WO2001084425A2

WO2001084425A2 - Method, computer program product, and system for determining potential licensees of a patent portfolio

Info

Publication number: WO2001084425A2
Application number: PCT/US2001/013230
Authority: WO
Inventors: Stephen K. Boyer; Thomas Downes Griffen; Alex Miller
Original assignee: Delphion, Inc.
Priority date: 2000-04-28
Filing date: 2001-04-25
Publication date: 2001-11-08
Also published as: WO2001084423A2; AU2001255609A1; AU2001255618A1; AU2001257263A1; AU2001257225A1; WO2001084424A2; WO2001084426A2

Description

METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL LICENSEES OF A PATENT PORTFOLIO

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention.

The present invention relates to systems and methods for making patent documents or

portions thereof, such as abstracts, readily available through a computer interface. More

specifically, the invention relates to ways of providing meaningful insights by processing a set

of existing patents to determine other relevant information.

2. Present State of the Art.

Patent data, including full text and/or images of patents, portions of patents (e.g., patent

abstracts, etc.), is available in computer databases and is well known in the art. Currently, a

number of companies provide patent information over the Internet, including the United States

Patent and Trademark Office, The Intellectual Property Network, and others. While much of

the current information is centered around patents issued by the United States, increasingly

there is more information from all granting authorities worldwide.

These databases of patent information typically allow searching of the database to find

patents of interest. Some searching can be done on the entire text of a patent while other

searching is limited to certain portions of patent such as the claims or abstracts. Such searching

allows patents of interest to be found by researchers, attorneys, patent examiners, etc.

Additionally, in order to make finding relevant patents more convenient, some patent databases

provide the ability to follow links to patents that cite a given patent or were cited by the

examiner in the prosecution of a given patent.

In many instances, services are also available in association with the actual patent data. For example, it is common to be able to search for patents in a database and then "order" any

particular patents of interest to be delivered to you by mail, fax, etc.

Patent databases are used by professional patent searchers doing prior art searches or

validity searches for clients, patent examiners during the course of patent application

examination, business people to understand areas of technology, and others. Companies who

own patents can also conveniently track competitors' patent issuance activity using such patent

databases.

Elements of textual analysis tools have been applied to patent databases in order to

extract higher-level information or put more meaning into existing data. See, for example, Text

Mining Applied to Patent Analysis by Hehenberger, et. al., IBM Corp. White Paper, 1998

There is a great need for such intelligent information and ever less expensive computer

processing provides ample opportunity to provide such information.

What is needed are ways of calculating relevant intelligent information over what is

currently offered by patent database providers and patent analysis products. This will allow

new and important insights to be made by the users of such patent databases.

One needed insight is the ability to determine potential licensees for a particular patent

portfolio. Currently, a company having a patent portfolio and desiring to find other companies

that might want to license the portfolio rely upon general knowledge of the particular industry,

searching for like competitors, etc. It would be beneficial to gain insight from analyzing patent

data in order to find not so obvious companies that may be interested in a particular patent

portfolio. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One aspect of the present invention will determine a ranked list of assignees that are

likely candidates for licensing a source patent portfolio. The assignees are picked from a set of

patents that is related or associated with the source patent portfolio.

When the present invention is invoked, a source patent portfolio is first created as a

starting point. This source patent portfolio may be input by hand or otherwise derived. For

example, an assignee may be indicated and all of the patents owned by that particular assignee

may be derived and used as the source patent portfolio.

Next, a set of associated patents is determined that are associated or related with the

source patent portfolio. There are many ways that patents may be associated with a source

patent portfolio and in all cases, the goal is to find patents that are technically similar to patents

in the source patent portfolio. For example, the set of associated patents could contain patents

having "backwards" references (i.e., patents cited as a reference by a patent in the source patent

portfolio), "forwards" references (i.e., patents that cite as a reference one of the patents in the

source patent portfolio), or "shared" references (i.e., patents that cite as reference at least on of

the references cited by a patent of the source patent portfolio).

Furthermore, the set of associated patents could be expanded upon by applying the same

reference analysis to the current set of associated patents to add patents thereto that are relevant.

This process can be done recursively to a specified number of levels or otherwise be stopped

according to a specific criteria (e.g., certain number of patents, etc.). A list of all the assignees in the set of associated patents is determined and those

assignees that are already licensed or for some other reason can be readily eliminated are

subtracted from the list.

The list of assignees (e.g., remaining assignees) is then organized based on one of

a number of different ranking criteria that give insight and meaning to the relationship of

the assignees of the associated patents with the source patent portfolio.

Some potential ranking criteria, include, but are not limited to, the following:

assignees with the most patents that contain at least one reference, assignees that have the

largest number of references, a ratio based on either number references or number patents

divided by the total number of patents owned by an assignee, any of the above with an

extra weighting given to a patent with multiple references or extra weighting given to a

type of reference, etc. Many different criteria can help organize the assignees in a manner

that allows different views into how a particular assignee is bound to the technology of

the source patent portfolio.

By carefully analyzing patent data, insights may be gained into which assignees

may likely have need of a license to a particular set of patents or source patent portfolio.

By looking at patent data globally, licensees that are not always apparent (e.g. , smaller

companies, companies with a pocket of technology in common with the source patent

portfolio) may be readily identified. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A more particular description of the invention briefly described above will be

rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the

appended drawings. These drawings depict only one or more typical embodiments of the

invention and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope. With respect

to the following drawings, like reference numbers denotes the same element throughout

the set of drawings.

Figure 1 is a block diagram of a computing device, such as a workstation, wherein

the present invention may be practiced.

Figure 2 is logical diagram of an exemplary environment and system of a patent

database accessible over the Internet where the present invention can be used and

implemented.

Figures 3A-3C are flow charts showing the operation of the system shown in

Figure 2 above. Figure 3A shows the steps for general patent searching, Figure 3B shows

the steps for accessing detailed information with respect to a certain patent, and Figure

3C shows the steps for accessing a patent image.

Figure 4 is a flow chart showing processing steps taken to create and present a list

of assignees related to a source patent portfolio by way of the classes covered by the

source patent portfolio and organized according to a ranking criteria.

Figure 5 is a flow chart showing processing steps taken to create and present a list of assignees associated to a source patent portfolio related by way of the references cited

in the patents of the source patent portfolio and organized according to a ranking criteria.

Figure 6 is a flow chart showing processing steps taken to create and present a list

of assignees associated to a source patent portfolio that takes into account the classes

covered by the source patent portfolio, the references cited in the patents of the source

patent portfolio, the patents with the classes that cite the patents of the source patent

portfolio, and patents of the source patent portfolio that have common references with

other patents in the set of classes. These assignees are also organized according to a

ranking criteria.

