empirical investigation. Management Science, 42(3), 415–436. doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.3.415 27. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits and Market Value (Working Paper No. 1815). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w1815 28. Kaminski, M., Ding, M. Z., Truccolo, W. A., & Bressler, S. L. (2001). Evaluating causal relations in neural systems: Granger causality, directed transfer function and statistical assessment of significance. Biological Cybernetics, 85(2), 145–157. doi:10.1007/s004220000235 29. Lang, L. H. P., & Stulz, R. M. (1993). Tobin's Q, Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance (Working Paper No. 4376). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w4376 30. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankeman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity:Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00216.x 31. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129. doi:10.2307/2696401 32. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1 33. Masson, L. F., McNeill, G., Tomany, J. O., Simpson, J. A., Peace, H. S., Wei, L., …Bolton-Smith, C. (2003). Statistical approaches for assessing the relative validity of a food-frequency questionnaire: use of correlation coefficients and the kappa statistic. Public Health Nutrition, 6(3), 313–321. doi:10.1079/PHN2002429 34. 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. J.Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 76, 579. 35. Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M., Gross, K. L., Reynolds, H. L.,Waide, R. B., … Gough, L. (2001). What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology, 82(9), 2381–2396. 36. Moore, K. A. (2000). Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases-An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box. Mich. L. Rev., 99, 365. 37. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155.doi:10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X 38. Paul, S. M., Mytelka, D. S., Dunwiddie, C. T., Persinger, C. C., Munos, B. H.,Lindborg, S. R., & Schacht, A. L. (2010). How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 9(3), 203–214.doi:10.1038/nrd3078 39. Rodgers, J. L., & Nicewander, W. A. (1988). Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient. The American Statistician, 42(1), 59–66.doi:10.2307/2685263 40. Sadowski, M., & Roth, A. (1999). Technology leadership can pay off. Research Technology Management, 42(6), 32–33. 41. Sevilla, J. L., Segura, V., Podhorski, A., Guruceaga, E., Mato, J. M., Martinez-Cruz,L. A., … Rubio, A. (2005). Correlation between gene expression and GO semantic similarity. Ieee-Acm Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics,2(4), 330–338. doi:10.1109/TCBB.2005.50 42. Shortridge, R. T. (2004). Market Valuation of Successful versus Non-successful R&D Efforts in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 31(9-10), 1301–1325. doi:10.1111/j.0306-686X.2004.00575.x 43. Shumaker, S. J. (2002). Building a Patent Portfolio that Supports Your Business Objectives. Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. Retrieved from http://www.ssiplaw.com/files/strategy.pdf 44. Stern, D. I. (2000). A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy. Energy Economics, 22(2), 267–283. doi:10.1016/S0140-9883(99)00028-6 45. Stratmann, H. G. (2010, September). Bad Medicine: When Medical Research Goes Wrong. Analog Science Fiction and Fact, (9), 20. 46. Su, H.-N., Chen, C. M.-L., & Lee, P.-C. (2012). Patent litigation precaution method:analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010.Scientometrics, 92(1), 181–195. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0716-7 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 48. Toivanen, O., Stoneman, P., & Bosworth, D. (2002). Innovation and the Market Value of UK Firms, 1989–1995*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(1), 39–61. doi:10.1111/1468-0084.00002 49. Wadhwa, V., Rissing, B. A., Gereffi, G., Trumpbour, J., & Engardio, P. (n.d.). The Globalization of Innovation: Pharmaceuticals: Can India and China Cure the Global Pharmaceutical Market.
摘要: 
This paper investigates if patent characteristics and patent litigation probability affect firms' short and long-term performances, which in past literature have mostly been associated with economic indicators or financial models. The patent data used in this research are downloaded from the USPTO patent database and patent litigation probabilities are obtained from previous study. To measure firm performance, the Return on Asset (ROA) and the market value are calculated as the short-term and long-term performances, respectively. The correlation coefficient is then employed to approach the
ROA and the market value to evaluate if patent characteristics and patent litigation probability correlates with the short-term and long-term performances of firms. To further investigate into the relationships between patent characteristics, patent litigation probability and firm performance, the method of Granger Causality test is used to evaluate the possibility of causal relationships among the indicators. Lastly, the least square regression is used to evaluate the validity of the result of the Granger Causality test. The result indicates that there are indeed relationships present between the patent characteristics and firm performance; furthermore, the result of the Granger Causality test fortifies that by proving that there are statistical causal relationships among the patent characteristics and firm performance. The result of this paper sheds light for firms to make strategic decision based on the patent characteristics of their patent portfolio and to provide a novel way to identify firm performance.

本研究檢定公司之專利指標與公司短期及長期績效之關聯性。本研究下載USPTO(美國專利標準局)從1976至2010年之專利資料以及由先前研究得到之專利訴訟機率為專利指標,並以公司之ROA(Return on Assets)及市場價值為公司之短期(ROA)及長期(市場價值)績效指標。本研究首先使用相關係數分析專利指標與公司績效是否有相關性,並進一步使用格蘭傑因果關係法瞭解專利指標是否與公司績效擁有因果關係,最後使用最小平方法(Least Square)檢定格蘭傑因果關係分析(Granger Causality)之結果。本研究透過相關係數發現專利指標的確與公司績效在統計上有顯著相關性,並從格蘭傑因果分析結果中得知專利指標與公司績效有因果關係存在。本研究之研究結果,對於科技公司管理階層在進行策略執行及決定時,能提供一個基於專利指標為主之新穎、有效及快速的方法,以檢定其公司之短期與長期績效。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92458
其他識別: U0005-0804201509414300
Rights: 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,2015-05-11起公開。
Appears in Collections:科技管理研究所

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-103-7101026021-1.pdf815.14 kBAdobe 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.