WO2019028624A1 - 专利年费评估方法 - Google Patents

专利年费评估方法 Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2019028624A1
WO2019028624A1 PCT/CN2017/096290 CN2017096290W WO2019028624A1 WO 2019028624 A1 WO2019028624 A1 WO 2019028624A1 CN 2017096290 W CN2017096290 W CN 2017096290W WO 2019028624 A1 WO2019028624 A1 WO 2019028624A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
evaluated
patentee
annual fee
factor
value
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/CN2017/096290
Other languages
English (en)
French (fr)
Inventor
万忠凯
Original Assignee
深圳益强信息科技有限公司
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by 深圳益强信息科技有限公司 filed Critical 深圳益强信息科技有限公司
Priority to PCT/CN2017/096290 priority Critical patent/WO2019028624A1/zh
Publication of WO2019028624A1 publication Critical patent/WO2019028624A1/zh

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/10—Services
    • G06Q50/18—Legal services

Definitions

  • the invention relates to the field of enterprise intellectual property management, in particular to a patent annual fee evaluation method.
  • the patentee shall pay the annual fee from the year in which the patent right is granted. If the annual fee is not paid in accordance with the regulations, the patent right shall be terminated before the expiration of the time limit.
  • the current patent annual fee assessment mainly adopts the subjective judgment of the patentee and has certain randomness. If the judgment is slightly inappropriate, it will cause irreparable damage to the patentee. This has caused a lot of trouble for the patentee to manage intellectual property.
  • the object of the present invention is to provide a patent annual fee evaluation method, which can provide a precise reference for the patentee to pay the annual fee, and facilitate the patentee to manage the intellectual property.
  • a patent annual fee evaluation method includes: inputting index information of a patent to be evaluated; providing a database module, wherein the database module stores national patent information, information of the patentee of the patent to be evaluated, and the patentee The information of the competitor; whether the patent to be evaluated is valuable by means of big data analysis and/or patent information analysis to determine whether the patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee; and output the year of the patent to be evaluated Fee payment recommendation report;
  • the patentee information includes the number of patents owned by the patentee and owned by the patentee Whether the proportion of the patent in the peer, whether the patentee has been invalidated, or has infringement lawsuit, whether the patent examination of the patentee’s competitor has cited the patent to be evaluated, and the patent The situation of people entering the capital market.
  • the method includes the following steps: first calculating a value of the patent to be evaluated, and determining whether the value of the patent to be evaluated is greater than a predetermined patent value, and if so, judging The patent to be evaluated is valuable and needs to continue to pay the annual fee; if not, it is judged that the patent to be evaluated is worthless and there is no need to continue to pay the annual fee.
  • the patent value to be evaluated basic value x first factor x second factor, wherein the basic value is obtained by weighting and weighting each variable related to money; the first factor is obtained by The variable is weighted, the first factor is greater than 1; the second factor is the patent density of the patent to be evaluated, the second factor is greater than 0 and less than 1; the variables related to the money include the same or the same as the patent to be evaluated The approximate amount of the patent transaction amount, the number of e-commerce products of the same or similar products as the patent to be evaluated, the number and profit rate of the listed company in the industry in which the patent is to be evaluated, the number of registered companies in the industry in which the patent is to be evaluated, and the registration Rate; the variables irrelevant to money include the infringement trial time of the patent to be evaluated, the authorization time, the total amount of the patents of the same or similar categories as the patent to be evaluated, and the rejection rate.
  • the money-related variables include the transaction amount of the patent of the same or similar category as the patent to be evaluated, the number of e-commerce products of the same or similar products as the patent to be evaluated, and the industry in which the patent to be evaluated is located. The number and profitability of listed companies, the number of registered companies in the industry in which the patent is to be assessed, and the registration rate.
  • the patent stability factor can be invalidated from the number of patents to be evaluated, the number of cited documents, and the number of cited documents, the number of patents cited in the field of the patent to be evaluated, and the average number of cited documents. One or more of them are comprehensively evaluated.
  • the patent writing quality factor can be based on the number of items of the independent claim of the patent to be evaluated, the number of items of the total claim, the number of words of the claim, the number of pages of the specification, and the case examined by the examiner of the patent to be evaluated.
  • the rejection rate and the proportion of successful invalidation are obtained by comprehensive evaluation of one or more of the rejection rate of the agent and/or the proportion of successful invalidation of the agency and/or agent to be evaluated.
  • the index information of the patent to be evaluated is a patent number, a patent application number or a patentee.
  • the method includes the following steps: analyzing whether the patent amount of the patentee of the patent to be evaluated is less than a first predetermined value, and if so, determining The patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee. If not, the process proceeds to the next step; by searching for the proportion of the patent used by the patentee in the peer, whether the proportion of the patent is less than the second predetermined value, and if so, Then, it is determined that the patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee.
  • the process proceeds to the next step; and the patentee of the patent to be evaluated is inquired through the official website whether there is a litigation document in an invalidation state, property preservation state or compensation amount. Or the state of the infringement lawsuit, if it is, it is determined that the patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee, if not, then proceeds to the next step; whether the patent application of the specific competitor of the patentee to be evaluated has a reference in the patent application review The patent to be evaluated, if it is, determines that the patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee, and if not, proceeds to the next step.
  • the patent annual fee evaluation system provided by the present invention has the beneficial effects of providing a precise reference for the patentee to pay the annual fee, and facilitating the patentee to manage the intellectual property.
  • FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a method for evaluating an annual patent fee according to an embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 2 is a flowchart of determining a value of a patent to be evaluated by a big data analysis method according to an embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 3 is a flow chart of determining the value of the patent to be evaluated according to still another embodiment of the present invention.
  • a method for evaluating an annual fee evaluation system includes the following steps:
  • S1 Input index information of a patent to be evaluated (such as patent number, patent application number or patentee, etc.).
  • the index information can be used to search for the patent to be evaluated on the patent office website.
  • S2 providing a database module, wherein the database module stores the patent information of the country, the information of the patentee of the patent to be evaluated, and the information of the competitor of the patentee.
  • S3 Determine whether the patent to be evaluated has value through big data analysis method and/or patent right information analysis method to determine whether the patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee.
  • the patentee information includes the number of patents owned by the patentee, the proportion of the patent owned by the patentee in the same industry, whether the patentee has a patent invalidated, or has infringement lawsuit, Whether the patent of the patentee’s competitor has cited the patent to be evaluated and the patentee’s entry into the capital market.
  • step S3 when determining whether the patent to be evaluated has value through the big data analysis manner, the following steps are included:
  • the second factor is the patent density of the patent to be evaluated, that is, the proportion of the total number of patents in the technical field of the patent to be evaluated in the total number of patents of the patentee, the second factor being greater than 0 and less than 1.
  • the money-related variables include the amount of the patent transaction of the same or similar category as the patent to be evaluated, the number of e-commerce products of the same or similar products as the patent to be evaluated, the number of listed companies in the industry in which the patent is to be evaluated, and The profit rate, the number of registered companies in the industry in which the patent is to be evaluated, and the registration rate. If the basic value related to money cannot be obtained, the basic value may be set as one of the input cost, replacement cost or amortization cost of the patent to be evaluated as needed.
  • variables irrelevant to money include the infringement trial time of the patent to be evaluated, the authorization time, the total amount of the patents of the same or similar categories as the patent to be evaluated, and the rejection rate.
  • the first factor score is 1; when the number is 500 to 1000 pieces, the first factor is scored. 2, and so on; when the rejection rate of a patent with the same or similar category as the patent to be evaluated is set at 10% to 20%, the first factor score is 1; at 20% to 30%, the first factor score For 2, and so on.
  • the stability factor can be one of the number of times the patent to be evaluated is invalidated, the number of documents cited, the number of cited documents, and the number of patents cited in the field of the patent to be evaluated and the average number of cited documents or A variety of comprehensive evaluations were obtained.
  • the patent stability score is 5, and when the number of invalid times is 5 to 10 times, the patent stability score is 10; the document cited in the patent to be evaluated is pre-set.
  • the patent stability score is 1; when it is greater than 2 and less than 5, the patent stability score is 2.
  • the patent writing quality factor can be based on the number of items of the independent claim of the patent to be evaluated, the number of items of the total claim, the number of words of the claim, the number of pages of the specification, the rejection rate of the case examined by the examiner of the patent to be evaluated, and The proportion of successful invalidation is obtained by comprehensive evaluation of one or more of the rejection rate of the agent and/or agent of the patent to be evaluated and the proportion of successful invalidation.
  • the patent writing score is 1; when it is greater than 1, the patent writing score is 2; when the number of items in the total patent claim to be evaluated is less than or equal to 10, the patent Write a score of 1; when it is greater than 10, the patent draft score is 2.
  • S312 Determine whether the value of the patent to be evaluated is greater than a predetermined patent value (for example, a replacement cost). Specifically, if the predetermined patent value is 500, since 396 is less than 500, it is determined that the patent to be evaluated has no value and does not need to continue to pay the annual fee.
  • a predetermined patent value for example, a replacement cost
  • step S3 when the patentee information analysis method is used to determine whether the patent to be evaluated has When it comes to value, it includes the following steps:
  • step S321 Analyzing whether the total number of patents of the patentee of the patent to be evaluated is less than a first predetermined value.
  • the first predetermined value is N times the minimum number of patents required for high-tech enterprise certification, and N is a natural number greater than or equal to 1. If yes, go to step S326; if no, go to step S322.
  • S322 Determine whether the proportion of the patent is less than a second predetermined value (for example, one tenth) by searching for the proportion of the patent used by the patentee in the peer. If yes, go to step S326; if no, go to step S323.
  • a second predetermined value for example, one tenth
  • step S323 Check whether the patentee has a litigation document in the state of invalidation, property preservation or compensation, or infringement lawsuit through the official website. If yes, go to step S326; if no, go to step S324.
  • step S324 Analyze whether the patent is cited in the patent application review of the patentee of the patentee. If yes, go to step S326; if no, go to step S325.
  • step S325 Analyze whether the patentee is in a specific state in the capital market, such as an Initial Public Offerings (IPO) filing or a recent financial report at a specific time (for example, half a year). If yes, go to step S326; if no, go to step S327.
  • a specific state in the capital market such as an Initial Public Offerings (IPO) filing or a recent financial report at a specific time (for example, half a year). If yes, go to step S326; if no, go to step S327.
  • IP Initial Public Offerings
  • steps S321 to S325 are not limited to the embodiment, and may be arbitrarily arranged.
  • steps S321 to S325 are judged as NO, both go directly to the next step; when the step S321
  • each step in the step S325 is judged as YES, it is directly determined that the patent to be evaluated needs to continue to pay the annual fee, and the process ends.
  • the present invention provides a patent annual fee evaluation method, and the beneficial effects thereof It is: (1) through the system automatic acquisition comparison, saving a lot of manpower; (2) based on big data analysis, the results have more reference value; (3) automatically take the data related to the patentee, reducing the difficulty of management (4) Facilitate the monitoring of subsequent similar patents.

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Technology Law (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

一种专利年费评估方法，其包括如下步骤：输入一待评估专利的索引信息（S1）；提供一个数据库模块，该数据库模块内存储有各国专利信息、该待评估专利的专利权人的信息及该专利权人的竞争对手的信息（S2）；通过大数据分析方式及/或专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值（S3），以确定该待评估专利是否需要继续缴纳年费；及输出该待评估专利的年费缴纳建议报告（S4）。所述专利权人信息包括该专利权人所拥有的专利数量、该专利权人所拥有的专利在同行中所占的比例、该专利权人是否有专利被无效过、或者曾有侵权诉讼、该专利权人竞争对手的专利审查中是否曾引用过其待评估专利、以及该专利权人进入资本市场的情况。

Description

专利年费评估方法 技术领域
本发明涉及企业知识产权管理领域，特别涉及一种专利年费评估方法。
背景技术
根据中华人民共和国专利法第43条及第44条的规定，专利权人应当自被授予专利权的当年开始缴纳年费，没有按照规定缴纳年费的，专利权在期限届满前终止。现在的专利年费评估主要采用专利权人主观判断，具有一定的随意性。如果判断稍有不当，就会给专利权人造成无法挽回的巨大损失。这给专利权人管理知识产权造成了很大的麻烦。
鉴于以上弊端，实有必要提供一种专利年费评估方法以克服以上缺陷。
发明内容
本发明的目的是提供一种专利年费评估方法，能够为专利权人是否缴纳年费提供精准参考，便于专利权人对知识产权进行管理。
本发明的目的通过以下技术方案实现：
一种专利年费评估方法，其包括:输入一待评估专利的索引信息；提供一个数据库模块，该数据库模块内存储有各国专利信息、该待评估专利的专利权人的信息及该专利权人的竞争对手的信息；通过大数据分析方式及/或专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值，以确定该待评估专利是否需要继续缴纳年费；及输出该待评估专利的年费缴纳建议报告；
所述专利权人信息包括该专利权人所拥有的专利数量、该专利权人所拥有 的专利在同行中所占的比例、该专利权人是否有专利被无效过、或者曾有侵权诉讼、该专利权人竞争对手的专利审查中是否曾引用过其待评估专利、以及该专利权人进入资本市场的情况。
进一步地，当通过大数据分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值时，包括如下步骤：先计算出一待评估专利价值，并判断该待评估专利价值是否大于一预定专利价值，若是，则判断该待评估专利有价值，需要继续缴纳年费；若否，则判断该待评估专利无价值，无需继续缴纳年费。
进一步地，该待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子，其中该基本值通过将与金钱相关的各变量赋予一定权重且加权得到；该第一因子通过将与金钱无关的各变量加权得到，该第一因子大于1；该第二因子为该待评估专利的专利密度，该第二因子大于0且小于1；该与金钱相关的各变量包括与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利交易金额、与该待评估专利相同或相近的产品的电商数量、该待评估专利所在行业的上市公司的数量及利润率、该待评估专利所在行业的注册公司的数量及注册速率；该与金钱无关的各变量包括该待评估专利的侵权审判时间、授权时间、与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的总量及驳回率。
进一步地，该与金钱相关的各变量包括与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的交易金额、与该待评估专利相同或相近似的产品的电商数量、该待评估专利所在行业的上市公司的数量及利润率、该待评估专利所在行业的注册公司的数量及注册速率。
进一步地，该待评估专利价值还与一专利稳定性因子有关，且该待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子ⅹ专利稳定性因子。
进一步地，该专利稳定性因子能够从该待评估专利被无效的次数、引证文件的数量及被引证文件的数量，该待评估专利所在领域的专利平均引证的数量及平均被引证的数量中的一种或多种进行综合评价得出。
进一步地，该待评估专利价值还与一专利撰写质量因子有关，且该待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子ⅹ专利稳定性因子ⅹ专利撰写质量因子。
进一步地，该专利撰写质量因子能够根据该待评估专利的独立权利要求的项数、总权利要求的项数、权利要求的字数、说明书的页数、该待评估专利的审查员所审查的案件的驳回率及被成功无效的比例，该待评估专利的代理机构及/或代理人所代理的案件的驳回率及被成功无效的比例中的一种或多种进行综合评价得出。如权利要求3所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：
进一步地，该待评估专利的索引信息为专利号、专利申请号或专利权人。
进一步地，当通过专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值时，包括如下步骤：分析该待评估专利的专利权人的专利总量是否少于第一预定值，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；通过搜索该专利权人所用的专利在同行中所占的比例，判断该专利比例是否少于第二预定值，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；通过官方网站查询该待评估专利的专利权人是否存在处于无效宣告状态、财产保全状态或具有赔偿额的诉讼文书、或侵权诉讼状态，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；分析该待评估专利的专利权人的特定竞争对手的专利申请审查中是否有引用该待评估专利，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；分析该 待评估专利的专利权人在资本市场是否处于特定状态，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则确定该待评估专利无需继续缴纳年费。
与现有技术相比，本发明提供的一种专利年费评估系统的有益效果在于：能够为专利权人是否缴纳年费提供精准参考，便于专利权人对知识产权进行管理。
附图说明
图1为本发明一实施例的专利年费评估方法的流程图；
图2为本发明一实施例通过大数据分析方式判断该待评估专利价值的流程图；
图3为本发明又一实施例判断该待评估专利价值的流程图。
具体实施方式
为了使本发明的目的、技术方案和有益技术效果更加清晰明白，以下结合附图和具体实施方式，对本发明进行进一步详细说明。应当理解的是，本说明书中描述的具体实施方式仅仅是为了解释本发明，并不是为了限定本发明。
如图1所示，本发明一实施例提供的一种专利年费评估系统方法，其包括如下步骤：
S1：输入一待评估专利的索引信息(比如专利号、专利申请号或专利权人等)。通过该索引信息就能在专利局网站上搜索到该待评估专利。
S2：提供一个数据库模块，该数据库模块内存储有各国专利信息、该待评估专利的专利权人的信息及该专利权人的竞争对手的信息。
S3：通过大数据分析方式及/或专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值，以确定该待评估专利是否需要继续缴纳年费。所述专利权人信息包括该专利权人所拥有的专利数量、该专利权人所拥有的专利在同行中所在的比例、该专利权人是否有专利被无效过、或者曾有侵权诉讼、该专利权人竞争对手的专利审查中是否曾引用过其待评估专利、以及该专利权人进入资本市场的情况。
S4：输出该待评估专利的年费缴纳建议报告。
具体的，在该步骤S3中，当通过大数据分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值时，包括如下步骤：
S311：计算一待评估专利价值。具体的，该待评估专利价值的计算方式为：(1)待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子。该基本值通过将与金钱相关的各变量赋予一定权重且加权得到。该第一因子通过将与金钱无关的各变量加权得到，且该第一因子大于1。该第二因子为该待评估专利的专利密度，即该待评估专利所在技术领域的专利总量在该专利权人的所有专利总量中的所占的比例，该第二因子大于0且小于1。
该与金钱相关的各变量包括与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利交易金额、与该待评估专利相同或相近的产品的电商数量、该待评估专利所在行业的上市公司的数量及利润率、该待评估专利所在行业的注册公司的数量及注册速率等。如果无法获得与金钱相关的该基本值，则可以根据需要将该基本值设置为该待评估专利的投入成本、重置成本或待摊销成本中的其中一个。
该与金钱无关的各变量包括该待评估专利的侵权审判时间、授权时间、与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的总量及驳回率等。
比如，与该待评估专利相同或相近的产品的电商数量是200家，权重是0.3；该待评估专利所在行业的上市公司的数量是100家，权重是0.5；则该基本值等于200 0.3+100 0.5＝110。在计算该第一因子时，预先设定与待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的总量位于100～500件时，第一因子得分为1；位于500～1000件时，第一因子得分为2，依次类推；预先设定与待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的驳回率在10％～20％时，第一因子得分为1；在20％～30％时，第一因子得分为2，依次类推。该判断模块30在该数据库模块20中搜索得到：与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的总量位于100～500件，则第一因子得分为1；与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的驳回率在10％～20％，则第一因子得分为1，因此该第一因子等于1+1＝2。该第二因子为10％，则该待评估专利价值＝110 2 10％＝22。