Figure 7 is a flow chart showing processing steps taken to create and present a list

of assignees that would be likely candidates for licensing a source patent portfolio and are

organized according to a ranking criteria.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

As used herein, the term "patent" refers to official technical grants from

governments or other organizations. Note that other technical materials could also be

organized and benefit by the present invention as long as they have the important

characteristics associated with governmental patent grants (i.e., able to be organized into

a classification system, cross-referencing, etc.). For example, many research journals

have extensive bibliographies of articles that are technologically related that function in

an analogous manner with respect to the techniques presented herein as "cited references"

in patent documents.

As used herein, the term "patent portfolio" means a set of one or more patents.

This set of patents are of particular interest for one reason or another. Preferably, though

not necessarily, a patent portfolio would be the set of all patents belonging to a single

assignee or inventor. Other types of portfolios could be used, however, such as the set of

known patents in a related technology, etc.

As used herein, the term "assignee" refers to the entity, such as a corporation, that

owns a particular patent usually by assignment. This term can also encompass inventors

who do not assign their invention. Those skilled in the art will recognize that equivalent

processing, results, and insight can be occur as disclosed herein with respect to inventor-

owners as owners by actual assignment. For scholarly articles and other publications, an "author" could be viewed in the same manner as an inventor and an affiliated

"organization," such as a company where the author works or university where the author

attends school, could be viewed as an assignee.

As used here, the term "classification system" refers to an organized and defined

method of grouping patents, usually, but not necessarily, along technology lines. A

patent must fit into at least one class of a classification system and in some instances fit

multiple classes. Examples of classification systems are the US patent classification

system and the International Classification system for patents as well as the classification

systems used by each country, organization, or entity that issues patents. Furthermore,

technical articles in research publications can also be placed into classification systems.

As used herein, the term "references" refers to other patents, technical articles,

and any other information that is associated with a patent. Usually, though not

necessarily, these are found by an Examiner or submitted by an applicant during the

course of patent prosecution and "cited" in the patent document. Generally speaking

references that are not patent reference are simply referred to as "other references."

Besides the official information associated with a particular patent, other information may

be associated with the patent and can be used in the same form as any other reference.

Those skilled in the art will recognize that numerous classification systems may

be devised that do not classify all the patents found in a country. For example, a

specialized software technology classification system could include patent documents granted from multiple governmental authorities and even include relevant scholarly

articles dealing solely with computer software.

Those skilled in the art will recognize that patents may be classified along other

lines besides technology and that users may develop arbitrary user-defined classification

systems. For example, patents may be classified into industry groups, product lines or

lines of business, etc.

the present invention may be practiced. The environment of Figure 1 comprises a single

representative computing device 100, such as a personal computer, workstation, laptop,

hand-held computer, information appliance, etc., including related peripheral devices.

The computing devicelOO includes a microprocessor 102 or equivalent processing

capability and a bus 104 to connect and enable communication between the

microprocessor 102 and the components of the computing device 100 in accordance with

known techniques. Note that in some computing devices there may be multiple

processors incorporated therein.

The microprocessor 102 communicates with storage 106 via the bus 104.

Memory 108, such as Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM),

flash memory, etc. is directly accessible while secondary storage device 1 10, such as a

hard disk, and removable storage device 112, such as a floppy diskette drive, CD ROM

drive, tape storage, etc. is accessible with additional interface hardware and software as is known and customary in the art. The removable storage device 1 12 will have associated

therewith an appropriate type of removable media 114, such as a diskette, CD, tape reel

or cartridge, solid state storage, etc. that will hold computer useable data and is a form of

computer useable medium. Note that a computing device 10 may have multiple

memories (e.g., RAM and ROM), secondary storage devices, and removable storage

devices (e.g., floppy drive and CD ROM drive).

The computing device 100 typically includes a user interface adapter 1 16 that

connects the microprocessor 102 via the bus 104 to one or more interface devices, such as

a keyboard 118, a mouse or other pointing device 120, a display 122 (such as a CRT

monitor, LCD screen, etc.), a printer 124, or any other user interface device, such as a

touch sensitive screen, digitized entry pad, etc. Note that the computing device 100 may

use multiple user interface adapters in order to make the necessary connections with the

user interface devices.

The computing device 100 may also communicate with other computing devices,

computers, workstations, etc. or networks thereof through a communications adapter 126,

such as a telephone, cable, or wireless modem, ISDN Adapter, DSL adapter, Local Area

Network (LAN) adapter, or other communications channel. This gives the computing

device direct access to networks 128 (LANs, Wide Area Networks (WANs), the Internet,

etc.), telephone lines 130 that may be used to access other networks or computers,

wireless networks 132, such cellular telephone networks, and other communication

mechanisms. Note that the computing device 100 may use multiple communication adapters for making the necessary communication connections (e.g., a telephone modem

card and a Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD). The computing device 100 may be

associated with other computing devices in a LAN or WAN, or the computing device can

be a client or server in a client/server arrangement with another computer, etc. All these

configurations, as well as the appropriate communications hardware and software, are

known in the art.

The computing device 100 provides the facility for running software, such as

Operating System software 134, Middleware software 136, and Application software 138.

Note that such software executes tasks and may communicate with various software

components on this and other computing devices.

As will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, computer programs such

as that described herein (including Operating System software 134, Middleware software

136, and/or Application software 138) are typically distributed as part of a computer

program product that has a computer useable media or medium containing or storing the

program code. Therefore, "media", "medium", "computer useable medium", or

"computer useable media" , as used herein, may include a computer memory (RAM

and/or ROM), a diskette, a tape, a compact disc, an integrated circuit, a programmable

logic array (PLA), a remote transmission over a communications circuit, a remote

transmission over a wireless network such as a cellular network, or any other medium

useable by computers with or without proper adapter interfaces. Note that examples of a

computer useable medium include but are not limited to palpable physical media, such as a CD Rom, diskette, hard drive and the like, as well as other non-palpable physical

media, such as a carrier signal, whether over wires or wireless, when the program is

distributed electronically. Note also that "servlets" or "applets" according to JAVA

technology available from Sun Microsystems out of Mountain View, CA, would be

considered computer program products.

Although the enabling instructions might be "written on" on a diskette or tape,

"stored in" an integrated circuit or PLA, "carried over" a communications circuit or

wireless network, it will be appreciated, that for purposes of the present invention

described herein, the computer useable medium will be referred to as "bearing" the

instructions, or the instructions (or software) will be referred to as being "on" the

medium. Thus, software or instructions "embodied on" a medium is intended to

encompass the above and all equivalent ways in which the instructions or software can be

associated with a computer useable medium.

For simplicity, the term "computer program product" is used to refer to a

computer useable medium, as defined above, which bears or has embodied thereon any

form of software or instructions to enable a computer system (or multiple cooperating

systems) to operate according to the above-identified invention.

The term "data structure" refers to a particular organization of meaningful data

values that can be used in a predetermined fashion. For example, a network packet has a

variety of different data elements that are used and accessed by communications networks

and computer nodes for transporting the packet between different computer systems. The packet, as described above, is a data structure and has a tangible embodiment in a

computer useable medium when stored in a file, when loaded into system memory, when

transported across a communications network, etc. in the same fashion as a computer

program product.

It will be likewise appreciated that the computer hardware upon which the

invention is effected contains one or more processors, operating together, substantially

independently, or distributed over a network, and further includes memory for storing the

instructions and calculations necessary to perform the invention.

Those skilled in the art will recognize that a system according to the present

invention may be created in a variety of different ways known in the art. For example, a

general purpose computing device as described in Figure 1 may be configured with

appropriate software so that the computing device functions as described hereafter.

Furthermore, discrete electronic components may be used to create a system that

implements all or part of the functional. Finally, note that combinations of multiple

computing devices running appropriate software or discrete electrical components can be

used in like fashion. Essentially, the hardware is configured (whether by software,

custom designed, etc.) to perform the functional elements making up the present

invention.

Referring to Figure 2 a logical diagram of an exemplary environment and system

of a patent database accessible over the Internet is shown. Client systems 200 are

connected to the Internet 202 where they may access the patent database service 204 (represented by the enclosed systems). Note that client systems are typically any

computing device 100 that have access to the Internet and will include an ever growing

number of devices from Internet "appliances" to cell phones to conventional PCs running

web browsing software.

The patent database service 204 interacts with clients 200 by way of a web server

206 that receives requests and serves up pages or documents in HTML format. These

pages can be read by common browser software running on the clients 200 and form the

user interface with the patent database service 204. For example, a page exist that allow a

user to enter a query for patent data while another page will contain a "hit" list of patents

that meet the criteria specified in the query. Furthermore, pages can be used to have

hardcopies of selected patents faxed to a recipient or printed and mailed to a recipient or

to access any other service supported.

The web server is connected to a Local Area Network (LAN) 208 that allows

communication with other systems that make up the patent data service 204. Actual

patent data is accessible as textual data through a database server 210 with textual data

stored in relational tables in the patent data base 212, as image data through image server

214 with patent image data stored on CD ROM towers 216, and as a searchable index

through the index server 218 that contains an index of the relational tables in the patent

data base 212. The DB2 relational database server from IBM corporation is one preferred

relational database server and others exist in the marketplace.

The patent data is loaded into the patent database 212 and organized in tables according to the various parts of the patent documents. Raw patent data found in a flat

file is parsed into defined fields appropriate for servicing queries on the data. Using US

patent data as an example, the database may be set up with a main"table" for "Patents"

with each entry having a patent number (patn), the main United States class of the patent

(US_class), etc. Other tables could be used to show the linkage between patents or

between patents and other technical references. Note that those skilled in the art will

recognize that the data can be and in many instances should be organized in different

tables in order to achieve efficient operation in terms of storage and data base

performance. For purposes of example teaching, a logical organization of patent data is

presented below:

Patents(patn, assignee_name, US_class, licensee flag, . . ) The "Patents" table

contains the bulk of the patent information. Besides the patent number (patn), the

assignee (assignee_name), the main United States class of the patent (US class), and an

indication if the assignee is licensed (licensee_flag), the table may contain entries for the

various parts of the issues patent such as abstract, claims, etc. Additional information

about the patent such as whether it is or has been involved in litigation, whether the

maintenance fees are current, etc. can also be placed in this table. Only those columns

that are relevant to explain the present embodiment are shown. When an assignee is

licensed to a particular patent, the licensee_flag will be marked to true or 'Y'. Note that

those skilled in the art may elaborate upon this basic structure to include sub classes or

multiple classification systems and other apparent modifications. Pref(patn, pat_reference. . . ) The "Patent Reference" (Pref) table allows for

making the connections between different patents. Each entry is a patent number (patn)

and a patent number of a reference cited for that patent (pat_reference). There is a many-

to-many relationship between patn and pat_reference since a given patent may have many

patent references cited thereto and the same patent may be cited in many different patents.

Oref(patn, other reference,. . . ) The "Other Reference" (Oref) table allows for

making connections between patents and other technical publications. Each entry is a

patent number (patn) and a reference cited for that patent (other reference). There is a

many-to-many relationship between patn and other_reference since a given patent may

have many technical publication references cited thereto and the same technical

publication may be cited in many different patents.

The preceding general tables are presented in logical format and it is understood

that an actual implementation may break the tablea up in such a manner as will facilitate

management of such a large amount of data as is required for collections of patent data.

Note also that a patent data service 204 may take information from multiple

sources to build the patent database 212. For example, the US patent office periodically

releases current status on the payment of maintenance fees required to keep a patent in

force. This information may be combined with the information issued patents to know

whether a particular patent is still enforceable or not.

Another example would be the utilization of assignee changes published

periodically due to mergers, acquisitions, etc. The power of organizing the patent information in the form of relational tables allows easy correlation of this changed

information received after the fact to the issued patent data.

Those skilled in the art will realize that a patent data service could also bring in

relevant information beyond that provided by an issuing authority. For example,

information regarding the assignee could be placed in the database or otherwise made

available (i.e., links to other databases or web sites).

Once the date has been appropriately parsed into a database (preferably an SQL

relational database, such as IBM's dB/2) users can then perform (SQL) queries on the

data to search for desired data. In a relational environment, the powerful capabilities of

relational operations can be used advantageously to get information that would be very

difficult to obtain if the data was organized in other formats, such as stored as flat files.

Other elements that are part of the patent data service are image servers 214 that

are used to access images of the actual patents stored on a number of CD ROM towers

216, an index server 218 that provides an easily searchable index of all the patent data in

the patent database 212, a fax server 220 that is used to fax an image of a patent or other

information to a recipient fax machine 222, and a print server 224 that will print patent

documents or other data onto a printer 226. Together, the constituent elements of the

patent data service 204 provide base patent data services, such as access to full text

searching on patent data or patent document delivery services, and more advanced

services.

Those skilled in the art will recognize that many variations on the patent data service 204 as shown can be made without changing the basic purposes of the service.

For example, not all of the different servers are needed depending on the level of service

provided. For example, if fax delivery is not supported, the fax server 220 is not needed.

Additionally, a single physical machine may support more than one of the servers

illustrated.

Referring now to Figures 3A-3C, flow charts showing operation of the patent data

service 204 are presented. Figure 3A is an example operation of processing a query.

Though this example deals with query processing that returns a "hit list" of patent

numbers and titles, it is instructive to show the operation of the system. Initially, one of

the clients 200 will contact the web server 206 that will return a web page interface to the

client at step 300. This web page will have an area that allows the user to indicate a

query to the patent database. Once the user selects the query terms he will depress a

search button or otherwise cause the query information to be transmitted to web server

206.

At step 302, the HTTP request containing the query information is received at the

web server 206. The web server 206 will process the information and determine that a

query is desired and what search terms need to be used and will make access to the index

server 218 over the LAN 208. A Common Gateway Interface (CGI) script is typically

used to translate the search terms found in the HTML document to proper SQL

statements that can be processed by a database search engine. Note also, that XML with

stylesheets may also be implemented to provide the HTML compatible pages to browsers and the like and allow further flexibility to the patent data service.

The index server 218 has a search engine and a patent index to all the patent data

found in relational patent data base 212. The index server 218 will receive the SQL

query and execute the search into the patent index at step 304; returning the results to the

web server 206. These results come back in the form of a "hit list" indicating a patent

number, issue date, and title. Finally, the web server 206 manipulates the hit list data into

the proper format and serves up the search results in an HTML document that is returned

in the HTTP response to the client. The user can then view the search results using the

HTML capable browsing software executing on the client.

Referring now to Figure 3B, a flow chart showing the steps taken to access more

detailed patent information is presented. Again, the client is provided some form of user

interface in an HTML page by the web server 206 at step 308. This may be part of the hit

list page discussed previously (e.g., clicking on the patent number or title might trigger a

request for more detailed information) or in an unrelated page.

At step 310, the HTTP request containing the request for more detailed

information regarding a specific patent is received at the web server 206. The web server

206 will process the request and will make access to the data base server 216 over the

LAN 208 to retrieve the detailed information. Again, a CGI script is used to create the

proper SQL statement(s) that direct the search engine.

This detailed information can be anything according to the system design up to

including the entire text of the patent along with other relevant information. One example set of "detailed" information is the first page data of a US patent along with the

abstract and initial claim.

The data base server 210 will execute the search into the relational patent data

base 212 at step 312 and return the results to the web server 206. Next, the web server

206 arranges the detailed information into the proper format and serves up the search

results in an HTML document that is returned in the HTTP response to the client. This

formatting may include links that will cause the patent data service 204 to provide

additional detailed information (e.g., the short summary or other section of the patent that

wasn't provided previously), links to request images of the actual patent document,

additional services, etc. The user can then view the detailed information using the HTML

capable browsing software executing on the client.

Referring now to Figure 3C, a flow chart showing the steps taken to download an

image of an actual patent document is presented. Again, the client is provided some form

of user interface in an HTML page by the web server 206 at step 316. This may be part

of the hit list page discussed previously (e.g., clicking on button might trigger a request

for the patent image) or in an unrelated page that lets the user designate which patent(s)

are desired as an image of the original patent document.

At step 318, the HTTP request containing the request for the image regarding a

specific patent is received at the web server 206. The web server 206 will process the

request and will make access to one or more image servers 214 over the LAN 208 to

retrieve the patent image from the CD ROM towers 216 storing a library of such images. The user can request the patent image to be in any one of commonly available formats

such as TIFF, PDF, etc.

The image server 214 will access the image from the CD ROM towers 216 at step

320 and return the results in the proper image format to the web server 206. Finally, the

web server 206 causes the patent image to be downloaded to the client where it can be

viewed, saved, printed, or otherwise manipulated by the user at step 324.

Referring now to Figure 4, a flow chart showing the processing steps taken to

create a list of assignees that are related to a source patent portfolio by having classes of a

classification system in common is presented. The results of such an analysis can give

insight into what other assignees are heavily involved in the same technology areas as

that covered by the source patent portfolio.

Initially, at step 400 a source patent portfolio is created or identified. Those

skilled in the art will recognize that there are many ways that could be employed to

determine a set of patents that make up a source patent portfolio. For example, A user

may select the individual patents of interest that make up the source patent portfolio

though this could be a tedious task. Alternatively, the source patent portfolio may be

based on a search of the patent database 212.

One useful way is to base the source patent portfolio on some or all of the patents

held by a particular assignee. The desired assignee can be received by the web server 206

and all of the patents can be determined for that assignee and used as a source patent

portfolio. Depending on whether we use the assignee code used by the USPTO or an assignee name, the following SQL statement against the table definitions presented

previously would return the desired patent numbers to make an assignee source patent

portfolio:

SELECT patn FROM Patents

WHERE assignee_name = <name>

Assignees can be organized according to name and/or preferably by the USPTO

normalized assignee number. Using the assignee number is generally a more reliable way

of getting all of the patents for a particular assignee as variations in assignee name or

typographical errors will be recognized as different assignees. Below is an example of an

SQL statement using the assignee code that can be derived from an assignee name.

SELECT patn FROM Patents

WHERE assignee_code = <code>

Once a source patent portfolio has been created, the set of classes in a

classification system covered by the source patent portfolio is determined in step 402.

The source patent portfolio will be referred to as PORTFOLIO and is composed of a set

of patent numbers.

Once the desired source patent portfolio PORTFOLIO is created, the set of

classes, COVERED CLASSES, that are covered by the source patent portfolio is

determined at step 402. Again using the example of US patent data organized into

relational tables indicated previously, one way to achieve this is shown with the following SQL statement will would return the appropriate set of US classes:

SELECT DISTINCT US_class FROM Patents WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

Now, a set of patents representing all the patents in the covered classes occurs at

step 404. This operates as an intermediary set for further processing. One way to achieve

this using patent data organized in relational tables as presented previously requires

issuing the following SQL statement to create a set of patents, COVERED PATENTS:

SELECT DISTINCT patn

FROM Patents

WHERE US_class IN SELECT US_class FROM COVERED_CLASSES

From this intermediate set of patents, all the distinct assignees are determined at

step 406. Furthermore, each distinct assignee will eventually be organized according to a

ranking criteria that will help provide meaning into the relationship of the assignee with

respect to the covered classes.

As used herein, the term "ranking criteria" refers to many different forms of

organizing the assignees. While some examples follow, those skilled in the art will

clearly recognize ways of ranking or otherwise organizing a group of assignees so that the

most relevant assignees for a particular purpose can be easily identified.

For example, one simple criteria is that of the assignees with the most patents in

the covered classes should be ranked highest will indicate which assignees (i.e.,

companies or competitors) are most present in the classes of the source patent portfolio. At step 408 the number of patents for each assignee is determined and the assignees are

ranked according to the number of patents in the covered classes in step 410. An

example SQL statement that can achieve this result using the tables of US patent data

shown previously and the intermediate results explained above:

SELECT COUNT(patn) AS pcount, assignee_name

FROM Patents

WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM COVERED_PATENTS

GROUP BY assignee name

ORDER BY pcount

Such an SQL statement would return results in the example format of Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

Another way of ranking the distinct assignees determined in step 406 is to provide

a weighted view of the patents in the covered classes so that an indication of a given

assignee's (i.e., company's, competitor's) total portfolio is in the covered classes. In

other words, those assignees who have a large percentage of their total patents in the covered classes will tend to be ranked higher even if they have relatively fewer patents

than other assignees who have more patents numerically in the covered classes. This

tends to focus more on an assignee's focus along a particular technology and may be

more relevant.

This can be easily done by finding the number of total patents for each assignee

(in all classes) and dividing this number into the number found in the covered classes.

This gives a ratio of the total patents to the patents in the covered classes for each

assignee.

As an example, the total number of patents for each assignee can be determined

by the following SQL statement:

SELECT COUNT(patn) AS pcount, assignee name

FROM Patents

WHERE assignee_name IN

(SELECT assignee_name FROM Patents

WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM COVERED_PATENTS)) GROUP BY assignee_name ORDER BY pcount

Given this information, the calculations can readily be made to determine the ratio

above indicating the amount each assignee is invested into the covered classes and the

results tabulated into Table 2 below:

TABLE 2

Reviewing the results of Table 2 in comparison with Table 1 , we note that while

assignee ABC had significantly fewer patents than assignee XYZ, all of those patent were

in the covered classes and would suggest that the entire company is centered around the

technology of the covered classes. XYZ, on the other hand, while well represented and

covered by patents in the covered classes does not have a significant portion of its overall

technology portfolio (as represented by issued patents) in the covered classes.

Finally, at step 412, the results of the previous steps processing' that created the

ranked list of assignees related by the classes covered by the source patent portfolio is

presented to a user. In the environment of the patent data service 204, this is done by

returning the results of the SQL statements done on the relational patent data base 212 by the data base server 210 to the web server 206. The results are formatted for the client by

the web server 206 and sent to a client browser in response to an initial request.

Referring now to Figure 5, a flow chart showing the processing steps taken to

create a list of assignees that are related to a source patent portfolio by having cited

references in common is presented. The results of such an analysis can give insight into

what other assignees are heavily involved in the same technology areas as that covered by

the source patent portfolio.

Initially, at step 500 a source patent portfolio is created or identified. The various

ways a patent portfolio can be created was explained in more detail above. Those skilled

in the art will recognize that there are many ways that could be employed to determine a

set of patents that make up a source patent portfolio.

Once a source patent portfolio has been created, the set of cited references covered

by the source patent portfolio is determined in step 502. The source patent portfolio will

be referred to as PORTFOLIO and is composed of a set of patent numbers.

Once the desired source patent portfolio PORTFOLIO is created, the set of cited

patent references, COVERED PATENT REFERENCES, and the set of other references,

COVERED OTHER REFERENCED, contained in the source patent portfolio is

determined at step 502. Again using the US patent data organized into relational tables

indicated previously, we can use all of the patents contained in the bibliographic

information for each of the patents in PORTFOLIO as an example of a set of cited

references. Note that those skilled in the art could include the other non-patent references in the bibliographic information or data outside of the patent itself but afterwards related

in some way. For the cited patent data example, this is shown with the following SQL

statement(s) which will return the set of cited patent references,

COVERED PATENT REFERENCES, and a set of other references,

COVERED DTHER REFERENCES, that together include references to other US

patents (pat references) and references to other material (other_references), such as

academic publications, professional journals, etc. The SQL statement below is used for

COVERED PATENT REFERENCES:

SELECT DISTINCT pat_reference FROM Pref WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

To determine COVERED OTHER REFERENCES, a similar SQL statement is used:

SELECT DISTINCT other reference

FROM Oref

WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

Now, a set of patents representing all the patents that have cited therein at least

one of the references from the cited references lists,

COVERED PATENT REFERENCES and COVERED OTHER REFERENCES, is

computed at step 504. This operates as an intermediary set for further processing and is

known as SHARED_REFERENCE_PATENTS. One way this can be done using patent data organized in relational tables as presented previously requires joining the following

SQL statements to create a set of patents, SHARED REFERENCE PATENTS:

SELECT DISTINCT patn FROM Pref WHERE pat_reference IN SELECT pat_reference FROM

COVERED_PATENT_REFERENCES

SELECT DISTINCT patn FROM Oref WHERE other reference IN SELECT other_reference FROM

COVERED OTHER REFERENCES

step 506. Furthermore, each distinct assignee will eventually be organized according to a

respect to the source patent portfolio.

For example, one simple criteria is that of ranking the assignees with the most

patents having at least one common cited references with one of the patents in the source

patent portfolio (i.e. , the most patents in SHARED_REFERENCE_PATENTS). The

highest ranked will indicate which assignees (i.e., companies or competitors) are most

linked by common references to the source patent portfolio. It should follow that the

assignees are in very much the same technology area at the source patent portfolio since

the patent examiners are citing the same relevant art, the inventors have knowledge of the

same references that they submit, searches performed by counsel and submitted are

uncovering the same technology, etc. Since some patents by a particular assignee may contain more than one of the

cited references found in COVERED_PATENT_REFERENCES or

COVERED OTHER REFERENCES, another ranking criteria would be to count the

total number of cited references (regardless of the number of patents) contained within all

the patents held by an assignee. This would allow an assignee having relatively fewer

patents with common cited references but having patents that have multiple common

cited references per patent to be better reflected in a ranking. Those skilled in the art will

see further variations that take into account multiple references "linking" patents together,

forward references and backward references in addition to shared references, references to

common non-patent related information (both cited in the patent and later associated with

the patent database), etc.

At step 508 the number of patents for each assignee is determined and the

assignees are ranked according to the number of patents that have at least one common

cited reference from those in the source patent portfolio in step 510. An example SQL

statement that can achieve this result using the tables of US patent data shown previously

and the intermediate results explained above:

SELECT COUNT(patn) AS pcount, assignee name FROM Patents

WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM SHARED_REFERENCE_PATENTS GROUP BY assignee name ORDER BY pcount

Such an SQL statement would return results in the example format of Table 3 below:

TABLE 3

Another way of ranking the distinct assignees determined in step 506 is to provide

a weighted view of the patents having a common cited reference with respect to an

assignee's (i.e., company's, competitor's) total portfolio. In other words, those assignees

who have a large percentage of their total patents having cited references in common with

the source patent portfolio will tend to be ranked higher even if they have relatively fewer

patents than other assignees who have more numerous patents with common cited

references.

(in all classes) and dividing this number into the number found having common cited

references. This gives a ratio of the total patents to the patents in the covered classes for

each assignee.

As an example, the total number of patents for each assignee can be determined

by the following SQL statement: SELECT COUNT(patn) AS pcount, assignee_name

FROM Patents

WHERE assignee_name IN

(SELECT assignee name

FROM Patents

WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM SHARED_REFERENCE_PATENTS)) GROUP BY assignee name ORDER BY pcount

above indicating the amount invested each assignee over the common cited references

and the results tabulated into Table 4 below:

TABLE 4

Reviewing the results of Table 4 in comparison with Table 3, we note that while assignee ABC had significantly fewer patents than assignee XYZ, all of those patent had

at least one cited reference in common with one of the patents in the source patent

portfolio, suggesting a close alignment with the technology covered by the source patent

portfolio. XYZ, on the other hand, while having many patents with common cited

references may not be as aligned with the technology found in the source patent portfolio.

