Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The emergence of patent citations as a tool for patent estimation has been subjected to equally vocal champions and critics. In additional to patent citation, this article aims to contribute other factors, including court decisions, claim language, extension cases, patent family and portfolio, which should be deliberated during patent evaluation. It introduces the subject-matter by discussing the specialties and peculiarities of these proposed factors. Furthermore, comparisons between the patent citations and these factors are presented by illustrating several well-known patents. The results of the comparisons reveal that an adverse conclusion might be drawn if a patent is estimated only based on citations. The conclusion supports Meyer’s study that “the general nature of a common framework for both scientific and patent citations would severely limit its usefulness.” Therefore, those factors discussed in the article would be a great asset in patent evaluation. However, it only illustrates their impact on patent estimation using a couple well-known patents. Future research would be needed to investigate these factors in a more detailed manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, 02-1598, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 22 August 2003.

  2. D. Malakoff, US court opens door to free trade in ideas, Science, 301 (2003) 1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. F. Narin, Patent bilbiometrics, Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Meyer, Patent citations in a novel field of technology — What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology, Scientometrics, 48(2) (2000) 151–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Meyer, What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations, Scientometrics, 49(1) (2000) 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. W. Glänzel, M. Meyer, Patents cited in the scientific literatures: An exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations, Scientometrics, 58(2) (2003) 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. F. Narin, M. Albert, P. Kroll, D. Hicks, The Link between Australian Patenting and Basic Science, CHI Research, Inc., 2000.

  8. É. Gauthier, Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific and Technological Research: A User’s Guide to the Methodology, Science and Technology Redesign Project, Statistics Canada, September 1998.

  9. The Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) of the National Science Foundation, Technological Importance of Asian patents, www.nsf.gov/srs/s4495/conten1b.htm

  10. M. M. S. Karki, K. S. Krishnan, Patent citation analysis: a policy analysis tool, World Patent Information, 19(4) (1998) 269–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. R. Dalpe, Bibliometrics analysis of biotechnology, Scientometrics, 55(2) (2002) 189–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. D. Hicks, F. Narin, Strategic research alliance and 360 degree bibliometric indicators, Strategic research partnerships: Proceeding from an NSF Workshop, Arlington, VA (NSF 01-336), August 2001.

  13. V. M. Smith, Who’s who in additives — a technological approach, Chem. Weekly, 38 (1993) 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. H. Hall, A. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, Market value and patent citations, The Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1) (2005) 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. K. Chakrabarti, Competition in high technology: analysis of problems of US, Japan, UK, France, West Germany and Canada. IEEE Trans Eng Mang. EM-38(1) (1991) 78–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. W. G. Hanchuk, How to read a patent: understanding the language of proprietary rights. In: From Ideas to Assets, In: B. Berman (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. F. Breitzman, F. Narin, Method and Apparatur for Choosing a Stock Portfolio, Based on Patent Indicators, US Patent 6175824, 2001.

  18. F. Narin, D. Olivastro, Technology indicators based on patents and patent citations. In: A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North Holland: Elsevier Publisher, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. F. Narin, V. M. Smith, M. B. Albert, What patents tell you about your competition, Chemtech, 23(2) (1993) 52–69.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shyh-Jen Wang, Patent Engineering (in Chinese), Jun Jie Academy Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. W. Grubb, Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. P. Carpenter, F. Narin, Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence, World Patent Information, 5(3) (1983) 180–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. A. Verbeek, K. Debackere, M. Luwel, Science cited in patents: a geographic “flow” analysis of bibliographic citation patterns in patents, Scientometrics, 58(2) (2003) 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M. Meyer, Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature, Research Policy, 29 (2000) 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. W. Kondro, Canadian High Court Rejects OncoMouse, Science, 298 (2002) 2112–2113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 96-1175, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 22 July 1997.

  27. D. Pressman, Patent It Yourself, 8th edition, Nolo, Berkelet, CA USA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. H. J. Knight, Patent Strategy for Researchers and Research Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, USA (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  29. G. Stix, Working system II, Scientific American, (2004) (3) 41.

  30. The basic filing fee for the US utility patent is $770 or $385 for small entity (if applicable), www.uspto.gov/go/fees/fee2004jul26.htm

  31. Bertran Rowland and Cohen/Boyer cloning patent, www.law.gwu.edu/tech/rowland.asp

  32. The definition of ‘Family’ by the Delphion Patent database (www.delphion.com).

  33. The patent maintenance fees due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years are $910, $2090 and $3220 or $455, $1045 and $1610 for small entity if applicable.

  34. D. Kennedy, Academic Duty, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  35. O. Granstrand, The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, Camberley UK, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. G. Stix, Take a number, toilet reservations afford a glimpse of the world of business-method patents, Scientific American, Staking Claims 2003/2, 2003.

  37. P. Thomas, F. Narin, System and Method for Producing Technology-based Price Targets for a Company Stock. US Patent 6832211, 2004 Sec. 14 issued.

  38. J. A. Barney, J. R. Barney, V. A. McLean, Method and System for Rating Patents and Other Intangible Assets. US Patent 6556992, 2003 Apr. 29 issued.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Experimental Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201 Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 112, Taiwan

    Shyh-Jen Wang

  2. Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shyh-Jen Wang

  3. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shyh-Jen Wang

Authors
  1. Shyh-Jen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shyh-Jen Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, SJ. Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics 71, 509–522 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1698-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1698-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation