WO2020101334A2

WO2020101334A2 - Patent evaluation system

Info

Publication number: WO2020101334A2
Application number: PCT/KR2019/015394
Authority: WO
Inventors: 김정중
Original assignee: 김정중
Priority date: 2018-11-16
Filing date: 2019-11-13
Publication date: 2020-05-22
Also published as: KR102065928B1; WO2020101334A3

Abstract

The present invention relates to a patent evaluation system comprising: a patent for evaluation determining unit for determining, as a patent for evaluation, a patent including a specific technology classification or a specific keyword; a precise evaluation item selecting unit for selecting at least one precise evaluation item for the patent for evaluation; and an evaluation performing unit for evaluating the patent by using a weighted sum of the precise evaluation item. Therefore, the present invention applies a qualitative evaluation criterion to a patent evaluated according to an existing formal evaluation criterion, thereby performing a more precise and detailed evaluation which satisfies an actual value.

Description

Patent evaluation system

The present invention relates to a patent evaluation technology, and more particularly, to a patent evaluation system that performs evaluation in accordance with a more precise and specific actual value by applying a qualitative evaluation criterion to a patent evaluated according to a conventional formal evaluation criterion It is about.

The importance of patent evaluation is increasing in support of decision making to maintain or renounce patent rights and selection of excellent patents. The patent evaluation can be divided into a manual evaluation by a practitioner's manual and an automatic evaluation by an evaluation system. Direct evaluation by practitioners directly evaluates patents by researchers or patent officers in each technical field. While direct evaluation by the practitioner has the advantage that the knowledge and experience of the reviewer can be utilized, there is a possibility that the subjectivity of the reviewer is strongly involved in the evaluation, and deviations for each reviewer occur for the same patent to maintain the evaluation consistency. As a result, there is a disadvantage in that the overall reliability of the evaluation is lowered. A patent automatic evaluation system has been developed to overcome the shortcomings of this practical evaluation. For example, Korean Registered Patent No. 10-1118057 (2012.02.13) relates to a patent automatic evaluation system and a method for processing evaluation element information in the system, information generated as a result of specification analysis, progress information, bibliography, Automatic patent evaluation system and system for generating evaluation scores and evaluation grades of patents to be evaluated using evaluation elements based on various patent information data sources such as market information such as similar patent group information, corporate financial information, and domestic and foreign patent information It relates to a method of processing evaluation element information in.

In addition, Korean Registered Patent No. 10-1053968 (2011.07.28) relates to a patent automatic evaluation method of the patent automatic evaluation system, and uses an optimized evaluation algorithm to establish an evaluation model according to various criteria such as each technical field and each property of the owner. And, it relates to a patent automatic evaluation method of the patent automatic evaluation system that generates evaluation scores and evaluation grades of patents to be evaluated for various evaluation items such as rights, technology and marketability.

The existing automatic patent evaluation system evaluated the patent through a mechanical and quantitative evaluation method such as the citation frequency of the patent to be evaluated, the number of family patents (ie, the number of overseas applications) or the number of specification words. However, if the patents are evaluated uniformly and mechanically by simply using political factors such as the frequency of citations, regardless of who is cited, if the citation frequency is high, the patents are overvalued and the patent registration status is maintained unnecessarily and patent annual fees are maintained. This continued to be paid, which increased the burden of patent retention. On the other hand, although the number of citations is small, if the principal is a major company or a competitor, the value of patents can be high in the relevant technology field. You can commit. In summary, if a patent is evaluated using only quantitative factors such as the frequency of citation of the target patent for evaluation, an unnecessary patent is highly evaluated and an error of continuously paying annual fees occurs. Can be.

One embodiment of the present invention is to solve the problems of the quantitative and superficial automatic patent evaluation system and to provide a patent evaluation system that matches the actual value of the patent by more qualitative and practical evaluation.

One embodiment of the present invention is to provide a patent evaluation system that can accurately evaluate patents by subdividing patent evaluation items and adding precision evaluation items and assigning differentiated weights so that qualitative evaluation is performed for each evaluation item.

One embodiment of the present invention is to provide a patent evaluation system that evaluates patents in a practical and precise manner by setting different weights according to cited subject types or family country aggregation types of patents to be evaluated and more flexible evaluation criteria.

In addition, an embodiment of the present invention is to provide a patent evaluation system that evaluates patents more realistically and accurately by assigning weights according to the number of registration annual payments of patents to be evaluated or the elapsed period after patent registration.

In addition, an embodiment of the present invention is to provide a patent evaluation system that evaluates patents more realistically and accurately by assigning weights according to whether the target patent to be evaluated is applied to a third-party product or a company's product.

The patent evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention includes an evaluation target patent determining unit for determining a patent including a specific technology classification or a specific keyword and a specific patent number as an evaluation target patent, and at least one precision evaluation item for the evaluation target patent It includes a precision evaluation item selection unit for selecting and an evaluation execution unit for performing patent evaluation through a weighted sum of the precision evaluation items.

The precision evaluation item may include the cited subject of the patent to be evaluated. That is, the type of the subject (that is, the applicant or the right holder of the cited patent) citing the patent to be evaluated (hereinafter referred to as the cited patent) may be included as a precision evaluation item. Here, the cited patent includes all patents citing patents to be evaluated (cited patents). The classification of the cited subject type may be classified by the user or may be classified based on the number of patents, patent share (or patent application share) or patent application growth rate (or registered patent growth rate) of the cited subject in the population. For example, the owner with the highest patent share or the holder with the highest patent growth rate can be classified as the first type. Here, the patent growth rate means the increase rate of the number of patent applications or registrations within a certain period within a specific patent classification.

The precise evaluation items may include the type of the family country set of patents to be evaluated.

Further, the precise evaluation item may include an annual payment period item classified according to the annual payment period of the patent to be evaluated.

In addition, the precise evaluation item may include a type of product application related to different evaluation according to the fact that the patent to be evaluated is applied to others and / or their products.

The precision evaluation item selection unit may select one or more of the precision evaluation items. As another embodiment, information about a competitor or a major company may be previously received from a user and stored in a database (not shown) or a memory (not shown).

The evaluation execution unit sets the weight differently by classifying according to the type of the cited subject who cited the patent to be evaluated. For example, the applicant or inventor of the second type and the cited patent, which does not belong to the first type and the first type, in which the cited subject includes a competitor or a major right holder, but is cited by a specific third party applicant or right holder It is characterized by having different weights for each of the third types, including self-citation. That is, in the case of the first type, the weight may be set higher than in the case of the second or third type.

The evaluation execution unit may set different weights according to the type of the family country set of the patent to be evaluated. For example, the national set of family patents may include the national set including all three-pole patents such as the United States (US), Europe (EU), and Japan (JP) as the first set. A country set that includes only the United States (US) and Japan (JP) can be classified as a second set. When the national set of the family patents corresponds to the first set, the evaluation execution unit may set a higher weight than the national set of the family patents corresponds to the second set.

The evaluation execution unit may set a weight based on the number or period of annual payments of the patent to be evaluated after the initial registration fee is paid, and the longer the payment period, the higher the weight may be set. However, after a certain period (eg 12 years), the weight may not be applied any more. In addition, the evaluation performing unit may be excluded from evaluation if the period for which the annual fee of the patent to be evaluated is paid is less than one year (or the number of payments after registration is less than one).

The evaluation execution unit may set a higher weight according to the fact that the patent to be evaluated is applied to others and / or their products.

As another embodiment of the patent evaluation system, a patent receiving unit that receives patents already assigned an evaluation rating by another patent evaluation system, and extracts patents of a certain evaluation level or more among the received patents to be determined as a population patent subject to precision evaluation There is a patent evaluation system characterized in that it includes a precision evaluation target population determination unit and an evaluation execution unit for selecting at least one precision evaluation item for the precision evaluation target population patent and performing weighting of the precision evaluation items.

All embodiments of the above-described patent evaluation system include a user interface (hereinafter referred to as UI), and may include a precision evaluation item selection UI for selecting at least one precision evaluation item. In addition, the user interface unit may further include a citation subject selection UI for selecting a citation subject of the patent to be evaluated by the user's selection.

In addition, as an embodiment, the user interface may include a product application recovery UI for inputting the number of times the patent to be evaluated is applied to a third party or its products.

Meanwhile, a UI for outputting at least one evaluation result may be provided to the user interface unit. For example, a comprehensive evaluation result or evaluation results for each detailed evaluation index may be provided. Here, the detailed evaluation indicators may include rights, technology, and usability.

In another embodiment, the user interface unit may include a UI for deciding a population to be subjected to precision evaluation to extract a specific evaluation grade from patents evaluated in other patent evaluation systems.

The disclosed technology can have the following effects.

The patent evaluation system of the present invention deviates from a standardized evaluation that uniformly evaluates only quantitative indicators, such as the number of cited patents and the number of family patents (that is, the number of overseas applications), which correspond to the problems of the conventional patent evaluation system, respectively Patents can be evaluated more accurately by differentially weighting them according to specific criteria for each of the precise evaluation items. For example, the weights can be set differently according to the citation subject or the type of the family country set, and a more flexible evaluation criterion can be used to provide a more accurate and real value evaluation system. That is, when cited by a major company or if there are family patents in major countries such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, the patent can be evaluated more accurately and practically by carrying out the evaluation by reflecting such qualitative attributes.

The patent evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention can promote patent monetization through the selection of excellent patents, thereby reducing the annual fee burden due to unnecessary patent maintenance by giving up or selling useless rights.

In addition, as another embodiment of the patent evaluation system of the present invention, patent evaluation has been conducted under qualitative and specific precise evaluation criteria for patents already evaluated by other patent evaluation systems, so that the evaluation results of other evaluation systems are higher or lower than the actual value. Can judge. That is, it is possible to present an evaluation result that matches the actual value by modifying an existing evaluation grade by applying a precise evaluation item to a patent that has already been evaluated by another evaluation system of the present invention.

However, since the specific embodiment does not mean that all of the following effects should be included or only the following effects are included, the scope of rights of the disclosed technology should not be understood as being limited thereby.

1 is a block diagram illustrating a patent evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

2 is a block diagram illustrating a patent evaluation system according to another embodiment of the present invention.

3 is a flowchart of a patent evaluation system according to an embodiment of FIG. 1.

4 is a flowchart of a patent evaluation system according to another embodiment of FIG. 2.

5 is an exemplary view showing a user interface unit of a patent evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

6 is a view showing an evaluation result confirmation UI and an evaluation result display UI according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Since the description of the present invention is merely an example for structural or functional description, the scope of the present invention should not be interpreted as being limited by the examples described in the text. That is, since the embodiments can be variously modified and have various forms, it should be understood that the scope of the present invention includes equivalents capable of realizing technical ideas. In addition, the object or effect presented in the present invention does not mean that a specific embodiment should include all of them or only such an effect, and the scope of the present invention should not be understood as being limited thereby.

Meanwhile, the meaning of terms described in the present application should be understood as follows.

Terms such as "first" and "second" are for distinguishing one component from other components, and the scope of rights should not be limited by these terms. For example, the first component may be referred to as the second component, and similarly, the second component may also be referred to as the first component.

When a component is said to be "connected" to another component, it may be understood that other components may exist in the middle, although they may be directly connected to the other component. On the other hand, when a component is said to be "directly connected" to another component, it should be understood that no other component exists in the middle. On the other hand, other expressions describing the relationship between the components, that is, "between" and "immediately between" or "neighboring to" and "directly neighboring to" should be interpreted similarly.

Singular expressions are to be understood as including plural expressions unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, and terms such as “comprises” or “have” are used features, numbers, steps, actions, elements, parts or the like. It is to be understood that a combination is intended to be present, and should not be understood as pre-excluding the existence or addition possibility of one or more other features or numbers, steps, actions, components, parts or combinations thereof.

In each step, the identification code (for example, a, b, c, etc.) is used for convenience of explanation. The identification code does not describe the order of each step, and each step clearly identifies a specific order in context. Unless stated, it may occur in a different order than specified. That is, each step may occur in the same order as specified, may be performed substantially simultaneously, or may be performed in the reverse order.

The present invention can be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable recording medium, and the computer readable recording medium includes all kinds of recording devices in which data readable by a computer system is stored. . Examples of computer-readable recording media include ROM, RAM, CD-ROM, magnetic tape, floppy disks, optical data storage devices, and flash memory. In addition, the computer-readable recording medium can be distributed over network coupled computer systems so that the computer readable code is stored and executed in a distributed fashion.

All terms used herein have the same meaning as generally understood by a person skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains, unless otherwise defined. The terms defined in the commonly used dictionary should be interpreted as being consistent with the meanings in the context of the related art, and cannot be interpreted as having ideal or excessively formal meanings unless explicitly defined in the present application.

1 is a block diagram illustrating a patent evaluation system according to an embodiment.

Referring to FIG. 1, the patent evaluation system 100 includes an evaluation target patent determination unit 120, a precision evaluation item selection unit 130, an evaluation execution unit 140, a user interface unit 150, and a control unit 160. It can contain.

The patent evaluation system 100 may include a user interface unit 150 for selecting a precision evaluation item and selecting a weighting type for each precision evaluation item.

The patent determining unit 120 to be evaluated is a patent corresponding to a specific patent technology classification, such as an International Patent Classification (IPC) or a Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), or a patent including a specific keyword or a specific patent number as a target patent for evaluation Can decide.

The precise evaluation item selection unit 130 classifies the cited subject based on the number of patents, patent share, patent growth rate, etc. of the cited subject in the evaluation target patent population or by another method when classifying the cited subject type. can do. In one embodiment, the precision evaluation item selection unit 130 may temporarily select (by default) all items as evaluation items, but may select and select some of the precision evaluation items according to the user's selection as another embodiment. That is, if the user does not select an evaluation item separately, the patent is evaluated by weighting the evaluation result values for all the precision evaluation items. However, if the user selects only some items, only those items are selected according to the user's selection. It is also possible to select and evaluate the patent by weighting the relevant items.

As described above, the evaluation execution unit 140 may classify (automatically) the main right holder having a high share or growth rate as the first type, or the user's selection (manual). For example, the evaluation execution unit 140 may detect the patent share, the patent growth rate, or the number of patents held for evaluation, and classify the cited subject type based on this. The subject of citation is a major competitor or a major right holder, etc., and does not belong to the first type, but is not the inventor or applicant of the patent to be evaluated (i.e., the cited patent) as the second type, and the The case of the same person as the inventor or the applicant (that is, in the case of self-citation) is classified into the third type. As described above, the evaluation execution unit 140 assigns different weights to the types of cited subjects, and when the cited subject of the first type cited the patent to be evaluated, the cited subject of the second type or the third type is cited The weight can be set higher than in one case. In addition, the evaluation execution unit 140 may determine the weight of the second type corresponding to the case where the cited subject is different from the subject of the patent to be evaluated higher than the weight of the third type. Therefore, when all other evaluation item conditions other than the citation subject's type item are the same, the evaluation performance unit 140 evaluates the patents cited by the high-weight type citation subject than the patents cited by the low-weight type citation subject. You can set this higher.

The evaluation execution unit 140 may set a weight based on the type of the family country set of the patent to be evaluated. In one embodiment, the evaluation performing unit 140 classifies a country set including all of the United States (US), Europe (EU), and Japan (JP) as a first set type, and excludes a country set that includes only some countries. 2 Can be classified into aggregate types. For example, the evaluation execution unit 140 may classify the national set of patents applied only in the United States (US) and Japan (JP) as the second set type. The evaluation execution unit 140 may set the weight higher than the case corresponding to the second set type when it corresponds to the first set type. Therefore, the evaluation execution unit 140 may ensure that the patents corresponding to the first set type have higher evaluation grades than the patents corresponding to the second set type when all other evaluation item conditions other than the national set items of the family patent are the same. Can be set.

As an embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may set the weight based on the patent annual fee payment period or the number of payment periods to be evaluated, and the longer the annual payment period (or the more the number of payments), the higher the weight. Accordingly, the evaluation execution unit 140 sets the evaluation grade to be higher as the patent annual payment period is longer when all the conditions of the evaluation item other than the patent annual payment period are the same. However, if the annual payment period of the patent subject to evaluation is less than one year (i.e., only the initial registration fee is paid) or the number of annual payments is less than one, it can be excluded from evaluation. In one embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may assign a weight equal to a weight assigned to the previous year for an evaluation target patent that has passed a certain period after registration. For example, if a patent subject to evaluation is registered and the period after registration exceeds a certain period (for example, 12 years), the weight according to the period is no longer assigned and corresponds to a certain period (for example, 12 years). The same weight can be assigned as the weight. It is to prevent this because the weight of the registration period is continuously proportionally granted until the expiration period. Here, a certain period can be specified and set by the user.

In addition, as an embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may set different weights according to the number of times a patent to be evaluated is applied to a third party or its products. Here, the user can directly input whether the product is applied and the number of times the product is applied. The evaluation execution unit 140 sets a higher weight as the number of times the patent is applied to the product. In one embodiment, the evaluation performing unit 140 may set the weight of the third-party product to be relatively high compared to the case of the company's product. Accordingly, the evaluation performing unit 140 evaluates the evaluation grade to be higher as the number of times the product is applied is higher when all the conditions of the evaluation items other than the company's product application recovery items are the same.

2 is a block diagram illustrating a patent evaluation system according to another embodiment.

In one embodiment, the patent evaluation system 100 may perform improved evaluation on patents already evaluated by other evaluation systems. That is, the actual value can be more accurately evaluated by precisely re-evaluating the results evaluated by other specific evaluation systems.

2, the patent evaluation system 100 includes a patent receiving unit 110, an evaluation target patent determining unit 120, a precision evaluation item selection unit 130, an evaluation performing unit 140, and a user interface unit 150. And it may include a control unit 160.

The patent receiving unit 110 may receive a patent that has already been assigned an evaluation grade by another evaluation system. Here, other specific evaluation systems include various types of patents including SMART3 (System to Measure, Analyze and Rate patent Technology 3) of the Korea Invention Promotion Association or K-PEG (Korea-Patent Evaluation & Grading) of the Patent Information Promotion Center. The evaluation system may be this.

The evaluation target patent determining unit 120 may determine some of the patents that have been evaluated as evaluation target patents. In one embodiment, the evaluation target patent determining unit 120 may determine patents corresponding to some evaluation periods among the received patents as evaluation target patents. For example, only patents corresponding to a specific class among patents evaluated as AAA to C by SMART3 may be extracted as a population.

In one embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may include the citation subject of the evaluation target patent, the national set of family patents, the elapsed period after registration, or whether the product is applied, etc. as a precise evaluation item.

In one embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may set the weight differently according to the cited subject of the evaluation target patent, as described in the above embodiment. Specifically, when the cited subject is a competitor of the user or the patent share or growth rate is above a certain criterion as described above, it is classified as the first type. If the cited subject is another applicant or right holder, it is classified as the second type, and if it is the user himself, it is classified as the third type. Hereinafter, the same description will be omitted.

In one embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may set different weights according to the family country set type of the patent to be evaluated. To this end, the evaluation execution unit 140 may classify the family country set of patents to be evaluated for each type according to the criteria set by the present invention precise patent evaluation system. Hereinafter, the same description will be omitted.

In one embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may set a weight based on the patent annual fee payment period or the number of payment periods to be evaluated, and the longer the annual payment period (or the more the number of payments), the higher the weight. Hereinafter, the same description will be omitted.

In addition, as an embodiment, the evaluation execution unit 140 may set different weights according to the fact that the patent to be evaluated is applied to the product. Hereinafter, the same description will be omitted.

The patent evaluation system 100 may receive a patent evaluated by another evaluation system through the patent reception unit 110 and modify it through the evaluation execution unit 140. That is, the patent evaluation system 100 incorrectly evaluates the evaluation result of another evaluation system as a high evaluation according to the weighted result of the precision evaluation item as described above for the evaluation target patent selected by the evaluation target patent decision unit 120 A patent that has been issued can be reclassified, or a patent that has been incorrectly evaluated due to undervaluation can be reclassified. As a result, the patent evaluation system 100 can more accurately and accurately evaluate the value of the patent through improvement of the evaluation method.

More specifically, the evaluation execution unit 140 may modify the existing comprehensive evaluation grade by other evaluation systems based on the weighted result of the entire precision evaluation items.

In addition, since there may be a detailed evaluation item that is related to each detailed evaluation index, that is, it has a particularly significant effect, considering the relationship between the detailed evaluation item and the detailed evaluation index, the specific evaluation item is most relevant based on the weighted sum of specific evaluation items. Existing evaluation grades of detailed evaluation indicators can be modified. For example, the weighted result according to the cited subject can be reflected in the revision of the technical evaluation grade because it is related to technicality and rights among the evaluation indicators. On the other hand, the weighted result according to the family country type can be reflected in the revision of the usability and rights evaluation rating because it has a deep relationship with usability and rights in the evaluation index. In addition, the weighted result of each patent annual payment period is deeply related to rights in the evaluation index and can be reflected in the revision of the rights evaluation rating. The weighted sum according to the application of the product can be reflected in the revision of the usability evaluation grade.

As described above, the weighted result of each evaluation item can be reflected in the modification of the existing evaluation grade by other evaluation systems.

When the evaluation grade is corrected, the evaluation execution unit 140 may modify the evaluation grade according to the standard deviation σ of the weighted sum of the precise evaluation items.

For example, if the weighted sum of a specific patent is 2σ or more compared to the weighted sum of all the precise evaluation items of the target patent to be evaluated, the comprehensive evaluation rating of the specific target patent is increased by two steps. On the other hand, if the weighted sum of a specific patent is 1σ or more, the overall rating is adjusted up by only one rating. When the weighted sum of a specific patent is less than + 1σ, the overall evaluation rating is maintained. Conversely, if the weighted sum of a specific patent to be evaluated is -2σ or less, the overall rating is downgraded by two levels.

On the other hand, correction by detailed evaluation index is also performed in the same manner as above. In other words, the weighted sum by citation subject can affect the technical indicator, so the rating of the detailed indicator can be modified according to the standard deviation σ value of the weighted sum of the technical assessment indicator. For example, if the weighted standard deviation of each patent citation subject is 2σ or more, the rating of the technical index of the patent is raised by two steps. On the other hand, if the weighted standard deviation for each cited subject of a particular patent is 1σ, the rating of the technical index of the specific patent is adjusted up by only one class. Conversely, when the standard deviation of the weighted sum of the cited subject of a specific patent is -2σ, the evaluation rating of the technical index is lowered by two steps. On the other hand, when the standard deviation of a specific patent is -σ, the evaluation grade of the technical index is lowered by one grade. If the standard deviation of the weighted sum of the cited subjects of a specific patent is less than + 1σ, the technical evaluation ratings maintain the existing ratings.

The weighted sum of weights by type of the family country set affects the usability and rights indicators, so the evaluation grade of the usability index and the rights index can be modified according to the standard deviation value of the weighted sum of the family country set. The method of revising the evaluation grade is the same as the method of revising the technical evaluation index.

On the other hand, the weighted sum of the weights for the annual payment period can affect the right indicator, so the rating of the right indicator can be modified according to the weighted standard deviation value of the annual payment period. The method of revising the evaluation grade is the same as the method of revising the technical evaluation index.

In addition, since the weighted sum of weights depending on whether or not the product is applied may affect the usability index, the evaluation grade of the usability index can be modified according to the weighted standard deviation value of the product application. The method of revising the evaluation grade is the same as the method of revising the technical evaluation index.

