Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should we manage the process of inventing? Designing for patentability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intellectual property is considered to provide the infrastructure of innovation, and companies could proactively generate their intellectual assets and strengthen the business opportunities by focusing on discovery phases. This paper examines whether the invention process can be managed and finds that patents appear not only as a result of inventive activity but as the purpose as well. By building on recent design theories such as the concept–knowledge design theory, this research introduces a general framework that enables controlling for ‘patentability’ criteria, describes a patent in a unique way using actions, effects, and associated knowledge, and defines a patentable subject matter based on the notion of the person skilled in the art. Using the introduced model, several patent design methods are compared and their performances are characterized. The model was tested within the European semiconductor manufacturer, STMicroelectronics. The results indicate that the quality of patent proposals depends on the capacity to extend existing knowledge combinations, to overcome the initial design reasoning of the person skilled in the art, and to ensure novelty and sufficient inventive step. Finally, the proposed model in this research, the ‘design-for-patentability’ model, demonstrates that there is an unexplored property of the concept–knowledge design theory—non-substitution—showing that the order within design is irreversible and influences the quality of results.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank the anonymous reviewer for this precision.

References

  • Adler N, Shani AB, Styhre A (2004) Collaborative research in organizations: foundations for learning, change, and theoretical development. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Al tshuller GS (1984) Creativity as an exact science: the theory of the solution of inventive problems (Translated by Anthony Williams). Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Altshuller GS (1999) The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity. Technical Innovation Center Inc., Worcester

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin C, Clark K (2006) Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. Book chapter in complex engineering systems: science meets technology. In: Minai A, Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (eds) New England complex system institute series on complexity. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann I, Butzke D, Walter L, Fuerste JP, Moehrle MG, Erdmann VA (2008) Evaluating the risk of patent infringement by means of semantic patent analysis: the case of DNA chips. R&D Manag 38:550–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Reich Y (2003) Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes. Res Eng Des 14:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascini G, Russo D (2006) Computer-aided analysis of patents and search for TRIZ contradictions. Int J Prod Dev 4:52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallucci D, Rousselot F, Zanni C (2009) Linking contradictions and laws of engineering system evolution within the TRIZ framework. Creat Innov Manag 18:71–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien CV (2010) From arms race to marketplace: the complex patent ecosystem and its implications for the patent system. Hastings LJ 62:297

    Google Scholar 

  • Couble Y, Devillers D (2006) Une approche innovante du processus de rédaction de brevet. Ecole des Mines de Paris, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst K (2006) Design problems and design paradoxes. Des Issues 22:4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhigg C, Lohr S (2012) The patent, used as a sword. In: The New York Times. p A1

  • Ernst H (2003) Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Inf 25:233–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felk Y, Le Masson P, Weil B, Cogez P, Hatchuel A (2011) Designing patent portfolio for disruptive innovation—a new methodology based on CK theory DS 68-2. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED 11), impacting society through engineering design, vol 2. Design theory and research methodology. Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011

  • Fu K, Murphy J, Yang M, Otto K, Jensen D, Wood K (2015) Design-by-analogy: experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation improvement. Res Eng Des 26:77–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawer A (2009) Platform dynamics and strategies: from products to services. In: Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing

  • Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2008) How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 49:28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2004) The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Des Stud 25:373–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser M, Miecznik B (2009) TRIZ for reverse inventing in market research: a case study from WITTENSTEIN AG, identifying new areas of application of a core technology. Crea Innov Manag 18:90–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (2006) Genetic algorithms. Pearson Education India, Bangalore

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollin MA (2008) Driving innovation: intellectual property strategies for a dynamic world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu A, Spulber D (2013) First-party content and coordination in two-sided markets. Manag Sci 59:933–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to CK theory. In: Proceedings, international conference on engineering design, Citeseer

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) CK design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19:181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Reich Y, Weil B (2011) A systematic approach of design theories using generativeness and robustness. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED11), vol 2, pp 87–97

  • Hung Y-C, Hsu Y-L (2007) An integrated process for designing around existing patents through the theory of inventive problem-solving. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 221:109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong C, Kim K (2014) Creating patents on the new technology using analogy-based patent mining. Expert Syst Appl 41:3605–3614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh EC (2013) Engineering design and intellectual property: where do they meet? Res Eng Des 24(4):325–329. (ISO 690)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza JR, Keane MA, Streeter MJ, Adams TP, Jones LW (2004) Invention and creativity in automated design by means of genetic programming. AI EDAM 18:245–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll E, Le Masson P, Weil B (2014) Steepest-first exploration with learning-based path evaluation: uncovering the design strategy of parameter analysis with C–K theory. Res Eng Des 25:351–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Masson P, Dorst K, Subrahmanian E (2013) Design theory: history, state of the art and advancements. Res Eng Des 24:97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Yoon B, Park Y (2009) An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation 29:481–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang Y, Tan R, Ma J (2008) Patent analysis with text mining for TRIZ Management of innovation and technology, 2008. In: ICMIT 2008. 4th IEEE international conference on: IEEE, pp 1147–1151

  • Lindsay J, Hopkins M (2010) From experience: disruptive innovation and the need for disruptive intellectual asset strategy. J Prod Innov Manag 27:283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir I, Brandi-Dohrn M, Gruber S (2002) European patent law: law and procedure under the EPC and PCT. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J, Fu K, Otto K, Yang M, Jensen D, Wood K (2014) Function based design-by-analogy: a functional vector approach to analogical search. J Mech Des 136:101102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niazi SK (2016) Biosimilars and interchangeable biologics: strategic elements. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissing N (2005) Strategic inventing. Res Technol Manag 48:17–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissing N (2007) Would you buy a purple orange? Res Technol Manag 50:35–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Shai O, Subrahmanian E (2012) A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting and improving ASIT within C-K theory. J Eng Des 23(2):137–158. (ISO 690)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shai O, Reich Y (2004) Infused design. I. Theory. Res Eng Des 15:93–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Somaya D (2012) Patent strategy and management an integrative review and research agenda. J Manag 38:1084–1114

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternitzke C (2013) An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: the case of PDE5 inhibitors. Res Policy 42:542–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh NP (1999) A theory of complexity, periodicity and the design axioms. Res Eng Des 11:116–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece D, Pisano G (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Ind Corp Change 3:537–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (1995) Product Design and Development. Mc Graw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zeebroeck N, Pottelsberghe Van, de la Potterie B (2011) Filing strategies and patent value. Econ Innov New Technol 20:539–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2011) How to measure patent thickets—a novel approach. Econ Lett 111:6–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WIPO (2013) What is intellectual property? WIPO Publication No. 450(E)

  • Yoshikawa H (1985) Design theory for CAD/CAM integration. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 34:173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by ANR PatentLab.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Management Science CGS - i3 UMR CNRS 9217, MINES ParisTech - PSL Research University, 60 Boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006, Paris, France

    Olga Kokshagina, Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil

  2. STIM - Science and Technology for Innovation management, 24 rue de l’Est, 75020, Paris, France

    Olga Kokshagina

Authors
  1. Olga Kokshagina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pascal Le Masson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benoit Weil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Kokshagina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kokshagina, O., Le Masson, P. & Weil, B. Should we manage the process of inventing? Designing for patentability. Res Eng Design 28, 457–475 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0245-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0245-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation