||In this study, with revenue in the global ranking the Top 15 and Taiwan′s main fabless IC design companies as the research objects. Collected US issued patents from 2001 to 2002 and applied ordered probit model analysis model. Empirical research conducted in three stages: patent characteristics and patent maintenance association analysis, the US manufacturers and other countries for patent maintenance analysis, litigating patent for patent maintenance association analysis.|
It was found that there are significant number of patents to maintain a positive association of explanatory variables are: the number of patent citations, the number of patents cited, technical scope, the present study suggests that the more cited literature indicates invention discloses the book will be more comprehensive and tight, if approved by the audit committee of issuance, the patent should have considerable value. Patents are cited more times, indicating that the patent should be valuable core technology, empirical findings that these patents are indeed relatively maintenance number of times. The technology covered by the patent belongs more items, with an annual fee to maintain the number of positively interlocking relationship, confirms patent coverage more widely, the higher the value.
Patent maintenance times does not have significant positive correlation between the explanatory variables are: the number of inventors, the number of patentee, the number of claims. The number of inventors over the last little literature explanatory variables included in the invention, the initial purpose of this study think brainstorm via multiple inventors will have a well-conceived creative, but the inventors have found that the number of the empirical value of the measure for the patent is not suitable the explanatory variables, mainly the more the number of inventors, patent value does not increase proportionally. Moreover, there may be moral hazard problem, and can not play more than brainstorming benefits between inventors . And between the patentee, it may be due to have different core technologies to accelerate the development program and strategic alliances or technology licensing, in order to avoid duplication of investment in the waste, due to the results of joint research attributable to both parties (constituents, even multi-) holds in the present study, the number of samples in the ownership of more than one patentee is too small, so the number of patents to maintain relevance not significant.
Litigating patent in this study has a positive, but not significant correlation, but if the 28 litigating patents maintenance frequency statistics, up to 96.43% of the patent is to pay the entire period (3 times) the maintenance fees, to show the litigating patents have high value.
1. Albert, M.B., Avery D., McAllister, P. & Narin, F. (1991), “Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of Industrially Important Patents”, Research Policy
2. Allison, J. R., Mark A. Lemley, Kimberly A. Moore, and R. Derek Trunkey (2004), "Valuable Patents." Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, No. 133
3. Bessen, J. (2008), "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics." Research Policy, 37(5), 932-945
4. Bjorn L. BASBERG (1998), "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature", Research Policy 16 (1987) 131-141, North-Holland
5. Carpenter, M., Cooper, M., et al. (1980), "Linkage Between Basic Research Literature and Patents". Research Management 3, 30–35.
6. Dominique Guellec, Bruno van Potelsberghe de la Potterie (2000), "Applications, grants and the value of patent", Economics Letters 69 (2000) 109-114
7. Ernst, H. (2003), "patent information for strategic technology management." World Patent Information, 25, 233-242
8. Gallini, N.T. (1992), "Patent policy and costly imitation". RAND Journal of Economics 23 (1), 52–63
9. Gilbert, R., Shapiro, C. (1990), "Optimal patent length and breadth". RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1), 106–112.
10. Greene, J.R., Scotchmer, S. (1995), "On the division of proﬁt in sequential innovation." RAND Journal of Economics 26 (1), 20–33.
11. Griliches, Z. (1990), "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey", Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 28, pp.1661-1707.
12. Grupp. H and Schmoch, U. (1999), "Patent Statistics in the age of globalization: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation." Research Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 377-396.
13. Hall, B.H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg, M. (1999), "Market value and patent citations: A first look. Collection Cahiers de l′ Innovation", 99004, CNRS.
14. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K. (1997), "Exploring the tail of patent value distributions." Mimeo, Harvard University.
15. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K., (1999). "Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation". Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 511–515.
16. Harhoff, D., F. M. Scherer and K. Vopel (2003), “Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights.” Research Policy, Vol. 32(8), 1343–1363
17. Harhoff, D. and M. Reitzig (2004), “Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 22(4),443-480
18. James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer (2005), "LESSONS FOR PATENT POLICY FROM EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON PATENT LITIGATION", BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, WORKING PAPER SERIES, LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 05-22
19. Jonathan A. Barney (2001), "Comparative Patent Quality Analysis", NACV White Pape.
20. Klemperer, P. (1990), "How broad should the scope of patent protection be?" RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1), 113–130.
21. Lanjouw, Jean O., Schankerman, Mark (1997), "Stylized facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership" 6297. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA., USA
22. Lanjouw, Jean O., Ariel Pakes, Jonathan Putnam (1998), "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data." The Journey of Industrial Economics, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.405-433, 1998.
23. Lanjouw, Jean O., Schankerman, Mark A. (2000), "Patent Suits: Do They Distort Research Incentives?" CEPR.
24. Lanjouw, Jean O., Mark A. Schankerman (2004), "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators." The Economic Journal, pp.441-465, Apr. 2004.
25. Larry M. Goldstein (2013), "True patent value, Defining quality in patents and patent portfolios"
26. Lerner, J. (1994), "The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis." RAND Journal of Economics 25 (2), 319–333.
27. Manuel Trajtenbert (1990), "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patnet Citations and the Value of Innovations", The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 172-187
28. Markus Reitzig (2003), " What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry", Research Policy 32 (2003) 13–26
29. Maurseth, Per Botolf (2005), "Lovely but Dangerous: The Impact of Patent Citation on Patent Duration." Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 14, pp.351-374
30. Nordhaus, W.D. (1967), "The Optimal Life of a Patent". Yale University, New Haven.
31. Pakes, A. (1986), "Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding Eruopean Patent Stocks", Econometrica, Vol. 54, pp. 755-784.
32. Putnam, J. (1996), "The value of international patent rights." Ph.D. 1342 Thesis. Yale University, Yale.
33. Rahn, G. (1994), "Patenstrategien japanischer Unternehmen". Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (International) 5, 377–382
34. Roger Svensson (2007), "Licensing or Acquiring Patents? Evidence from Patent Renewal Data", Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
35. Schankerman, Mark and Pakes, Ariel (1986), "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period" Economic Journal, Vol. 96 (384). pp.1052-1076. ISSN 1468-0297
36. Tong, X. & Frame J. (1994), "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data", Research Policy, 23(2), 133-141
37. Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson and John P. Walsh (2000), " Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)" NBER Working Paper No. 7552
1.Ocean Tomo http://www.oceantomo.com/
7.Thomson Innovation http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/