Patent rejections Excel data sheet
4-area composition of the data sheet
The data fields are divided into four areas. The first area is the Office action area. All data fields in the Office action area are labeled as 'OA+number'. Numbers are separated by groups of data fields. (They may not always be consecutive numbers.)
The second area is the Relationships area. The Relationships area displays the relationship between the input patent and the patents in the rejection relationship (e.g., rejection due to lack of novelty, whether or not the two patents are the same right holder (self-rejection), etc.). All data fields in the relationship area are labeled as 'R+number'.
The third area is the Input Patent area, which is the reference. All data fields in the input patent area are labeled as 'I+number'.
The fourth area is for patents that have a rejection relationship with the input patent. Rejection relationship patents can be either preceding patents that rejected the input patent (RPS, rejecting preceding patent)** or subsequent patents that the input patent rejected (RSP, rejecting subsequent patent)**. However, there will never be two kinds of rejecting preceding and subsequent patents in one excel file. All data fields in the Rejecting patents area are labeled as 'R+P or S+number'. P stands for 'preceding', indicating the preceding patents that caused the rejection of the input patent. S means 'subsequent', displaying subsequent patents rejecting the input patent.
Office action area data and its uses
Based on the full data, the Office action area contains the following data. Note that the data may differ depending on whether or not you have the abbreviated data version, and depending on the level.
[Full version]
[Simplified version]
Relationships area data and its uses
The Office actions area contains the following data. For reference, the data may differ depending on whether or not there is a version of the data, and depending on the level.
Input patent area data and its uses
The Office action area contains the following data. Note that the data may differ depending on whether or not the data is versioned, and depending on the level.
Patent area data in the Rejection relationship and how to use it
The Office action area contains the following data. Note that the data may differ depending on whether or not the data is versioned and the level.
Download & Utilize additional data
'Patent Classification Code vs. Patent Classification Title' mapping data
Standard patent classification CPC code data
Every patent is assigned one main classification, the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) code, that best represents the technology of the patent. The CPC scheme is the standard patent classification system used by the intellectual property offices of the world's major industrialized countries, and consists of 260,000 codes, almost all (about 99.9% or more) of which are International patent classification (IPC) codes of 70,000.
Each patent classification code is mapped to a “patent classification title,” which defines the technology of that patent classification code. However, including the patent classification titles in the datasheet would have resulted in a huge increase in the size of the data. Therefore, the datasheet contains only the patent classification codes for each of the input and rejected patents.
Download the 'Patent classification code vs. Patent classification title' mapping data
You can download the 'Patent Classification Code vs. Patent Classification Title' mapping data by clicking the link below. (You can also copy the URL and paste it into your browser's address bar.)
[link].
URL :
Combine patent classification titles
Combine the patent classification titles from the downloaded 'Patent Classification Code vs. Patent Classification Title' file into a data sheet. The method of combining is using MS Excel's vlookup function.
More details about patent classification
By clicking on the link below, you can get organized information/knowledge about patent classification.
[link]
URL :
Analysis of 'Patent classification code vs. Patent classification title' utilization.
Patent classification code/title utilizing analysis
You can analyze patent technology field by utilizing patent classification code or patent classification title in analysis filter or row.
Advanced utilization of data
Relationship area data and its utilization
Self rejection analysis
When the right holder of the input patent and the rejection patent is the same, it is called self rejection. For self rejection analysis, only those with a value of '1' are analyzed. (For reference, in non-exclusive analysis, only those with a self rejection value of 0 are considered.)
SELF REJECTION is effectively used to identify key patents in a company or technology field (patents that have very high self-utilization or internal importance).
Analysis of rejection reasons (novelty, non-obviousness)
A novelty rejection means that certain claims of the input patent and the rejected patent are the same or extremely similar in substance. Novelty rejections are particularly useful when combined with independent claim 1 rejections.
Analysis of an independent claim rejection
Claim 1, the first claim in every patent, is an independent claim. Through independent claim rejections, one can discover i) preceding patents used to reject independent claims of one's own patents or ii) one's own patents rejecting independent claims of subsequent patents.
Data analysis with IDS
An applicant for a US patent submits to IDS the prior art of which he is aware that is related to his applied-for patent. Sometimes, applicants submit a large amount of prior art to IDS - dozens or even hundreds of references. However, of the prior art submitted to IDS, only a small percentage of patent references are used in rejection decisions. And that small percentage is valuable.
Right holder attribute data and its uses
The right holder attribute data is organized around the current right holder. If there is a company group to which the current right holder belongs, it is shown. Furthermore, there is a URL to experience various patent analysis contents for the current right holder. Double-click on the URL to activate the link, and then click to be taken there.
In addition, there is information on previous right holders and applicants, allowing for rejection network analysis based on patent transaction networks (Right holder A vs. Right holder B vs. set of transacted patents).
The current right holder is the type of organization (company, university, research organization, individual), and there is a No. of patents in possession that can be used to estimate the size of the organization, and whether or not the right holder is an NPE, which is important in terms of patent risk and monetization leverage.
If the current right holder is a listed company, we've added the listed market and business category, while for companies that belong to a specific theme, we have a theme company classification.
The current right holder attributes will be continuously expanded and updated.
Patent attribute data and its uses
Patent attribute data includes i) year and number attributes, ii) patent event attributes such as transactions, lawsuits, trials, etc., iii) reputation/influence attributes such as No. of citations, etc., iv) rejection ability attributes such as No. of self forward citations, etc., and v) self-utilization (related to R&D continuity) attributes such as self citations or self rejections, etc.
By utilizing these attributes, sophisticated rejection analysis is possible. For example, by taking only the last n years of applications, it is possible to perform a patent technology competitiveness analysis from the view of rejecting subsequent patents of the company and its competitors, limited to the most recently applied patents. In addition, if the trailing rejections are patents that have been used in transactions, litigations, and trials, or if there are many patent families, or if there are many self-forward citations/rejections, good suggestions can be drawn from the analysis of rejections from the view of monetization. Monetization can also be utilized to establish competitive strategies against competitors.
Add & utilize your own data
The data sheet provided is an MS Excel file. The data sheet contains patent application numbers. In the patent system, a patent application number is virtually a unique value. Therefore, your own data containing patent application numbers can be easily combined with the data sheet, using the patent application number as the key. The combined data can be analyzed by utilizing the PivotTable function of MS Excel.
The most common way to combine your data is to combine your own technology classification (tech tree). On the other hand, if you have classifications/tags for your companies, for the companies in your value chain/supply chain composition, or for your relationships with them, such as competitors/suppliers, etc., you can combine these company classifications/tags.
Of course, if you have a list of patents in possession, or an Excel file that combines your patent list with classification/rejection information such as your technology classification tree, company classification/tags, etc., you can have PatentPia process the data for a rejection analysis that uses these data.
Rejection analytical index description
6 Representative rejection analytical indice
The six representative analytical indices related to patent rejections are i) No. of rejecting subsequent patents, ii) No. of rejected subsequent patents per patent, iii) Rejection share, iv) Rejection utilization rate, v) Rejection reference adoption rate, and vi) No. of patents used for rejection.
Rejection analytical indice | Only target(1) required | Population(2) is also required | Using unique count(3) | Importance |
(target)No. of patents in possession(A) | O | O | ||
(patent in possession by target)
No. of patents used in the rejection(C) | O | O | ||
(by patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents(E) | O | O | High | |
(of patent in possession by target)
Rejection used rate(C/A) | O | O | ||
(target possessed)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent(4) | O | X | High | |
(of target)
Rejection share
(percentage of E in the population) | Within the population, the (relative)ratio of owned patents (by the target’s patent in possession) to the ‘No. of rejecting subsequent patents(E)’ | O | High | |
(of target)
Rejection reference adoption rate
(percentage of C in the population) | The ratio of owned patents in the population to the 'No. of (target holds)patents in possession used in rejection (C)’ | O |
Target(1) : The target of the analysis (for a specific (technical) field). Specific nation, companies/universities/research institutes, inventors, etc.
Population(2) : A group of people that includes the target (e.g., if the target is a specific nation i, the entire nation becomes the population; on the other hand, if the target is a specific company j, the population can be i) all companies/specific company groups within the entire nation (e.g., semiconductor companies), ii) all companies/specific company groups within a specific country, iii) all companies/specific company groups within a specific industry/technology field. In other words, the population may be selected for the purpose of targeted analysis.) No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent(4) : The average of the No. of rejecting subsequent patents (0 or 1 or more) for each patent in the target, given that each patent in the target has rejected subsequent patents. Formula = (Numerator)(Sum, not a unique count)/(Denominator)(Total Number of rejecting subsequent patents by each patent of the target)(A). Note that it is not “No. of rejecting (distinct) subsequent patents (E)/Total number of patents in possession (A)”!!! DISTINCT COUNT (DISTINCT COUNT): A distinct count is a count that has no duplicates (distinct). The distinct count is the same concept as the number of distinct elements in a set. For example, if we have a set A = {P21, P21, P22} (consisting of subsequent patents rejected by patents in possession of a particular company i, exemplified below), then the number of elements (distinct counts) in set A is 2(=P21, P22).
As an illustrative example, consider a particular company i with four patents in possession (P11, P12, P13, P14) to illustrate the rejection analytical index. Let us assume that patents P11, P12 are all used for rejecting the same subsequent patent (P21), P13 is used for rejecting P22, and P14 has no rejected subsequent patents.
Certain company i’s
patents in possession | Certain company i’s
patents in possession
rejecting subsequent patents |
P11 | P21 |
P12 | P21 |
P13 | P22 |
P14 | X |
Note that each of the preceding patents (P11, P12, P13, P14) can be used to reject 0 or 1 or more (m, m>=0) subsequent patents. One or more (n, n>=1) preceding patents (e.g., P11, P12) may be used to reject subsequent patents (e.g., P21).
In this case, the rejection analytical index is calculated as follows.
Rejection analytical indice | index value | Reason | Using unique count(3) |
(target)No. of patents in possession(A) | 4 | P11, P12, P13, P14 | O |
(patent in possession by target)
No. of patents used in the rejection(C) | 3 | P11, P12, P13 | O |
(by patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents(E) | 2 | P21, P22 | O |
(of patent in possession by target)
Rejection used rate(C/A) | 75.0% | 3/4 = 0.75 = 75.0% | O |
(of patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent(4) | 0.75 | {1/1(of P11) + 1/1(of P12) + 1/1(of P13) + 0/1(of P14)}/4(P11, P12, P13, P14) = 0.75
3(=P21, P21, P22)/4(P11, P12, P13, P14) = 0.75 | X |
(of target)
Rejection share
(percentage of E in the population) | X | Requires a population(other audiences) to be calculated | O |
(of target)
Rejection reference adoption rate
(percentage of C in the population) | X | Requires a population(other audiences) to be calculated | O |
Extension of the 6 major analytical indices of rejection: based on issued patents
On the other hand, if we limit ourselves to issued patents, the following analytical indices can be utilized additionally. The composition of the analytical indexes and the method of calculating the index values are equivalent to the case of all patents.
Rejection analytical indice | Only target(1) required | Population(2) is also required | Issued patents only | 중요도 |
(target)No. of issued patents in possession(B) | O | O | ||
(patent in possession by target)
No. of issued patents used in the rejection(D) | O | O | ||
(by patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent issued patents(G) | O | O | High | |
(of patent in possession by target)
Rejection used rate of issued patents(D/B) | O | O | ||
(of patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents per issued patent | O | O | High | |
(of target)
Rejection share of issued patent
(percentage of G in the population) | Within the population, the (relative)ratio of owned patents (by the target’s issued patent in possession) to the ‘No. of rejecting subsequent patents(G)’ | High | ||
(of target)
Rejection reference adoption rate of issued patent
(percentage of D in the population) | The ratio of owned patents in the population to the 'No. of (target holds)issued patents in possession used in rejection (D)’ |
Meaning of the 6 major analytical indices for representative rejections
A large number of rejections of the target's preceding patents indicates that i) the technical content of the target's preceding patents and the technical content of the subsequent patents are the same or similar/related (the examiner examining the subsequent patent notifies the applicant of the subsequent patent that the subsequent patent lacks novelty or non-obviousness over the preceding patent, and therefore cannot be granted a patent. Therefore, it can be seen that there is a technological same or similar/related relationship between the preceding patent and the rejected subsequent patents, which means that i) the target has secured a prior patent with temporal priority, and therefore, ii) the target has technology leadership/advantage/competitiveness over the right holder of the subsequent patents, etc.
Rejection analytical indice | index
attributes | Meaning of analytical indices | Technology competitiveness
characteristics | Base time attribute
(more recent is better) |
(target)No. of patents in possession(A) | total | Total size of the target's patent portfolio | Portfolio size/total | Focus on recent applications |
(patent in possession by target)
No. of patents used in the rejection(C) | total | No. of target's patents are used to reject subsequent patents | High impact size/total | Focus on recent rejections/applications |
(by patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents(E) | total | Unique No. of rejecting subsequent patents that the target's patent rejected | Impact size/total | Focus on recent rejections/applications |
(of patent in possession by target)
Rejection used rate(C/A) | ratio | Rate of the target's patents used to reject subsequent patents | Patent quality | Focus on recent rejections/applications |
(of patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent(4) | density | Average No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent in the target | High qualitative competitiveness | Focus on recent rejections/applications |
(of target)
Rejection share
(percentage of E in the population) | ratio | Relative dominance in the population | Focus on recent rejections/applications | |
(of target)
Rejection reference adoption rate
(percentage of C in the population) | ratio | Relative dominance in the population | Focus on recent rejections/applications |
Kind of time used in the rejection analytical index: year of rejection vs. year of publication
When a particular patent (e.g., P21) is examined by examiners at the United States of America's Intellectual Property Office (USPTO), the examiners almost always issue one or more non-final office actions (OAs) to the applicant of the particular patent (e.g., P21). These notices (office actions) most often include a determination that the particular patent being examined (e.g., P21) lacks novelty or non-obviousness based on prior art (patents, P11, P12 (+ other preceding patents)). To these notices, the applicant of the particular patent (e.g., P21) will respond, and if the reasons for rejection are still not resolved after the response, the examiner will issue a final office action based on the same or different prior art (patents, P12 (+ other preceding patents)).
There are two kinds of years used in the analysis of rejections: i) year of rejection, ii) year of publication.
For the year of rejection, we primarily use the year of the first rejection. This is because the first rejection occurrence year is the point in time when the specific subsequent patents being examined (e.g., P21) and the specific preceding patents (e.g., P11, P12) are brought into a rejection relationship by an office action (OA) of rejection.
Certain company i’s
patents in possession | First publication year of
certain company i’s
patents in possession | Certain company i’s
patents in possession that rejects subsequent patents under examination | Year of first rejection of rejecting subsequent patents | Year of final rejection of rejecting subsequent patents | Year of analysis rejections | Notes |
P11 | 2010 | P21 | 2021 | X | 2021 | P11 patents are not used for final rejections |
P12 | 2015 | P21 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |
P13 | 2020 | P22 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | |
P14 | 2023 | X | X | X | X |
Meanwhile, the year of publication of the gazette uses the year of the first gazette publication. The year of first gazette publication will be: i) the year of open patent publication if an open patent publication is issued; ii) the year of registration if a patent is issued without an open patent publication and only a issued patent publication is issued. The first publication year corresponds to the first point in time when the contents of the patent were published and made available to any third party (including examiners of the Intellectual Property Office). The preceding patents cited by examiners of the Intellectual Property Office as prior art (patents) are almost all those that were open for examination.
The yearly periods we use for each Rejection analytical index are.
Rejection analytical indice | Use the year of
the first rejection | Use the year of
the first publication | Notes | |
(target)No. of patents in possession(A) | O | |||
(patent in possession by target)
No. of patents used in the rejection(C) | O | O | Both years available | |
(by patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents(E) | O | |||
(of patent in possession by target)
Rejection used rate(C/A) | O | |||
(of patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent(4) | O | |||
(of target)
Rejection share
(percentage of E in the population) | O | |||
(of target)
Rejection reference adoption rate
(percentage of C in the population) | O |
On the other hand, the yearly rejection analytical indexes we use, focusing on issued patents, are as follows.
Rejection analytical indice | Use the year of
the first rejection | Use the year of
the publication
(issued year) | Notes | |
(target)No. of issued patents in possession(B) | O | |||
(patent in possession by target)
No. of issued patents used in the rejection(D) | O | O | Both years available | |
(by patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent issued patents(G) | O | |||
(of patent in possession by target)
Rejection used rate of issued patents(D/B) | O | |||
(of patent in possession by target)
No. of rejecting subsequent patents per issued patent | O | |||
(of target)
Rejection share of issued patent
(percentage of G in the population) | O | |||
(of target)
Rejection reference adoption rate of issued patent
(percentage of D in the population) | O |
Importance of timing in rejection analysis: recent patents/rejections vs. past patents/rejections
The more recent the patents applied for that rejected subsequent patents that the target's preceding patents rejected, the better for the target. Because technology moves forward, the more rejecting subsequent patents that the target's patent is rejecting that are being applied for closer to today, the better, even if they are rejecting patents that were applied for in the past.
And, even when rejecting the same number and/or time frame of subsequent patents, it is preferable that the target's patents that were filed more recently than the target's patents that were filed in the past (corresponding to past R&D achievements) are used to reject subsequent patents.
Rejecting subsequent patents applied for recently (=rejection(occurrence) year is recent) | Rejecting subsequent patents applied for pastly
(=rejection(occurrence) year is past) | ||
Rejecting subsequent patents due to using of recently targeted patents | Best | Good | |
Rejecting subsequent patents due to using of pastly targeted patents | Better | Not so much good | |
The time zone of the target's patent can be adjusted by the application-publication year of the target patent (the year of the first publication). The time zone of the subsequent patent is also adjustable to the application-publication year of the subsequent patent.
The time of rejection (occurrence) can be adjusted by i) selecting the year of rejection (occurrence) or the quarter of rejection (occurrence), or ii) focusing on the most recent year of rejection (if the horizontal axis of the analysis is the year of rejection), allowing the analysis of rejection relationships to focus on the most recent rejections.
Particularly improtant rejections
The following rejections should be treated as particularly important, even if they are the same rejection.
Particularly important rejection | Reason for relatively more important | Importance |
Rejection for lack of novelty | An examiner rejecting subsequent patents under examination for novelty occurs when the examiner determines that the technology of the preceding patents and the claims of the subsequent patents rejected by the preceding patents are the same or equivalent. | High |
Used for independent claim
rejection | An independent claim is the most important claim in a patent (the first claim, claim 1, is always an independent claim). Therefore, rejecting an independent claim among several claims in a subsequent patent should be treated as a significant rejection. | |
Rejection for lack of novelty of independent claims | Highest | |
Rejection of non-obviousness of
independent claims | ||
Rejection of a large number of
claims | High |
These special subsequent patents can be used as filters in the rejection analysis. More than one filter can be applied.
On the other hand, the concept of special subsequent patents can also be applied to the target's preceding patents for the same or similar purpose. From the target's point of view, it is necessary to i) find companies that have many subsequent patents rejected by their own important patents, or reject their own important patents; ii) analyze competing, SMEs, NPEs, universities or researchers at universities/research institutes that have invented patents in possession for purposes of risk or M&A/investment; or iii) analyze inventors of preceding companies, NPEs, universities or researchers at universities/research institutes for purposes of HR/collaboration.
Importance of rejecting subsequent patents, with special attention to rejecting subsequent patents.
Even if it is a subsequent patent from the same application, a patent with the following attributes is relatively more important to the right holder of the subsequent patent. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between rejecting a patent that is relatively more important than the target patent and rejecting a patent that is not.
Special subsequent patents rejected by targeted patents | Reason for relatively more important | 중요도 |
Purchased patents
Patents transferred through M&A
Patents with license settings | - Patent purchases are strategic investments. M&A involves large investments. Purchased patents or patents transferred through M&A are likely to be reflected in the company's products/services.
- Licensed patents are often reflected in the products/services of the licensee(and in some cases, the licensor). | 상 |
Law suit/Litigated patent
Trialed patent | - Patent litigations are the most intense form of patent practice, involving high costs and strategic judgment. Patent litigations often involve defendant(and in some cases, plaintiff) products/services that infringe the patents being litigated.
- An inter-party trial is an adversarial proceeding that is akin to litigation. Patent trials are often requested when a patent infringement warning letter is received or a patent infringement lawsuit is filed. | 최상 |
Patents with many domestic patent families
Patents with many international patent families
Patents with large No. of international patent familiy’s nation | - Establishing domestic patent families is costly. Domestic patent families tend to arise from patents that are reflected in products(despite the cost) or have many derivations/applications/fields of application.
- Establishing international patent families is much more expensive than establishing domestic patent families. Therefore, patents with a large No. of international patent families or a large No. of nations with international patent families are much more important patents. | |
Patents with many (examiner)
forward citations | Patents with a high number of citations themselves or forward citations by examiners are important patents with high industry impact. | |
Patents with many self (examiner)
forward citations | Self-forward citations occur when subsequent patents in possession cite your own patents. Patents with a high number of self-forward citations are important to the company because they have high R&D continuity and are likely to be reflected in the company's product/service strategy. | 상 |
Patents that rejecting many other
patents | Patents that rejecting many other patents are important patents. | |
Patents with many self-rejections | Self rejections are patents in possession that have been used to reject subsequent patents in possession. Patents with a high number of self-rejections are likely to be very important to the company, with particularly high R&D continuity and strongly reflected in the company's product/service strategy. | 최상 |
These special subsequent patents can be used as filters in the rejection analysis. More than one filter can be applied.
The concept of special subsequent patents can also be applied to the target's preceding patents for the same or similar purposes. From the target's point of view, it is necessary to i) find companies with a large number of subsequent patents rejected by their own important patents; ii) analyze competing, SMEs, NPEs, universities or researchers at universities/research institutes that have invented patents in possession for purposes of risk or M&A/investment; iii) analyze inventors of preceding companies, NPEs, universities or research institutes for purposes of HR/collaboration, etc.
Analytical index of subsequent patents on rejection network
Patent rejections have a network relation between preceding patents and rejecting subsequent patents that are rejected by those preceding patents. At this time, based on the relationship between 'preceding patents vs. subsequent patents', various derivative relationships are generated, such as: i) 'right holder of preceding patents vs. right holder of subsequent patents', ii) 'inventor of preceding patents vs. right holder of subsequent patents', iii) 'right holder of preceding patents vs. right holder of subsequent patents', etc. In this way, focusing on a specific preceding right holder/inventor/patent set, and analyzing the various right holders in possession of the subsequent patents that their patents are rejecting, is called analyzing the trailing rights holders on the rejection network.
An example of a trailing right holder analysis on a rejection network would be an analysis of “a specific target company (e.g., Samsung Electronics) vs. the various right holders of patents in possession of that specific target company that are rejecting subsequent patents held by that specific target company.” In other words, a trailing right holder analysis on a rejection network starts by selecting a specific target company/universities/research institutes/NPEs/researchers at universities/research institutes (for a specific technology field), and then analyzes the right holders of subsequent patents held by that specific target company.
(The analysis of competing companies rejecting subsequent patents in possession of a specific target company/universities/research institutes (for a specific technology field) is used for i) competitive intelligence, ii) identifying monetization opportunities including licensing, iii) analyzing technology biz or marketing opportunities, iv) dependency analysis, v) spillover analysis, etc.
The top 5 analytical indices related to the analysis of right holders of trailing patents in possession on the rejection network, focusing on a specific target company/universities/research institutes/NPE (for a specific technology field), are i) No. of patents rejected by the target, ii) No. of patents of the target's predecessors rejected, iii) Rejection share of target, iv) Adoption rate of target's rejected references, and v) Concentration of target's rejections.
Subsequent patent analytical indexes in rejection network | Importance | Target relevance | Individual company relevance | (Note)Questions about understanding
the meaning of analytical indices |
No. of patents (subsequent to individual companies)rejected by target(1) (D) | Highest | O | O | Which companies are mostly rejected by target? |
Total No. of patents (of individual companies) rejected (C) | X | O | ||
No. of target’s preceding patents that rejecting (individual companies) (B) | High | O | O | How many individual preceding patents of the target were used to reject a particular company? |
Total No. of preceding patents that rejecting (individual companies) (A) | X | O | ||
Total No. of target’s patents used for rejection (E) | O | X | ||
Target's share of rejections (for individual companies) (D/C) | Highest | O | O | Within particular company's rejected subsequent patents, what occupying/sharing percentage is attributed to the target? |
Adoption rate of target's rejection references (for individual companies) (B/A) | High | O | Within total preceding patents that rejecting a particular company, what percentage is related/involved from target’s preceding patent? | |
Concentration of target’s rejections (to individual companies) (B/E) | Highest | O | O | Which companies are rejected heavily/intensively by target’s total preceding patents that used in rejection? |
Total No. of issued preceding patents that rejecting (individual companies) (F) | X | O | ||
No. of target’s issued preceding patents that rejecting (individual companies) (G) | O | O |
Target(1) : (for a specific (technology) field) that is the basis/center of the analysis. Specific nation/company/universities/research institutes/NPEs, inventors, etc.
Analytical index of preceding patents on rejection network
Patent rejections have a network relation between rejecting subsequent patents and the preceding patents that rejected them. Based on the relationship between 'subsequent patents vs. preceding patents', various derived relationships are generated, such as i) 'right holder of subsequent patents vs. right holder of preceding patents', 'right holder of subsequent patents vs. inventor of preceding patents', 'right holder of subsequent patents vs. preceding patents', etc. In this way, the analysis of the right holders, inventors, preceding patents, etc. of different companies/universities/research institutes/NPEs that have preceding patents in possession that rejected subsequent patents of a specific preceding company is called 'analysis of prior rights holders on the rejection network'.
An example of a prior right holder analysis on a rejection network is an analysis of a specific target company (e.g., Samsung Electronics) vs. a number of preceding companies/universities/research institutes/NPEs, inventors, and prior patents in possession of that specific target company. In other words, a prior right holder and inventor analysis on a rejection network picks a specific target company (for a specific technology field), and analyzes the prior patent holding companies/universities/research institutes/NPEs/researchers at universities/research institutes around it.
(The analysis of companies/universities/research institutes/NPEs/inventors with prior patents rejecting patents of specific companies (for specific technology fields) is used for i) competitive intelligence, ii) risk intelligence, iii) identification of companies for M&A/investment, iv) identification of researchers for recruitment/collaboration, v) identification of patents for purchase/licensing, vi) identification of universities/research institutes/ SMEs for collaboration, etc.
The top 5 analytical metrics related to prior patent analysis on rejection network are: i) No. of patents of target rejected, ii) No. of patents rejected by target, iii) Share of rejections to target, iv) Adoption rate of rejected references to target, and v) Concentration of rejections to target, for individual prior patent holding companies/universities/research institutes/NPEs/inventors, for a specific target company (for a specific technology field).
Preceding patent analytical indexes in rejection network | Importance | Target relevance | Individual company relevance | (Note)Questions about understanding
the meaning of analytical indices |
Total No. of (individual company’s preceding)patents that used for rejection (A) | X | O | ||
No. of target’s rejected(by individual company) patents (B) | Highest | O | O | Which companies are mostly rejecting target? |
No. of (indivudual company’s preceding)patents that rejecting target (C) | High | O | O | Who has the most preceding patents with rejecting target? |
(individual company's)Rejection share (B/D) for targets | Highest | O | O | Within target's rejected subsequent patents, what occupying/sharing percentage is attributed to particular company? |
(individual company's)Adoption rate of rejection reference to targets (C/E) | High | O | O | Within total preceding patents that rejecting target, what percentage is related/involved from particular company’s preceding patent? |
(individual company’s)
Concentration of rejection to targets (C/A) | Highest | O | O | Within total preceding patents that used in rejection, which companies hold preceding patents that have been used heavily/intensively in target's rejection? |
Total No. of target’s rejected patents (D) | O | X | ||
Total No. of preceding patents that rejecting target (E) | O | X |
Target(1) : The basis/center of analysis (for a specific (technology) field) Specific nations/companies/universities/research institutes/NPEs, inventors, etc.