Scientometrics

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 509–522 | Cite as

Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations

Article

Abstract

The emergence of patent citations as a tool for patent estimation has been subjected to equally vocal champions and critics. In additional to patent citation, this article aims to contribute other factors, including court decisions, claim language, extension cases, patent family and portfolio, which should be deliberated during patent evaluation. It introduces the subject-matter by discussing the specialties and peculiarities of these proposed factors. Furthermore, comparisons between the patent citations and these factors are presented by illustrating several well-known patents. The results of the comparisons reveal that an adverse conclusion might be drawn if a patent is estimated only based on citations. The conclusion supports Meyer’s study that “the general nature of a common framework for both scientific and patent citations would severely limit its usefulness.” Therefore, those factors discussed in the article would be a great asset in patent evaluation. However, it only illustrates their impact on patent estimation using a couple well-known patents. Future research would be needed to investigate these factors in a more detailed manner.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, 02-1598, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 22 August 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Malakoff, US court opens door to free trade in ideas, Science, 301 (2003) 1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Narin, Patent bilbiometrics, Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Meyer, Patent citations in a novel field of technology — What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology, Scientometrics, 48(2) (2000) 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Meyer, What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations, Scientometrics, 49(1) (2000) 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Glänzel, M. Meyer, Patents cited in the scientific literatures: An exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations, Scientometrics, 58(2) (2003) 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Narin, M. Albert, P. Kroll, D. Hicks, The Link between Australian Patenting and Basic Science, CHI Research, Inc., 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    É. Gauthier, Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific and Technological Research: A User’s Guide to the Methodology, Science and Technology Redesign Project, Statistics Canada, September 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) of the National Science Foundation, Technological Importance of Asian patents, www.nsf.gov/srs/s4495/conten1b.htmGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. M. S. Karki, K. S. Krishnan, Patent citation analysis: a policy analysis tool, World Patent Information, 19(4) (1998) 269–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Dalpe, Bibliometrics analysis of biotechnology, Scientometrics, 55(2) (2002) 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Hicks, F. Narin, Strategic research alliance and 360 degree bibliometric indicators, Strategic research partnerships: Proceeding from an NSF Workshop, Arlington, VA (NSF 01-336), August 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. M. Smith, Who’s who in additives — a technological approach, Chem. Weekly, 38 (1993) 137–142.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. H. Hall, A. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, Market value and patent citations, The Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1) (2005) 16–38.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. K. Chakrabarti, Competition in high technology: analysis of problems of US, Japan, UK, France, West Germany and Canada. IEEE Trans Eng Mang. EM-38(1) (1991) 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. G. Hanchuk, How to read a patent: understanding the language of proprietary rights. In: From Ideas to Assets, In: B. Berman (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. F. Breitzman, F. Narin, Method and Apparatur for Choosing a Stock Portfolio, Based on Patent Indicators, US Patent 6175824, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Narin, D. Olivastro, Technology indicators based on patents and patent citations. In: A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North Holland: Elsevier Publisher, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Narin, V. M. Smith, M. B. Albert, What patents tell you about your competition, Chemtech, 23(2) (1993) 52–69.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shyh-Jen Wang, Patent Engineering (in Chinese), Jun Jie Academy Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. W. Grubb, Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. P. Carpenter, F. Narin, Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence, World Patent Information, 5(3) (1983) 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Verbeek, K. Debackere, M. Luwel, Science cited in patents: a geographic “flow” analysis of bibliographic citation patterns in patents, Scientometrics, 58(2) (2003) 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Meyer, Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature, Research Policy, 29 (2000) 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. Kondro, Canadian High Court Rejects OncoMouse, Science, 298 (2002) 2112–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 96-1175, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 22 July 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Pressman, Patent It Yourself, 8th edition, Nolo, Berkelet, CA USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. J. Knight, Patent Strategy for Researchers and Research Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, USA (2001).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Stix, Working system II, Scientific American, (2004) (3) 41.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The basic filing fee for the US utility patent is $770 or $385 for small entity (if applicable), www.uspto.gov/go/fees/fee2004jul26.htmGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bertran Rowland and Cohen/Boyer cloning patent, www.law.gwu.edu/tech/rowland.aspGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The definition of ‘Family’ by the Delphion Patent database (www.delphion.com).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The patent maintenance fees due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years are $910, $2090 and $3220 or $455, $1045 and $1610 for small entity if applicable.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Kennedy, Academic Duty, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    O. Granstrand, The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, Camberley UK, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    G. Stix, Take a number, toilet reservations afford a glimpse of the world of business-method patents, Scientific American, Staking Claims 2003/2, 2003.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. Thomas, F. Narin, System and Method for Producing Technology-based Price Targets for a Company Stock. US Patent 6832211, 2004 Sec. 14 issued.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. A. Barney, J. R. Barney, V. A. McLean, Method and System for Rating Patents and Other Intangible Assets. US Patent 6556992, 2003 Apr. 29 issued.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Experimental SurgeryTaipei Veterans General HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedical EngineeringNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.National Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations