自行車公司之專利優先權以及專利組合分析

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：46

、訪客IP：18.119.253.184

姓名

周于翔(Yu-Xaing Chou) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

自行車公司之專利優先權以及專利組合分析
(Analysis of patent priority and patent portfolio for bicycle companies)

相關論文

★ 美國軟體產業創新活動與財務效率分析	★ Performance Measurements of Web 2.0, Social Media, and Mobile Apps for Municipal Emergency Management
★ 中國大陸股權結構與自願性財務預測之關聯性	★ 我國半導體產業下游公司法人說明會對供應鏈上游公司投資現金流量敏感度的影響
★ 線上串流音樂服務之使用者抗拒意圖研究	★ 從認知理論探討創業機會辨識對績效之影響
★ 影響Y世代消費者對智慧綠色產品購買意圖與使用意圖的因素：以智慧節能裝置為例	★ Application of social media mining on the comparison between two-dimensional barcode and near field communication
★ 應用社群探勘技術分析城市之創業精神與新創公司的特性	★ 科技接受度與學習風格對於頭戴式虛擬實境應用在學習行為意圖的影響
★ 電子發票巨量資料視覺化分析－以酒的消費為例	★ 應用文字探勘分析ERP之趨勢發展：以Twitter為例
★ 社群媒體文字採礦之研究：以第三方物流公司為例	★ 應用文字探勘技術分析遊戲產業趨勢：以兩大遊戲展之相關推文為例
★ 台灣有機食品消費與疾病死亡率之視覺化分析	★ 酒類消費與犯罪率之視覺化分析

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究旨透過自行車訴訟案件內的專利，了解在具有爭議的技術領域中，自行車公司的核心技術以及同類技術之間的創新表現。訴訟案件由LexisNexis資料庫搜尋而得，再據此訴訟專利，透過USPTO和INPADOC資料庫取得相同技術領域的專利以作為專利優先權分析和專利組合分析的樣本。自行車公司的核心技術以專利優先權分析訴訟專利得出。而後續的專利組合分析，本研究蒐集與核心技術相同國際分類號（IPC）的專利做為分析標的，更進一步地將專利的品質指標透過主成分分析，辨識出適合用於專利組合的關鍵面向。並據此關鍵面向，繪製出這些相同技術領域的專利在國家、公司、國內優先權和前引證之間的散佈圖。經由本研究的分析，自行車公司不僅能夠瞭解過去十年間自行車產業的技術發展趨勢，更能夠瞭解在具有爭議的技術領域中所屬專利的創新表現。

摘要(英)

To understand the core technologies of bicycle companies and their competitiveness in key technology fields, this study adopts the approaches of patent priority and patent portfolio to analyze the patent data collected from INPADOC and USPTO. The most recent litigated patent was identified first from LexisNexis. Core technologies of a bicycle company were then derived from the litigated patent by patent portfolio analysis. For the analysis of patent portfolio, patents having same IPCs as the core technologies were collected and examined. Besides, principal component analysis was applied on patent quality indicators to identify key patent portfolio subjects. Scatter plots were then pictured by country, company, domestic priority claim and forward citation from derived key patent portfolio subjects. From the findings of this study, bicycle companies not only acknowledge their technological development trend, but also understand their innovative performance in the disputed technological field.

關鍵字(中)

★ 專利活動
★ 專利優先權
★ 專利組合
★ 自行車產業

關鍵字(英)

★ Patent activity
★ Patent priority
★ Patent portfol

論文目次

中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
誌謝 iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Table viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research objectives 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4
2.1 History of bicycle industry 4
2.2 Patent-Related Research 7
Chapter 3 Methodology 13
3.1 Patent activity 15
3.2 Patent priority analysis 16
3.3 Patent portfolio analysis 27
Chapter4 Patent Analyses 30
4.1 Patent activity of bicycle Industry 30
4.2 Patent priority analysis 39
4.3 Patent portfolio analysis in hydraulic brake system 47
Chapter 5 Conclusions 54
References 55
Appendix A 57
Appendix B 58
Appendix C 59
Appendix D 61