Finally, at step 512, the results of the previous steps processing that created the

returning the results of the SQL statements done on the relational patent data base 212 by

the data base server 210 to the web server 206. The results are formatted for the client by

Referring now to Figure 6, a flow chart showing processing steps taken to create

and present a list of assignees associated to a source patent portfolio that takes into

account the classes covered by the source patent portfolio, the references cited in the

patents of the source patent portfolio, the patents with the classes that cite the patents of

the source patent portfolio, and patents of the source patent portfolio that have common

references with other patents in the set of classes. As before, the results of such an

analysis can give insight into what other assignees are heavily involved in the same

technology areas as that covered by the source patent portfolio.

Initially, at step 600 a source patent portfolio is created or identified. The various

ways a patent portfolio can be created was explained in more detail above and will be composed of a set of patent numbers and referred to as PORTFOLIO.

Once the desired source patent portfolio PORTFOLIO is created, the set of

classes, COVERED_CLASSES, that are covered by the source patent portfolio is

determined at step 602. Again using the example of US patent data organized into

relational tables indicated previously, one way to achieve this is shown with the

following SQL statement will would return the appropriate set of US classes:

SELECT DISTINCT US_class FROM Patents WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

step 604. This operates as an intermediary set for further processing. One way to achieve

SELECT DISTINCT patn

FROM Patents

WHERE US class IN SELECT US_class FROM COVERED CLASSES

At step 606, the references cited in the patents that are in source patent portfolio is

made so that all the patents in the covered classes that are cited can be determined and

made part of a set of correlated patents, CORRELATED PATENTS. The set of

correlated patents will contain patents of interest, namely those having forward

references, backward references, and shared references between the source patent

portfolio and the patents in the covered classes. The greater number of these "linkages" on an assignee basis will tend to indicate similarity between patents owned by an

assignee and the source patent portfolio.

A "backward" reference is one where a particular reference shows up on a patent

in the source patent portfolio (or other relevant group of patents) and is backwards in time

(i.e., the reference typically predates the patent citing it). A "forward" reference are

references to a patent in a source patent portfolio (or other relevant group of patents) and

an is forward in time (i.e., the patent that has the reference is later than the patent cited).

A "shared" reference is the same reference showing up both in a patent of the source

patent portfolio and in a patent contained in the set of covered classes or other relevant

group of patents (e.g., all patents, an industry group of patents, etc.).

Initially, the set of correlated patents contains patent correlated by being in the

same covered classes as the source patent portfolio and also being cited by at least one of

the patents in the source patent portfolio. These are the "backward" references from the

patents in the source patent portfolio to the patents in the covered classes. One way this

can be done is shown in the following SQL statements. First, a set of unique patent

references, UPR, is determined for the source patent portfolio:

SELECT DISTINCT patjreference FROM Pref WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

Note that only patent references are sought since, for this example, the source

patent portfolio and patents in the covered classes are composed of only patents and not other kinds of documents. Then, those patents in the covered classes that are actually

cited by one of the patents in the source patent portfolio is given by:

SELECT DISTINCT patn

FROM COVERED PATENTS

WHERE patn IN SELECT pat reference FROM UPR

Additionally, at step 608, the patents in the covered classes that cite any of the

patents in the source patent portfolio are determined. These are the "forward" references

from the patents in the covered classes to the patents in the source patent portfolio. This

can be done using the following SQL statement:

SELECT DISTINCT pat_reference FROM Pref WHERE patn IN (SELECT patn

FROM COVERED PATENTS) AND pat reference IN (SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO)

These patents are also added to the set of correlated patents. Now, the set of

correlated patents contains patents with forward references (i.e., those from the patents in

the covered classes to patents in the source patent portfolio) and backwards references

(i.e., those from patents in the source patent portfolio to patents in the covered classes).

Next, we add to the set of correlated patents those patents in the covered classes

that have common or shared references with those patents in the source patent portfolio.

As a preliminary matter, the set of covered patent references, COVERED_PATENT_REFERENCES, and the set of covered other references,

COVERED_OTHER REFERENCES, from the source patent portfolio is ascertained at

step 610. Note that these references are all references (pat references + other_references)

that are cited in the patents of the source patent portfolio and the patents in the covered

classes and are not restricted to just the patent references. As before, an SQL statement

that can perform this operation for patent references is given by:

SELECT DISTINCT pat_reference

FROM Pref

WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

And for other references, the SQL statement is:

SELECT DISTINCT other reference

FROM Oref

WHERE patn IN SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO

Next, in step 612, the patents in the covered class that share or have a common

reference with the patents in the source patent portfolio is determined. Again, this can be

done using an SQL statement in the example environment, with the results being added to

the set of correlated patents. The following SQL for patent references:

SELECT DISTINCT patn FROM Pref

WHERE pat_reference IN

(SELECT pat reference

FROM COVERED PATENT REFERENCES) AND patn IN (SELECT patn

FROM COVERED PATENTS)

And the following SQL statement for other references: SELECT DISTINCT patn FROM Oref WHERE other_reference IN

(SELECT other reference FROM COVERED OTHERJREFERENCES) AND patn IN

(SELECT patn FROM COVERED PATENTS)

These patents having shared references are added to the set of correlated patents.

The set of correlated patents now contains patents from the covered classes having at

least one reference of either "backwards," "forward," or "shared" references.

Using this intermediate set of correlated patents, all the distinct assignees are

determined at step 614. At step 616, the number of forward and backwards references

between the patents in the source patent portfolio and the patents in the covered classes

will be determined for each assignee. At step 618, the number of times a reference is

shared between patents in the source patent portfolio with the patents in the covered

classes will be determined on an assignee basis.

Finally, at step 620, each distinct assignee will eventually be organized according

to a ranking criteria that will help provide meaning into the relationship of the assignee

with respect to the source patent portfolio. One way this can be done is to simply

tabulate the total number of references (backwards, forwards, and shared) between the

patents in the source patent portfolio and the patents in the covered classes.

Below are a set of SQL statements in the example environement that organize and

rank the assignees appearing in the set of correlated patents. By adding the results for each particular count value together, and then re-ranking or reordering the assignees

based total references, a ranked ordering of assignees having very similar technology to

the source patent portfolio results.

For "backwards" references:

SELECT COUNT(pat_reference) AS backward ref count, assignee name FROM Pref WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM COVERED PATENTS) AND patn IN

(SELECT pat_references

FROM UPR) GROUP BY assignee name ORDER BY backward_ref_count

This could give results according to Table 5 below:

TABLE 5 For "forward" references:

SELECT COUNT(pat_reference) AS forward_ref_count, assignee_name FROM Pref WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM PORTFOLIO) AND patn IN

(SELECT pat_references

FROM COVEREDJ-JPR) GROUP BY assignee name ORDER BY forward ref count

This could give results according to Table 6 below:

TABLE 6 For "shared" references, joining the following two statements (one for patent

references and the other for other references):

SELECT COUNT(pat_reference) AS shared ref count, assignee_name FROM Patents WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM COVERED_PATENTS) AND pat reference IN

(SELECT pat_reference

FROM COVERED PATENT REFERENCES) GROUP BY assignee_name ORDER BY shared ref count

SELECT COUNT(other reference) AS shared_ref_count, assignee name FROM Patents WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM COVERED PATENTS) AND other_reference IN (SELECT other_reference

FROM COVERED OTHER REFERENCES) GROUP BY assignee name ORDER BY shared ref count

This could give results according to Table 7 below:

TABLE 7

Combining the individual results (or using an appropriate SQL statement or

statements) would give the total ranked results as shown below in Table 8:

TABLE 8 Looking only at the total to report back, Table 9 below would indicate that

assignee LMN would have the most related technology based on the total number of

references:

TABLE 9

By weighting the shared references value by a factor of 5x, a different

organization of assignees will result. This would be useful in the case where sharing

references more highly indicates that the technology covered by the two sharing patents is

more similar. This is given by Tables 10 and 1 1 , respectively, shown below.

TABLE 10

Looking only at the total to report back, Table 9 below would indicate that

references:

TABLE 11

Finally, at step 622, the results of the previous steps processing' that created the

Those skilled in the art will see many variations that fit within the ambit of

managing and weighting the different kinds of references. For example, one form of

reference may be more heavily weighted in some fashion as shown above. Another

variation could involve other SQL code to determine multiple references per patent and

give additional weighting to those circumstances.

Referring now to Figure 7, a flow chart showing processing steps taken to create

and present a list of assignees that are likely candidates to license a source patent

portfolio is shown. Initially, at step 700 a source patent portfolio is created or identified. The various

ways a patent portfolio can be created was explained in more detail above and will be

composed of a set of patent numbers and referred to as PORTFOLIO.

At step 702, the patent references cited in the patents that are in the source patent

portfolio are added to a set of associated patents, ASSOCIATED PATENTS. The set of

associated patents will eventually contain patents indicating a technology relationship to

the source patent portfolio and may include those having forward references, backward

references, and shared references with respect to the source patent portfolio. The greater

number of these "linkages" on an assignee basis will tend to indicate similarity between

patents owned by an assignee and the source patent portfolio, and , hence, a likelihood

that a particular assignee would be a candidate for licensing.

A "backward" reference is one where a particular reference shows up on a patent

(i.e., the reference typically predates the patent citing it). A "forward" reference is a

reference to a patent in a source patent portfolio (or other relevant group of patents) and

patent portfolio and in another patent. This other patent may also be constrained to be

part of another group, such as those in a specified set of classes (see above) or from the

body of all patents.

Initially, the set of associated patents contains those patents that are cited by a patent in the source patent portfolio. One way this can be done is shown in the following

SQL statement:

SELECT DISTINCT pat_reference

FROM Pref

WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO)

Additionally, at step 704, patents that cite any of the patents in the source patent

portfolio are determined. These are the "forward" references to the patents in the source

patent portfolio. This can be done using the following SQL statement:

SELECT DISTINCT patn FROM Pref

WHERE pat reference IN (SELECT patn FROM PORTFOLIO)

These patents are also added to the set of associated patents. Now, the set of

associate patents contains patents with forward references (i.e., those to patents in the

source patent portfolio) and backwards references (i.e., those from patents in the source

patent portfolio).

Additional patents that are directly related to the source patent portfolio could also

be added to the set of associated patents could be expanded at this point in a number of

ways. For example, patents with shared references with the source patent portfolio could

be added. At step 706, a decision point is made as to whether to expand upon the set of

associated patents should be undertaken. Expansion is taken to widen out the number of

patents contained in the set of associated patents by looking at patents related to current

set of associated patents. This is done by looking at the associated patents and treating

them the same as the source patent portfolio to find even more related patents. In other

words, the current set of associated patents can be analyzed for backward, forward, and

shared references to still other patents. These other patents are then added to the set of

associated patents so that set of associated patents expands in size and breadth. This can

be done over a number of iterations or until a specific number of patents are in the set of

associated patents or any other criteria.

If the decision is made to expand the set of associated patents at step 706, one

embodiment will add to the set of associated patents, at step 708, all patents that are cited

by any one of the patents currently in the set of associated patents (i.e., backward

references). An SQL statement that can accomplish this is given as follows:

SELECT DISTINCT pat_reference

FROM Pref

WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn FROM ASSOCIATED PATENTS))

At step 710, we add all patents that cite any one of the patents currently in the set

of associated patents to the set of associated patents (i.e., forward references). This can

be accomplished with the following SQL statement: patent portfolio. This can be done, for example, using the following SQL statement:

SELECT DISTINCT patn FROM Pref WHERE pat_reference IN (SELECT patn FROM ASSOCIATED_PATENTS)

Note that it is desirable in some instances for the backward reference patent

should not be added into the set of associated patents until the forward reference patents

are gathered so as expand the set of associated patents equally. Note also that patents

with shared references with the current set of associated patents may also be ascertained

and added to the set of associated patents. Further, other related patents may added as

will be apparent to one skilled in the art.

The recursive querying capability of modern relational databases, such as DB2,

provide an easy mechanism to expand out the set of associated patents to many levels.

How many levels (or iterations through steps 706 - 710) will determine the size of the set

of associated patents from which assignees will be derived..

Next, at step 712, the assignees contained in the set of associated patents is

determined as RAW ASSIGNEES. An example SQL statement to achieve this would

be:

SELECT DISTINCT assignee name FROM Patents WHERE patn IN

(SELECT patn

FROM ASSOCIATED PATENTS) The assignees who have already been licensed are removed from the list of "raw"

assignees at step 714 and are seen as potential licensees. One way this can be done is

through the SQL statement below that presumes storing licensing information on a per

patent basis and builds upon the statement above:

SELECT DISTINCT assignee name FROM Patents WHERE patn IN (SELECT patn

FROM ASSOCIATED_PATENTS) AND licensee flag != 'Y'

Those skilled in the art will recognize that a list of licensed assignees (either by

name or PTO number) could be compiled and then subtracted from the list of "raw"

assignees.

At step 716, the potential licensees may be ranked according to numerous criteria

as has been explained previously. They can be ranked by the assignees with the most

patents in the set of associated patents or source patent portfolio, the largest number of

"references" to patents in the associated patents or source patent portfolio (e.g.,

backward, forward, and shared), a ratio based on either number references or number

patents divided by the total number of patents owned by an assignee, any of the above

with an extra weighting given to a patent with multiple references or extra weighting

given to a type of reference, etc.

