Patent Evaluation Based on Technological Trajectory Revealed in Relevant Prior Patents

  • Sooyoung Oh
  • Zhen Lei
  • Wang-Chien Lee
  • John Yen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8443)


It is a challenging task for firms to assess the importance of a patent and identify valuable patents as early as possible. Counting the number of citations received is a widely used method to assess the value of a patent. However, recently granted patents have few citations received, which makes the use of citation counts infeasible. In this paper, we propose a novel idea to evaluate the value of new or recently granted patents using recommended relevant prior patents. Our approach is to exploit trends in temporal patterns of relevant prior patents, which are highly related to patent values. We evaluate the proposed approach using two patent value evaluation tasks with a large-scale collection of U.S. patents. Experimental results show that the models created based on our idea significantly enhance those using the baseline features or patent backward citations.


patent evaluation ranking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Trajtenberg, M.: A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 172–187 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K.: Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics 81(3), 511–515 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M.: The nber patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M.: Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 16–38 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hasan, M.A., Spangler, W.S., Griffin, T., Alba, A.: Coa: Finding novel patents through text analysis. In: CIKM, pp. 1175–1184. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin, X., Spangler, S., Chen, Y., Cai, K., Ma, R., Zhang, L., Wu, X., Han, J.: Patent maintenance recommendation with patent information network model. In: ICDM, pp. 280–289. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, Y., Hseuh, P.Y., Lawrence, R., Meliksetian, S., Perlich, C., Veen, A.: Latent graphical models for quantifying and predicting patent quality. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM KDD. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oh, S., Lei, Z., Mitra, P., Yen, J.: Evaluating and ranking patents using weighted citations. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, P., Huang, M., Xu, P., Li, W., Usadi, A.K., Zhu, X.: Finding nuggets in ip portfolios: core patent mining through textual temporal analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM CIKM. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xue, X., Croft, W.B.: Automatic query generation for patent search. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM CIKM, pp. 2037–2040. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strohman, T., Metzler, D., Turtle, H., Croft, W.B.: Indri: A language model-based search engine for complex queries. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Analysis, vol. 2(6) (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sooyoung Oh
    • 1
  • Zhen Lei
    • 2
  • Wang-Chien Lee
    • 1
  • John Yen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Energy and Mineral EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations