How to assess patent infringement risks: a semantic patent claim analysis using dependency relationships

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 23-38

  Lee, Changyong ^a   Song, Bomi ^b   Park, Yongtae ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

hierarchical keyword vector; patent infringement; semantic patent claim analysis; technology intelligence; tree matching algorithm

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DATA MINING; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84872043914     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2012.748893     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bergmann, I., Butzke, D., Walrter, L., Fuerste, J. P., Moehrle, M. G. and Erdmann, V. A. 2008. Evaluating the risk of patent infringement by means of semantic patent analysis: The case of DNA chips. R&D Management, 38: 550-62.
2. Bessen, J.E., and M.J. Meurer. 2008. The private costs of patent litigation. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 07-08.
3. Coates, V., Farooque, M., Klavans, R., Lapid, K., Linstone, H. A., Pistorius, C. and Porter, A. L. 2001. On the future of technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67: 1-17. (doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(00)00122-0)
4. Huang, S. H., Ke, H. R. and Yang, W. P. 2008. Structure clustering for Chinese patent documents. Expert Systems with Applications, 34: 2290-97. (doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.03.012)
5. Kasravi, K., and M. Risov. 2009. Multivariate patent similarity detection. Paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 5-8, in Hawaii, USA.
6. Lanjouw, J. O. and Schankerman, M. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 32: 129-51. (doi:10.2307/2696401)
7. Lee, C., Cho, Y., Seol, H. and Park, Y. 2012. A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79: 16-29. (doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.06.009)
8. Lee, C., Jeon, J. and Park, Y. 2011. Monitoring trends of technological changes based on the dynamic patent lattice: A modified formal concept analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78: 690-702. (doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.11.010)
9. Lee, S., Yoon, B. and Park, Y. 2009. An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation, 29: 481-97. (doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.006)
10. Lerner, J. 1995. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics, 38: 463-95. (doi:10.1086/467339)
11. Lichtenthaler, E. 2004. Coordination of technology intelligence process: A study in technology intensive multinationals. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 16: 197-221. (doi:10.1080/09537320410001682892)
12. Mann, D. L. 2003. Better technology forecasting using systemic innovation methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70: 779-95. (doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(02)00357-8)
13. Moehrle, M. G. 2010. Measures for textual patent similarities: A guided way to select appropriate approaches. Scientometrics, 85: 95-109. (doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0243-3)
14. Pearson, J. 2001. Court in session: Intellectual property at risk. Risk Management, 48(2): 10-16.
15. Raghu, T. S., Woo, W., Mohan, S. B. and Rao, H. R. 2008. Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry. Information Systems Frontiers, 10: 61-75. (doi:10.1007/s10796-007-9036-5)
16. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J. and Heath, C. 2007. On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey-Unrealistic damage awards and firm's strategies of 'being infringed'. Research Policy, 36: 134-54. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.003)
17. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J. and Schneider, F. 2010. Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: How patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19: 947-67. (doi:10.1093/icc/dtq037)
18. Shin, J. and Park, Y. 2005. Generation and application of patent claim map: Text mining and network analysis. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 10: 198-205.
19. Smith, H. 2002. Automation of patent classification. World Patent Information, 24: 269-71. (doi:10.1016/S0172-2190(02)00067-4)
20. Sternitzke, C., Bartkowski, A. and Schramm, R. 2008. Visualizing patent statistics by means of social network analysis tools. World Patent Information, 30: 115-31. (doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2007.08.003)
21. Tait, J. I. and Diallo, B. 2011. "Future patent search". In Current challenges in patent information retrieval, Edited by: Lupu, M., Mayer, K., Tait, J. and Trippe, A. J. 389-407. Berlin: Springer.
22. Tseng, Y., Lin, C. and Lin, Y. 2007. Text mining techniques for patent analysis. Information Processing and Management, 43: 1216-47. (doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.011)
23. Yoon, B. 2011. Strategic visualisation tools for managing technological information. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22: 377-97. (doi:10.1080/09537321003647438)
24. Yoon, B., Yoon, C. and Park, Y. 2002. On the development and application of a self-organizing feature map-based patent map. R&D Management, 32: 291-300.