參考文獻

Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1989). Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos, 42(2), 171-171.
Adams, S. (2000). Using the International Patent Classification in an online environment. World Patent Information, 22(4), 291-300. doi: 10.1016/s0172-2190(00)00073-9
Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 131-141. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(87)90027-8
Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. (1993). Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries. Ind Corp Change, 2(1), 157-210. doi: citeulike-article-id:6043589
Brookfield, J., Liu, R.-J., & MacDuffie, J. P. (2008). Taiwan’’s bicycle industry A-Team battles Chinese competition with innovation and cooperation. Strategy & Leadership, 36(1), 14-19. doi: 10.1108/10878570810840643
Burke, P. F., & Reitzig, M. (2007). Measuring patent assessment quality—Analyzing the degree and kind of (in)consistency in patent offices’ decision making. Research Policy, 36(9), 1404-1430. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.06.003
Chen, A., & Chen, R. (2007). Design Patent Map: An Innovative Measure for Corporative Design Strategies. Engineering Management Journal, 19(3), 14-29.
Claus, P. (2003). Survey of the annual technical reports on patent information activities in the year 2000 (Part 2: J–Z). World Patent Information, 25(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1016/s0172-2190(02)00120-5
Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233-242. doi: 10.1016/s0172-2190(03)00077-2
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
Fabry, B., Ernst, H., Langholz, J., & Koster, M. (2006). Patent portfolio analysis as a useful tool for identifying R&D and business opportunities—an empirical application in the nutrition and health industry. World Patent Information, 28(3), 215-225. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2005.10.004
Fagerberg, J. (1987). A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 87-99. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(87)90025-4
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019-1039. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00135-9
Foglia, P. (2007). Patentability search strategies and the reformed IPC: A patent office perspective. World Patent Information, 29(1), 33-53. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2006.08.002
Gamstetter, M. (2004). Italian Bicycle Making: An Industry in Crisis. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, 13(13), 31-31.
Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00124-5
Hu, M.-C., & Wu, C.-Y. (2011). Exploring technological innovation trajectories through latecomers: evidence from Taiwan’’s bicycle industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(4), 433.
Isely, P., & Roelofs, M. R. (2004). Primary market and aftermarket competition in the bicycle component industry. Applied Economics, 36(18), 2097-2102.
Johnstone, B. (1989). Research and Innovation: Regional Hubs, Pacific Rims. Far Eastern Economic Review, 146(49), 59-59.
Littmann-Hilmer, G., & Kuckartz, M. (2009). SME tailor-designed patent portfolio analysis. World Patent Information, 31(4), 273-277. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2008.12.003
Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Chen, C.-F. P. (2009). Booming or emerging? China’’s technological capability and international collaboration in patent activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 787-796. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.11.003
McAleer, M. (2005). AUTOMATED INFERENCE AND LEARNING IN MODELING FINANCIAL VOLATILITY. Econometric Theory, 21(1), 232-261.
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
Nielsen, P.-E. (2004). Evaluating patent portfolios––a Danish initiative. World Patent Information, 26(2), 143-148. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2003.09.004
OuYang, K., & Weng, C. S. (2011). A New Comprehensive Patent Analysis Approach for New Product Design in Mechanical Engineering. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(7), 1183-1199. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.02.012
Pakes, A. (1985). On Patents, R & D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return. The Journal of Political Economy, 93(2), 390-390.
Patel, P., Pavitt, K. (1995). Divergence in technological development among countries and firms. Hagedoorn, J. (Ed.), Technical Change and the World Economy, pp. 147–181.
Pavitt, K. (1982). R&D, patenting and innovative activities: A statistical exploration. Research Policy, 11(1), 33-51. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(82)90005-1
Schankerman, M., & Pakes, A. (1986). Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period. The Economic Journal, 96(384), 1052-1052.
Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, JX (2000), “Modularity and dynamic capabilities, in H.W Voberda and T Elfring (eds.)
Saloner, G., Chang, V., and Shimano, T. „Shimano and the high-end road bike industry.“ Stanford University case study CASE: SM-150, 2006, p. 2.
Simmons, E. S. (2009). “Black sheep” in the patent family. World Patent Information, 31(1), 11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2008.08.005
Sorek, G. (2011). Patents and quality growth in OLG economy. Journal of Macroeconomics, 33(4), 690-699. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2011.08.001
Su, F.-P., Yang, W.-G., & Lai, K.-K. (2011). A heuristic procedure to identify the most valuable chain of patent priority network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 319-331. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.10.011
Taylor, E. (2010). Patent due diligence: Process and priorities – A Canadian patent attorney’s perspective. World Patent Information, 32(3), 198-202. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2009.08.002
Trappey, A. J. C., Trappey, C. V., Wu, C.-Y., & Lin, C.-W. (2012). A patent quality analysis for innovative technology and product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(1), 26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.005
Vijvers, W. G. (1990). The international patent classification as a search tool. World Patent Information, 12(1), 26-30. doi: 10.1016/0172-2190(90)90285-s
Viotti, E. B. (2002). National Learning Systems: A new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidences from the cases of Brazil and South Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7), 653-680. doi: 10.1016/s0040-1625(01)00167-6
Wu, C., & Liu, Y. (2004). Use of the IPC and various retrieval systems to research patent activities of US organizations in the People’’s Republic of China. World Patent Information, 26(3), 225-233. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2003.12.008

指導教授

沈建文(C.W.Shen)

審核日期

2012-7-20

推文