Finally, at step 718, the results of the previous steps processing that created the ranked list of assignees that are potential licensees of a source patent portfolio is

Note that elements of the various scenarios shown in Figures 4-7 can be combined

as will be apparent by those skilled in the art. For example, the principle introduced in

connection with Figure 7, steps 706-710, that broadens out the number of patents to

successive levels can be applied to the scenarios shown in Figures 4-6.

By way of example and not limitation, the expansion principle can be applied is to

the set of cited references and patents having at least one of the references in Figure 5,

steps 502-504, by taking the SHARED REFERENCE PATENTS and working with

those patents as a starting point for determining the set of cited references to expand out

to another level. The effect of this expansion is to increase the number of

SHARED REFERENCE P ATENTS yields higher quality end results in many instances

since certain assignees are better represented. The same expansion could apply to the

scenario shown in Figure 6 where the set of correlated patents is likewise expanded to

successive levels.

While the preferred embodiment of the present invention has been described in

detail, it will be understood that modification and adaptations to the embodiment(s)

shown may occur to one of skill in the art without departing from the scope of the present invention as set forth in the following claims. Thus, the scope of this invention is to be

construed according to the appended claims and not just to the specifics disclosed in the

exemplary embodiment or embodiments.

References in the claims to an element in the singular is not intended to mean

"one and only" unless explicitly so stated, but rather "one or more." All structural and

function equivalents to the elements of the above-described exemplary embodiment that

are currently known or later come to be known to those of ordinary skill in the art are

expressly incorporated herein by reference and are intended to be encompassed by the

present claims. No element, component, or method step in the present disclosure is

intended to be dedicated to the public regardless of whether the element, component, or

method step is explicitly recited in the claims. No claim element herein is to be construed

under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, unless the element is expressly

recited using the phrase "means for" or "step for."

Claims

1. A method for determining potential licensees for a source patent portfolio

composed of one or more patents where each patent has one or more references cited

thereto, the method comprising:

devising a set of associated patents wherein each patent in the set i) cites

as a reference a patent in the source patent portfolio or ii) is cited as reference by a

patent in the source patent portfolio;

processing all of the patents in the set of associated patents to determine

the assignees contained in the set;

removing from the assignees all assignees that are currently licensed; and

organizing the remaining assignees according to a ranking criteria.

2. A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:

adding, to the set of associated patents, patents that cite as a reference

patents in the original set of associated patents or patents that are cited as a

reference by a patent in the original set of associated patents.

3. A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:

determining a set of cited references contained in the patents of the source

patent portfolio; adding, to the set of associated patents, patents that contain at least one of

the references found in the set of cited references.

4. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the source patent portfolio is the set of

all patents assigned to a particular assignee.

5. A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:

presenting the organized assignees in an HTML document that can be read

by an Internet browser.

6. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the ranking criteria is the frequency of

occurrence for each assignee in the set of associated patents.

7. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the ranking criteria is expressed as a

ratio of the total number of patents held by an assignee to the number of patents meeting

the criteria for the assignee in the set of correlated patents.

8. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the ranking criteria gives more weight

to assignees having patents that have commonly cited references with patents in the

source patent portfolio.

9. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the ranking criteria gives more weight

to assignees both i) having patents that have a reference to a patent in the source patent

portfolio and ii) having patents that are cited as a reference by a patent in the source

patent portfolio.

10. A computer program product comprising:

a computer usable medium;

computer readable instructions embodied on said computer useable

medium for determining potential licensees for a source patent portfolio

composed of one or more patents where each patent has one or more references

cited thereto, the instructions directing a computer to perform the steps of:

devising a set of associated patents wherein each patent in the set i)

cites as a reference a patent in the source patent portfolio or ii) is cited as

reference by a patent in the source patent portfolio;

processing all of the patents in the set of associated patents to

determine the assignees contained in the set;

removing from the assignees all assignees that are currently

licensed; and

organizing the remaining assignees according to a ranking criteria.

11. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 further comprising the

instructions directing a computer to perform the steps of:

adding, to the set of associated patents, patents that cite as a reference

reference by a patent in the original set of associated patents.

12. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 further comprising the

instructions directing a computer to perform the steps of:

determining a set of cited references contained in the patents of the source

patent portfolio;

adding, to the set of associated patents, patents that contain at least one of

the references found in the set of cited references.

13. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 wherein the source patent

portfolio is the set of all patents assigned to a particular assignee.

14. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 further comprising the

instructions directing a computer to perform the steps of:

presenting the organized assignees in an HTML document that can be read

by an Internet browser.

15. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 wherein the ranking

criteria is the frequency of occurrence for each assignee in the set of associated patents.

16. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 wherein the ranking

criteria is expressed as a ratio of the total number of patents held by an assignee to the

number of patents meeting the criteria for the assignee in the set of correlated patents.

17. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 wherein the ranking

criteria gives more weight to assignees having patents that have commonly cited

references with patents in the source patent portfolio.

18. A computer program product as recited in claim 10 wherein the ranking

criteria gives more weight to assignees both i) having patents that have a reference to a

patent in the source patent portfolio and ii) having patents that are cited as a reference by

a patent in the source patent portfolio.

19. A system for determining potential licensees for a source patent portfolio

thereto, the system comprising:

means for devising a set of associated patents wherein each patent in the

set i) cites as a reference a patent in the source patent portfolio or ii) is cited as reference by a patent in the source patent portfolio;

means for processing all of the patents in the set of associated patents to

determine the assignees contained in the set;

means for removing from the assignees all assignees that are currently

licensed; and

means for organizing the remaining assignees according to a ranking

criteria.

20. A system as recited in claim 19 further comprising:

means for adding, to the set of associated patents, patents that cite as a

reference patents in the original set of associated patents or patents that are cited

as a reference by a patent in the original set of associated patents.

21. A system as recited in claim 19 further comprising:

means for determining a set of cited references contained in the patents of

the source patent portfolio;

means for adding, to the set of associated patents, patents that contain at

least one of the references found in the set of cited references.

22. A system as recited in claim 19 wherein the source patent portfolio is the set

of all patents assigned to a particular assignee.

23. A system as recited in claim 19 further comprising:

means for presenting the organized assignees in an HTML document that

can be read by an Internet browser.

24. A system as recited in claim 19 wherein the ranking criteria is the frequency

of occurrence for each assignee in the set of associated patents.

25. A system as recited in claim 19 wherein the ranking criteria is expressed as a

the criteria for the assignee in the set of correlated patents.

26. A system as recited in claim 19 wherein the ranking criteria gives more

weight to assignees having patents that have commonly cited references with patents in

the source patent portfolio.

27. A system as recited in claim 19 wherein the ranking criteria gives more

weight to assignees both i) having patents that have a reference to a patent in the source

patent portfolio and ii) having patents that are cited as a reference by a patent in the

source patent portfolio.