Summary of analysis criteria
Overview of analysis methodology
The analysis provided by PatentPia is based on patentsets (documentsets). PatentPia uses the following steps
STEP 0 : Analysis subject item/menu for patents related to field (e.g., transparent displays) of a particular company (LG Electronics) with subsequent forward citations by examiners,
STEP 1 : Determine the input patent set for the subject of analysis (e.g., the patents in possession of Apple that contain 'augmented reality') in i) the title of invention, ii) the abstract, and iii) the claims of the patent), and
STEP 2 : Compose a target patent set corresponding to the analysis topic item/menu based on the confirmed input patent set (in many cases, input patent set = target patent set); and
STEP 3 : Based on the target patent set, generate analysis data (No. of patents in possession by subsequent companies citing the input patent set, (by when the examiner citation occurred,) corresponding to the analysis topic item.
Below are the results of the above example.
Analysis scheme
In the above example, the analysis criteria requires i) identification of the U.S. patent set held by LG Electronics, ii) identification of the patent set for transparent displays, iii) definition of examiner (avoidance) citations, iv) definition of the year of occurrence of examiner (avoidance) citations, and v) identification of the right holders of the subsequent patents in possession of the examiner (avoidance) citations and the U.S. patent set held by those right holders.
Analysis Scheme
The analysis criteria scheme has i) criteria for the patentset under analysis, ii) criteria for patent intervention events centered on patents, and iii) criteria for non-patent intervention events centered on companies. Then, the determination of the patent set to be analyzed includes i) right holder level, ii) technology field level, and iii) inventor level. Representative of patent intervention events are patent purchases (transactions) or patent litigations/trials. Company-centered patent non-intervention events include M&A or investments.
In the above example, i) and v) are related to the finalization of patent sets at the right holder level, and ii) is related to the finalization of patent sets at the technology field level. Above iii) and iv) are related to the definition of topic items/menu for analysis, such as forward citations by examiners.
Brief description of important analysis criteria
Analysis criteria | Criteria description | Other |
current assignee | Patents in possession as current right holder (applications + purchased patents) (Includes No. of patents that have expired (expired, defaulted annual registration fee, invalidation, etc.) after registration) (Includes patents that have been canceled or abandoned after application and open) | In the future, consider processing only alive (pending®istered) |
Technology field (CPC) | When a particular technical field is defined by one or more cooperative patent classifications (CPCs), 1) a patent granted in a particular CPC and all CPCs lower than that particular CPC in the CPC classification scheme
2) Patents to which a CPC is granted as the main patent classification and also includes patents to which a CPC is granted as a sub classification 3) Reflects upgrades/changes in the mapping relationship between 'CPC vs. Patent' | |
Technical field (keyword expression) | If certain keyword expressions are defined as patents in the patent's i) title of invention, ii) abstract, and iii) claims,
1) Incorporation of British expressions (e.g., fibre → fiber, color → color, etc.)
2) Incorporation of abbreviations (e.g., GPS system → global positioning system)
3) Incorporation of AKA (also known as, e.g., additive manufacturing → 3d printing)
4) Other | 1) Stemmed expressions (e.g., visualization, visualizing, visualed → visual) to be integrated
2) Considering integrating keywords extracted from embodiment areas |
Technical field (CPC + keyword) | CPC applies criteria by technology field (CPC) Keyword is based on technical field (keyword expression) | |
Buy (there) | 0) Patent transfer through M&A is included
1) Assignments from inventor to original assignee are excluded from purchases (transactions)
2) Transfer of ownership between company groups (e.g. Microsoft → Microsoft technology licensing, or Samsung Display → Samsung Electronics) excluded from No. of purchased patents (transactions)
3) Exclude partial (equity) assignments, addition of some right holders from shared right holders, etc. | |
litigation | 1) Will cover patent infringement and confirmation litigations filed in the first instance in district court
2) Will also include patent litigations at the ITC (less than 1.5% of the total) | |
trial | 1) Only inter partes trials (invalidation trials, confirmation trials) with the PTAB as the other party are included
2) Excludes trials with the Intellectual Property Office as the other party (appeals against decision of rejection, etc.) | |
forward citations | Sources of preceding patents in a citation relationship (references)
1) Preceding patents cited by the examiner
2) Preceding patents used by the examiner in a rejection
3) Preceding patents by IDS | 1) Will also include preceding patents in the background art
2) Overseas literature will also be included |
forward citations by examiners | Of the above citation relationships, 1) and 2) | |
Rejection (true) | Of the above citation relationships, 2) | Provide separation between preceding patents rejected for novelty and those rejected for non-obviousness |
No. of patents rejecting subsequent patents (*) | Patentability determinations related to the No. of patents rejecting subsequent patents include i) novelty, and ii) non-obviousness. | |
M&A/Investments | Scope of M&A
1) Only M&A that PatentPia i) collects&recognizes, ii) the company (acquirer) has US patents in possession, and iii) are reflected in the PatentPia DB are considered.
2) M&A related to a specific technology field are treated as M&A in that technology field if at least one of the defendant company's patents is related to field | Hold investments to the same standards as M&A |
Others |
Kinds of analysis aggregates
There are 2 kinds of analysis aggregate values. The two kinds are i) total value, which is based on all time, and ii) yearly/quarterly value, which is limited to a specific year/quarter and aggregates only what is related to that year/quarter.
Analysis time base description
Analysis criteria | Criteria description | Other |
Year/quarter first opened | Year/quarter in which the patent publication was published and the public became aware of the contents of the patent
1) If a patent publication has been published, the year/quarter based on the open date of the publication of the patent publication
2) In the case of patents issued directly without the issuance of a public publication, the year/quarter based on the date of patent registration | |
Year/quarter of publication for forward citations | Year/quarter of first open publication of a subsequent patent that cites (by examiner) a preceding patent as a reference.
(When the preceding patents and the subsequent patent first establish a citation relationship, not when the patent is examined by an Intellectual Property Office examiner) | |
Year/quarter the rejection occurred | The year/quarter based on the day of the first office action (OA) rejecting subsequent patents by examiner with preceding patents as reference.
There are two kinds of OA: first notice of reasons for rejection and final notice of reasons for rejection, but the year/quarter of rejection is based on the date of the first notice of reasons for rejection
(When preceding patents and rejecting subsequent patents first form a rejection relationship) | |
Transaction year/quarter | The year in which the change in ownership of the patent rights occurred. If more than one ownership change occurs, count as one if in the same year/quarter, and as separate if in different years/quarters. | |
Litigation/Defendant/Scheme Year/Quarter | The year/quarter in which the patent was used in the litigation. Year/quarter of patent litigations as a defendant, and year/quarter of patent litigation.
Patent litigations are aggregated by docket number | |
Trial/Defendant/System Year/Quarter | The year/quarter of the inter party review in which the patent was used in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Year/quarter in which patent trials were claimed, and year/quarter in which patent trials were filed.
Patent trials are aggregated by trial number | |
Year/quarter of patent families | For each domestic or international patent family, the year/quarter of the family's first open patent. | |
Issuance rate year/quarter | Count only patents issued or rejected in a particular year/quarter | Include definitions |
Average issuance time | Measures the time distance from the application date of a patent to the date of patent issuance, for only those patents issued in a given year. | Include definitions |
Independent claim scope retention ratio | The increase rate of the (average) word count of the independent claims of the patent's published publications over the (average) word count of the independent claims of the patent's published publications, for only those patents issued in a given year (excluding patents for which no publications are issued; if there are more than two independent claims, the average value is taken) | Include definitions |
Claim count retention ratio | The increase rate of claims in issued patent publications over claims in open publications of those patents, for only patents issued in a given year (excluding issued patents for which no open publications are issued). | Include definitions |
Technology convergence | Number of patent classifications (CPCs) in a patent publication, measured by the year/quarter of first open. | Include definitions |
Applications - open shares | Based on the year/quarter of first open. No. of patents in possession of a particular right holder or inventor out of the set of first applied-for and published patents in that time period. | Include definitions |
Forward citations share | Based on the year/quarter in which the subsequent patent was first opened. No. of references by examiners to a particular right holder's owned patents or inventor's invented patents among the set of first filed-published trailing patents in that time period. | Include definitions |
Rejection share | Based on the year/quarter in which the subsequent patent was first opened. Among the set of first-filed-published trailing patents in that time period, when a particular right holder's owned patents or inventor's invented patents are cited(referenced) by examiners in the rejection of a trailing patent, the no. of references by examiners is calculated as the ratio of owned patents to the no. of invented patents in the trailing patent | Include definitions |
M&A/Investments | The time base for M&As/investments is the year/quarter in which the announcement date falls. | |
Standard | If declared as a standard, the year/quarter for the standard declaration date. If listed in a standard essential patent pool, the year/quarter for the day of that listing. | Include definitions |
Government-funded R&D | If the patent resulted from government-funded R&D, the year/quarter in which the patent was first opened. | Include definitions |
FDA approvals | If the FDA approval process involved a patent, the year/quarter of the FDA approval date. |
Exceptional analysis aggregation criteria
The aggregate No. of forward citations by examiners per patent is intuitive and readily available. However, the No. of forward citations per patent by yearly/quarter is less useful due to problems with the current calculation method.
The total value is the No. of all (examiner) citations received by applied, published, or issued patents in the entire period divided by the No. of all patents. On the other hand, No. of forward citations by examiners per patent by quarter for a specific yearly period is the cumulative No. of forward citations by examiners in a specific year/quarter divided by the total No. of invented/applied patents (all). As a result, the value increases as the year of forward citations by examiners approaches the current year, and the total value and the current year value are the same.
Improvement direction: For each yearly open patent, the No. of forward citations by examiners up to that year should be treated as the No. of citations received. However, even in this case, since citations have the attribute of accumulating over time, there is a problem that the No. of forward citations per patent for patents applied and opened in the past is relatively higher than that of recent patents applied and opened. And comparison with companies (right holders)/researchers based on specific yearly can overcome the problem of underutilization of output due to accumulation of No. of forward citations over time.
Related contents
•