Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010

Abstract

This study aims to propose an early precaution method which allows predicting probability of patent infringement as well as evaluating patent value. To obtain the purposes, a large-scale analysis on both litigated patents and non-litigated patents issued between 1976 and 2010 by USPTO are conducted. The holistic scale analysis on the two types of patents (3,878,852 non-litigated patents and 31,992 litigated patents in total) issued by USPTO from 1976 to 2010 has not been conducted in literatures and need to be investigated to allow patent researchers to understand the overall picture of the USPTO patents. Also, by comparing characteristics of all litigated patents to that of non-litigated patents, a precaution method for patent litigation can be obtained. Both litigated patents and non-litigated patents are analyzed to understand the differences between the two types of patents in terms of different variables. It is found that there are statistically significant differences for the two types of patents in the following 11 variables: (1) No. of Assignee, (2) No. of Assignee Country, (3) No. of Inventor, (4) Inventor Country, (5) No. of Patent Reference, (6) No. of Patent Citation Received, (7) No. of IPC, (8) No. of UPC, (9) No. of Claim, (10) No. of Non-Patent Reference, and (11) No. of Foreign Reference. Finally, logistic regression is used for predicting the probability of occurrence of a patent litigation by fitting the 11 characteristics of 3,910,844 USPTO patents to a logistic function curve

Investigating the determinants of patent acquisition in biotechnology: an empirical analysis

“…Consistently, previous studies revealed that the number of claims is positively related with the probability of patent litigation (Lanjouw and Schankerman 2001;Su, Chen, and Lee 2012). Therefore, having a high number of claims may positively impact the value of the patent (Gambardella, Harhoff, and Verspagen 2008;Lee et al 2007;Messeni Petruzzelli, Rotolo, and Albino 2015) and its attractiveness within MFTs.…”

Threshold effects of the patent H‐index in the relationship between patent citations and market value

“…(van Zeebroeck & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, ). From these variables, we can extract valuable information about patents such as technological importance (Carpenter, Narin, & Woolf, ), the existing technological background, the linkage between innovation and basic research (Allison, Lemley, Moore, & Trunkey, ; Allison, Lemley, & Walker, ; Callaert, Van Looy, Verbeek, Debackere, & Thijs, ; Carpenter, Cooper, & Narin, ), the technological scope (Lerner, ; Su, Chen, & Lee, ), the legal breadth of the protection (Lanjouw & Schankerman, ; Marco, ; Nerkar, Paruchuri, & Khaire, ; Tong & Frame, ), and so on.…”

How to Innovate Intellectual Property Service by Prediction of Infringement Probability

“…In the process, first step is to download patent data from USPTO (United States Patent and Trademarks Office). Second, it use model to develop the new model [31]. Third, organization is distinguished for four levels, there are country, industry, company and individual, and each level of organization has specific model.…”

“…1 shows the framework of the innovative service proposed in this study. First, it downloads patent issued from 1976 to 2011 from United States Patent and Trademark Office, and use the forecasting model provided by Su, Chen, & Lee to forecast ligitaiton probability [31].…”

“…Forecasting model: probability of litigation = e z /(e z +1) Probability of litigation is equal to e z / (e z +1), where z is derived from holistic regression result of patent characteristics [31], based on which any new model can be obtained for different level of intellectual property service, i.e. individual level, company level, industry level and country level.…”