Abstract
Companies should investigate possible patent infringement and cope with potential risks because patent litigation may have a tremendous financial impact. An important factor to identify the possibility of patent infringement is the technological similarity among patents, so this paper considered technological similarity as a criterion for judging the possibility of infringement. Technological similarities can be measured by transforming patent documents into abstracted forms which contain specific technological key-findings and structural relationships among technological components in the invention. Although keyword-based technological similarity has been widely adopted for patent analysis related research, it is inadequate for identifying patent infringement because a keyword vector cannot reflect specific technological key-findings and structural relationships among technological components. As a remedy, this paper exploited a subject–action–object (SAO) based semantic technological similarity. An SAO structure explicitly describes the structural relationships among technological components in the patent, and the set of SAO structures is considered to be a detailed picture of the inventor’s expertise, which is the specific key-findings in the patent. Therefore, an SAO based semantic technological similarity can identify patent infringement. Semantic similarity between SAO structures is automatically measured using SAO based semantic similarity measurement method using WordNet, and the technological relationships among patents were mapped onto a 2-dimensional space using multidimensional scaling (MDS). Furthermore, a clustering algorithm is used to automatically suggest possible patent infringement cases, allowing large sets of patents to be handled with minimal effort by human experts. The proposed method will be verified by detecting real patent infringement in prostate cancer treatment technology, and we expect this method to relieve human experts’ work in identifying patent infringement.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611–624.
Bergmann, I., Moehrle, M. G., Walter, L., Butzke, D., Erdmann, V. A., & Furste, J. P. (2007). The use of semantic maps for recognition of patent infringements: A case study in biotechnology. Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft—Special issue, (4), 69–86.
Bergmann, I., Butzke, D., Walter, L., Fuerste, J. P., Moehrle, M. G., & Erdmann, V. A. (2008). Evaluating the risk of patent infringement by means of semantic patent analysis: The case of DNA chips. R&D Management, 38(5), 550–562.
Boslaugh, S., & Watters, P. A. (2008). Statistics in a nutshell. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Budanitsky, A., & Hirst, G. (2001). Semantic distance in WordNet: An experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures. In Proceedings of the Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources NAACL.
Buja, A., Swayne, D. F., Littman, M. L., Dean, N., Hofmann, H., & Chen, L. (2008). Data visualization with multidimensional scaling. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17(2), 444–472.
Carree, M. A., Klomp, L., & Thurik, A. R. (2000). Productivity convergence in OECD manufacturing industries. Economics Letters, 66(3), 337–345.
Carroll, J. D., & Green, P. E. (1997). Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part II, multidimensional scaling. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 193–204.
Cascini, G., & Zini, M. (2008). Measuring patent similarity by comparing inventions functional trees. Computer-Aided Innovation (CAI), 277, 31–42.
Cascini, G., Fantechi, A., & Spinicci, E. (2004). Natural language processing of patents and technical documentation. Document Analysis Systems, VI, 89–92.
Chen, R. (2009). Design patent map visualization display. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(10), 12362–12374.
Crampes, C., & Langinier, C. (2002). Litigation and settlement in patent infringement cases. The RAND Journal of Economics, 33(2), 258–274.
Dao, T. N., & Simpson, T. (2002). Measuring similarity between sentences. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/string/semanticsimilaritywordnet.aspx.
Davidson, I., & Ravi, S. (2005). Agglomerative hierarchical clustering with constraints: Theoretical and empirical results. Knowledge Discovery in Databases: PKDD, 2005, 59–70.
Durham, A. L. (2004). Patent law essentials: A concise guide. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(4), 279–308.
Franzosi, R. (1994). From words to numbers: A set theory framework for the collection, organization and analysis of narrative data. Sociological methodology, 24, 105–136.
Gerken, J., Moehrle, M., & Walter, L. (2010). Patents as an information source for product forecasting: Insights from a longitudinal study in the automotive industry. In The R&D management conference 2010, Manchester, England.
Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.
Huang, J. J., Ong, C. S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2006). Interval multidimensional scaling for group decision using rough set concept. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(3), 525–530.
Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241–254.
Kim, Y., Suh, J., & Park, S. (2008). Visualization of patent analysis for emerging technology. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 1804–1812.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27.
Lai, Y. H., & Che, H. C. (2009). Modeling patent legal value by Extension Neural Network. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10520–10528.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.
Lin, D. (2003). Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR. In Treebanks: Building and using parsed corpora (Vol. 20, pp. 317–332). Springer Netherlands.
Majewski, S. E., & Williamson, D. V. (2004). Incomplete contracting and the structure of R&D joint venture contracts. In Professor G. Libecap (ed.), Intellectual property and entrepreneurship (advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation & economic growth, Vol. 15, pp. 201–228). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Manning, C. D., Schutze, H., & MITCogNet. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing (Vol. 59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mead, A. (1992). Review of the development of multidimensional scaling methods. The Statistician, 41(1), 27–39.
Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41.
Moehrle, M. G. (2010). Measures for textual patent similarities: a guided way to select appropriate approaches. Scientometrics, 85(1), 95–109.
Moehrle, M. G., Walter, L., Geritz, A., & Muller, S. (2005). Patent-based inventor profiles as a basis for human resource decisions in research and development. R&D Management, 35(5), 513–524.
Richardson, R., & Smeaton, A. F. (1995). Using WordNet in a knowledge-based approach to information retrieval. Dublin City University School of Computer Applications Working Paper CA-0395.
Soo, V. W., Lin, S. Y., Yang, S. Y., Lin, S. N., & Cheng, S. L. (2006). A cooperative multi-agent platform for invention based on patent document analysis and ontology. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(4), 766–775.
Stanford (2011). The Stanford Parser: A statistical parser http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/lex-parser.shtml. Accessed Feb 2011.
Tsourikov, V. M., Batchilo, L. S., & Sovpel, I. V. (2000). Document semantic analysis/selection with knowledge creativity capability utilizing subject-action-object (SAO) structures. United States Patent No. 6167370.
Wallerstein, M. B., Mogee, M. E., & Schoen, R. A. (1993). Global dimensions of intellectual property rights in science and technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Wickelmaier, F. (2003). An introduction to MDS. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Wu, Z., & Palmer, M. (1994). Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, Morristown (pp. 133–138). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Yoon, B. (2008). On the development of a technology intelligence tool for identifying technology opportunity. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(1–2), 124–135.
Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2011a). Generation of patent maps using SAO-based semantic patent similarity. Entrue Journal of Information Technology, 10(1), 19–27.
Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2011b). Identifying rapidly evolving technological trends for R&D planning using SAO-based semantic patent networks. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0383-0.
Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2004). A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool for high-technology trend. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(1), 37–50.
Yoon, J., Choi, S., & Kim, K. (2011). Invention property-function network analysis of patents: A case of silicon-based thin film solar cells. Scientometrics, 86(3), 687–703.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (No. 2009-0088379).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, H., Yoon, J. & Kim, K. Identifying patent infringement using SAO based semantic technological similarities. Scientometrics 90, 515–529 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0522-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0522-7
Keywords
- Patent mining
- Patent litigation
- Subject–action–object
- SAO
- Natural language processing
- NLP
- Multidimensional scaling
- Patent analysis
- Patent risk