进一步的，该判断步骤还能根据公式：(2)待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子ⅹ专利稳定性因子，得出该待评估专利价值。该稳定性因子能够从该待评估专利被无效的次数、引证文件的数量、被引证文件的数量，及该待评估专利所在领域的专利平均引证的数量及平均被引证的数量中的一种或多种进行综合评价得出。
比如，预先设定待评估专利被无效的次数小于5次时，专利稳定性得分为5，无效次数为5～10次时，专利稳定性得分为10；预先设定待评估专利所引证文件的数量小于等于2时，专利稳定性得分为1；大于2小于5时，专利稳定性得分为2。该判断模块30在该数据库模块20中搜索得到：该待评估专利被无效的次数为2次，则专利稳定性得分为5；该待评估专利所引证文件的数量为1，则专利稳定性得分为1，则该专利稳定性因子等于5+1＝6。若采用公 式(1)得出该待评估专利价值为22，则继续引进该专利稳定性因子后，采用公式(2)得出该待评估专利价值为22 6＝132。
进一步的，该判断模块30还能根据公式：(3)待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子ⅹ专利稳定性因子ⅹ专利撰写质量因子，得出该待评估专利价值。该专利撰写质量因子能够根据该待评估专利的独立权利要求的项数、总权利要求的项数、权利要求的字数、说明书的页数、该待评估专利的审查员所审查案件的驳回率及被成功无效的比例，该待评估专利的代理机构及/或代理人所代理案件的驳回率及被成功无效的比例中的一种或多种进行综合评价得出。
比如，预先设定待评估专利独立权利要求的项数等于1时，专利撰写得分为1；大于1时，专利撰写得分为2；待评估专利总权利要求的项数小于等于10项时，专利撰写得分为1；大于10项时，专利撰写得分为2。该判断模块30在该数据库模块20中搜索得到：该待评估专利的独立权利要求的项数等于1，且总权利要求的项数为16项，因此该专利撰写质量因子等于1+2＝3。若采用公式(2)得出该待评估专利价值为132，则继续引进该专利撰写质量因子后，采用公式(3)得出该待评估专利价值为132 3＝396。
S312：判断该待评估专利价值是否大于一预定专利价值(例如重置成本)。具体的，若该预定专利价值为500，由于396小于500，因此确定该待评估专利没有价值，不需要继续缴纳年费。
S313：若是，则确定该待评估专利有价值，需要继续缴纳年费。
S314：若否，则确定该待评估专利无价值，不需要继续缴纳年费。
在该步骤S3中，当通过专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有 价值时，包括如下步骤：
S321：分析该待评估专利的专利权人的专利总量是否少于第一预定值。该第一预定值为高新技术企业认证所要求的最低专利数量的N倍，N为大于等于1的自然数。若是，则转入步骤S326；若否，则转入步骤S322。
S322：通过搜索该专利权人所用的专利在同行中所占的比例，判断该专利比例是否少于第二预定值(例如十分之一)。若是，则转入步骤S326；若否，则转入步骤S323。
S323：通过官方网站查询该专利权人是否存在处于无效宣告状态、财产保全状态或具有赔偿额的诉讼文书、或侵权诉讼状态。若是，则转入步骤S326；若否，则转入步骤S324。
S324：分析该专利权人的特定竞争对手的专利申请审查中是否有引用该专利。若是，则转入步骤S326；若否，则转入步骤S325。
S325：分析该专利权人在资本市场是否处于特定状态，例如首次公开募股(Initial Public Offerings，IPO)申报或最近特定时间(例如半年)有融资报道。若是，则转入步骤S326；若否，则转入步骤S327。
S326：确定该待评估专利有价值，需要继续缴纳年费。
S327：确定该待评估专利无价值，不需要继续缴纳年费。
可以理解，该步骤S321～S325的顺序并不局限于本实施例，也可以任意排列，当该步骤S321～S325中的每个步骤判断为否时，均直接进入下一步骤；当该步骤S321～S325中的每个步骤判断为是时，均直接确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，流程结束。
与现有技术性相比较，本发明提供的一种专利年费评估方法，其有益效果 在于：(1)通过系统自动采集比对，节省了大量人力；(2)基于大数据分析，结果更具有参考价值；(3)自动采取与该专利权人相关的数据，降低了管理的难度；(4)便于后续类似专利的监控。
本发明并不仅仅限于说明书和实施方式中所描述，因此对于熟悉领域的人员而言可容易地实现另外的优点和修改，故在不背离权利要求及等同范围所限定的一般概念的精神和范围的情况下，本发明并不限于特定的细节、代表性的设备和这里示出与描述的图示示例。

Claims (10)

  1. 一种专利年费评估方法，其包括如下步骤：输入一待评估专利的索引信息；提供一个数据库模块，该数据库模块内存储有各国专利信息、该待评估专利的专利权人的信息及该专利权人的竞争对手的信息；通过大数据分析方式及/或专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值，以确定该待评估专利是否需要继续缴纳年费；及输出该待评估专利的年费缴纳建议报告；
    所述专利权人信息包括该专利权人所拥有的专利数量、该专利权人所拥有的专利在同行中所占的比例、该专利权人是否有专利被无效过、或者曾有侵权诉讼、该专利权人竞争对手的专利审查中是否曾引用过其待评估专利、以及该专利权人进入资本市场的情况。
  2. 如权利要求1所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：当通过大数据分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值时，包括如下步骤：先计算出一待评估专利价值，并判断该待评估专利价值是否大于一预定专利价值，若是，则判断该待评估专利有价值，需要继续缴纳年费；若否，则判断该待评估专利无价值，无需继续缴纳年费。
  3. 如权利要求2所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子，其中该基本值通过将与金钱相关的各变量赋予一定权重且加权得到；该第一因子通过将与金钱无关的各变量加权得到，该第一因子大于1；该第二因子为该待评估专利的专利密度，该第二因子大于0且小于1；该与金钱相关的各变量包括与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利交易金额、与该待评估专利相同或相近的产品的电商数量、该待评估专利所在行业的上市公司的数量及利润率、该待评估专利所在行业的注册公司 的数量及注册速率；该与金钱无关的各变量包括该待评估专利的侵权审判时间、授权时间、与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的总量及驳回率。
  4. 如权利要求3所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该与金钱相关的各变量包括与该待评估专利相同或相近似类别的专利的交易金额、与该待评估专利相同或相近似的产品的电商数量、该待评估专利所在行业的上市公司的数量及利润率、该待评估专利所在行业的注册公司的数量及注册速率。
  5. 如权利要求3所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该待评估专利价值还与一专利稳定性因子有关，且该待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子ⅹ专利稳定性因子。
  6. 如权利要求5所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该专利稳定性因子能够从该待评估专利被无效的次数、引证文件的数量及被引证文件的数量，该待评估专利所在领域的专利平均引证的数量及平均被引证的数量中的一种或多种进行综合评价得出。
  7. 如权利要求5所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该待评估专利价值还与一专利撰写质量因子有关，且该待评估专利价值＝基本值ⅹ第一因子ⅹ第二因子ⅹ专利稳定性因子ⅹ专利撰写质量因子。
  8. 如权利要求7所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该专利撰写质量因子能够根据该待评估专利的独立权利要求的项数、总权利要求的项数、权利要求的字数、说明书的页数、该待评估专利的审查员所审查的案件的驳回率及被成功无效的比例，该待评估专利的代理机构及/或代理人所代理的案件的驳回率及被成功无效的比例中的一种或多种进行综合评价得出。如权利要求3所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：
  9. 如权利要求1所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：该待评估专利的索引信息为专利号、专利申请号或专利权人。
  10. 如权利要求1-9任一项所述的专利年费评估方法，其特征在于：当通过专利权人信息分析方式判断该待评估专利是否有价值时，包括如下步骤：分析该待评估专利的专利权人的专利总量是否少于第一预定值，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；通过搜索该专利权人所用的专利在同行中所占的比例，判断该专利比例是否少于第二预定值，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；通过官方网站查询该待评估专利的专利权人是否存在处于无效宣告状态、财产保全状态或具有赔偿额的诉讼文书、或侵权诉讼状态，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；分析该待评估专利的专利权人的特定竞争对手的专利申请审查中是否有引用该待评估专利，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则进入下一步骤；分析该待评估专利的专利权人在资本市场是否处于特定状态，若是，则确定该待评估专利需要继续缴纳年费，若否，则确定该待评估专利无需继续缴纳年费。
PCT/CN2017/096290 2017-08-07 2017-08-07 专利年费评估方法 WO2019028624A1 (zh)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/CN2017/096290 WO2019028624A1 (zh) 2017-08-07 2017-08-07 专利年费评估方法

