Study on indicator system for core patent documents evaluation

12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 154-164

  Zhang, Xian ^a   Fang, Shu ^a   Tang, Chuan ^a   Xiao, Guo Hua ^a   Hu, Zheng Yin ^a   Gao, Li Dan ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; SURVEYS;

GROUP DECISION-MAKING MODELS; INDICATOR SYSTEM; PATENT DOCUMENTS; PATENT RIGHTS; SCORING SYSTEMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT; UNBIASED ESTIMATION;

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

EID: 84873991006     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Albert M B., Avery D., Narin F. & McAllister P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20, 251-259.
2. Alcacer, J. & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88 (4), 774-779.
3. Arundel, A. & Bordoy, C. (2006). Developing internationally comparable indicators for the commercialization of publicly-funded research. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from: http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/papers/ 200610-arundel-bordoy.pdf.
4. Chiu, Y J. & Chen, Y W. (2007). Using AHP in patent valuation. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 46, 1054-1062.
5. Dernis, H. (2007). Nowcasting patent indicators. STI working paper, DSTI/DOC, 3, 05-Oct-2007.
6. Ellis, P., Hepburn, G. & Oppenheim, C. (1978). Study on patent citation networks. Journal of Documentation, 34 (1), 12-20.
7. Ernest, F. & Kirti, P. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 165-169.
8. Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25, 233-242.
9. Fabry, B. (2006). Three-Dimensional Valuation of IP Rights. Journal of Business Chemistry, 3 (3), 27- 41.
10. Gay, C., Bas, Le C., Patel, P. & Touach, K. (2005). The Determinants of Patent Citations: An Empirical Analysis of French and British Patents in the US. Econ. Innov. New Techn., 14 (5), 339- 350.
11. Guellec, D B. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. (2000). Application, grants and the value of patents. Economics letters, 69 (1), 109-114.
12. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F M. & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32, 1343-1363.
13. Haupt, R., Kloyer, M. & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36, 387-398.
14. Huang, Q., Cao, J Y., Qu, W J., Liu, Y., Shi, Y. & Xiao, Y P. (2004). Patent Evaluation Indicator System, Part 1. Intellectual Property, 14 (5), 25-28.
15. Kurtossy, J. (2004). Innovation indicators derived from patent data. Periodica Polytechnica Ser. Soc. Man. Sci., 12 (1), 91-101.
16. Lanjouw, J. & Shankerman, M. (1997). Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership. NBER Working Paper No. 6297.
17. Lanjouw, J O., Pakes, A. & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectue1 property: using of patent renewal and application data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 4, 405-433.
18. Lanjouw, J O. & Schankerman, M. (1999). The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. NBER Working Paper No. 7345.
19. Lanjouw, J O. & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 32 (1), 129-151.
20. Lanjouw, J O. & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114 (495), 441-465.
21. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. Rand Journal of Economics, 25 (2), 319-333.
22. Li, Q H., Liu, Y., Wu, S Z. & Xu, X B. (2007). Patent value indicators and their structure. Studies in Science of Science, 25 (2), 281-286.
23. Li, Y X. & Tao, Z.. (2002). Structure method for judging matrix of group in the AHP. Journal of Shengyang Normal University (Natural Science), 20 (2), 86-90.
24. Merges, R.P. (1999). As Many as six impossible patents before breakfast: property rights for business concepts and patent system reform. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14 (2), 577- 616.
25. Moehrle, M G., Walter, L., Geritz, A. & Muller, S. (2005). Patent-based inventor profiles as a basis for human resource decisions in research and development. R&D Management, 35 (5), 513-524.
26. Narin F. (1995). Patents as indicators for the evaluation of industrial research output. Scientometrics, 34 (3), 489-496.
27. Reitzig, M. (2002). Valuing patents and patent portfolios from a corporate perspective - Theoretical considerations, applied needs, and future challenges. UNECE Expert Background Paper, OPA/CONF. 1/2002/4.
28. Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes - validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33, 939-957.
29. Saaty, T L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (first ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
30. Schankerman, M. & Pakes, A. (1986). Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. The economic journal, 96 (384), 1052-1076.
31. Scherer, F M. (1996). The size distribution of profits from innovation. Annales d'Economie et de Statisique 49/50, 496-516.
32. Thomas, P. & McMillan, S. (2001). Using science and technology indicators to manage R&D as a business. Engineering Management Journal, 13 (3), 9-6.
33. Tong, X. & Frame, J D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23, 133-141.
34. van der Drift, J. (1989). Statistics of European patents on legal status and granting data. World Patent Information, 11, 243-249.
35. Xiao, G H., Wang, C., Jiang, H. & Guo, J T. (2008). Design and Construction of Indicator System for Patent Analysis and Evaluation. Library and Information Service, 52 (3), 96-99.