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/CN2017/096290 WO2019028624A1 (zh) 2017-08-07 2017-08-07 专利年费评估方法

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2019028624A1 true WO2019028624A1 (zh) 2019-02-14

Family

ID=65273146

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/CN2017/096290 WO2019028624A1 (zh) 2017-08-07 2017-08-07 专利年费评估方法

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2019028624A1 (zh)

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20060218078A1 (en) * 2005-03-28 2006-09-28 Jackson Freeman A Method and apparatus for renting, customizing, and delivering risk and/or volatility products
CN101030269A (zh) * 2006-03-03 2007-09-05 鸿富锦精密工业（深圳）有限公司 专利价值评估系统及方法
CN104156411A (zh) * 2014-07-30 2014-11-19 中国科学院计算技术研究所 专利价值数据综合处理系统
CN106068526A (zh) * 2015-08-21 2016-11-02 广州博鳌纵横网络科技有限公司 一种专利价值评估方法及系统
CN106485612A (zh) * 2016-10-12 2017-03-08 南方电网科学研究院有限责任公司 一种专利价值评估系统及价值评估方法

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20060218078A1 (en) * 2005-03-28 2006-09-28 Jackson Freeman A Method and apparatus for renting, customizing, and delivering risk and/or volatility products
CN101030269A (zh) * 2006-03-03 2007-09-05 鸿富锦精密工业（深圳）有限公司 专利价值评估系统及方法
CN104156411A (zh) * 2014-07-30 2014-11-19 中国科学院计算技术研究所 专利价值数据综合处理系统
CN106068526A (zh) * 2015-08-21 2016-11-02 广州博鳌纵横网络科技有限公司 一种专利价值评估方法及系统
CN106485612A (zh) * 2016-10-12 2017-03-08 南方电网科学研究院有限责任公司 一种专利价值评估系统及价值评估方法

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Abad et al. Audit opinions and information asymmetry in the stock market
Alonso et al. h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields
Shiri et al. A study of impact of ownership structure and disclosure quality on information asymmetry in Iran
US20130290197A1 (en) Patent power calculating device and method for operating patent power calculating device
US10579651B1 (en) Method, system, and program for evaluating intellectual property right
Zha Giedt Modelling receivables and deferred revenues to detect revenue management
US20200065867A1 (en) Patent valuation system
Tu Invalidated Patents and Associated Patent Examiners
KR101686305B1 (ko) 지역리스크 측정을 통한 부동산 담보 대출심사 장치
Cheung et al. Chief Executive Officer departures and market uncertainty
Steenkamp et al. Share-based remuneration: Per-director disclosure practices of selected listed South African companies
Lo et al. Do polluting firms suffer long term? Can government use data‐driven inspection policies to catch polluters?
WO2019028624A1 (zh) 专利年费评估方法
WO2019028621A1 (zh) 专利年费缴纳评估方法
Jan et al. A few reflections on ds474 and the intersection of Russia’s domestic energy policies and the EU’s Anti-dumping cost replacement methodology
WO2019028622A1 (zh) 一种专利年费评估系统
KR20140080594A (ko) 특허 평가 엔진을 이용한 특허 자동 평가 방법 및 평가 서버
Jiang Stock market valuation using internet search volumes: Us-china comparison
Che et al. Assessment of patent legal value by regression and back-propagation neural network
Rush et al. Market value impacts of information systems around the world: A Monte Carlo investigation to reduce bias in international event studies
KR101725011B1 (ko) 웹 검색어를 이용한 주택매매지수 예측 장치 및 그 방법
CN107578351A (zh) 一种专利年费评估系统
US20200349512A1 (en) Patent power calculating device and method for operating patent power calculating device
CN117764757B (zh) 一种会计凭证一体化智能管理系统
Moghadam et al. Income smoothing and the cost of debt and credit ratings

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 17921257

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1