The control unit 160 controls the overall operation of the patent evaluation system 100, the patent receiving unit 110, the evaluation target patent decision unit 120, the precision evaluation item selection unit 130, the evaluation execution unit 140 and the user The control flow between the interface units 150 may be managed.

3 is a flowchart of a patent evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

In FIG. 3, the patent evaluation system 100 may determine a patent including a specific technology classification or a specific keyword and a specific patent number as the evaluation target patent through the evaluation target patent determination unit 120 (step S310).

The patent evaluation system 100 may select at least one precision evaluation item for the patent to be evaluated through the precision evaluation item selection unit 130 (step S320).

The patent evaluation system 100 may perform a precise evaluation of the patent through weighted sum of precision evaluation items through the evaluation execution unit 140 (step S330).

4 is a flowchart of a patent evaluation system according to another embodiment of the present invention.

The patent evaluation system 100 may receive a patent assigned an evaluation grade according to a specific other evaluation system through the patent receiving unit 110 (step S410).

In addition, the patent evaluation system 100 may determine patents corresponding to some evaluation periods among patents received by the patent receiving unit 110 through the evaluation target patent determination unit 120 (step S420). For example, the evaluation target patent determining unit 120 may determine patents that are greater than or equal to a specific evaluation grade determined according to another evaluation system as patents to be evaluated.

The patent evaluation system 100 may select at least one precision evaluation item for the patent to be evaluated through the precision evaluation item selection unit 130 (step S430).

The patent evaluation system 100 may perform a weighted sum of precision evaluation items through the evaluation execution unit 140 to perform precision evaluation of the patent (step S440).

The patent evaluation system 100 may adjust or maintain the evaluation grade upward or downward based on the precise evaluation of patents corresponding to some evaluation sections determined as patents to be evaluated through the evaluation execution unit 140 (step S450). ).

5 is an exemplary view showing a user interface (hereinafter referred to as UI) of the patent evaluation system 100 according to another embodiment of the present invention. 5 (a) may represent a patent evaluation-related UI according to an embodiment, and FIG. 5 (b) may represent an evaluation result confirmation UI according to an embodiment.

In FIG. 5 (a), the user interface unit 150 may include a precision evaluation item selection UI 520 for selecting at least one precision evaluation item. The UI for selecting precise evaluation items can be implemented in the form of user checkboxes or in the form of drop-downs.

In one embodiment, the precision evaluation item selection UI 520 may include a cited patent subject, a family patent country set, etc. as a precision evaluation item, but is not limited thereto and may include various evaluation items.

In one embodiment, the user interface unit 150 of the patent evaluation system 100 may include a cited patent subject type selection UI for selecting a subject type of a patent citing a target patent for evaluation according to a user's selection. For example, the user may select as the first type of subject when the applicant is a specific company through the citation subject selection UI. More specifically, the user interface 150 may provide a user with an input window or a drop-down list for selecting a first or second type of cited patent subject.

In one embodiment, the user interface 150 may include an evaluation target patent selection UI 510 for selecting a patent included in all or some of the evaluation sections received from the patent receiving unit 110. For example, the patent evaluation system 100 may determine patents belonging to a specific evaluation period (eg, A grade and CCC grade period) through the patent selection UI 510 for evaluation.

In addition, it may further include a UI related to product application of a company or a third party. More specifically, the patent evaluation system 100 may include a product application UI for inputting whether to apply the product and the number of application times by a user input.

In FIG. 5 (b), the user interface unit 150 may include an evaluation result confirmation UI. In one embodiment, the patent evaluation system 100 may check the comprehensive evaluation grade and / or technical, rights, and / or usability evaluation results for the patents that have been evaluated through the evaluation result confirmation UI. That is, the evaluation result confirmation UI 710 may simultaneously provide the comprehensive evaluation grade (corrected) evaluation result and the (corrected) evaluation result of the detailed evaluation index, or only some of the evaluation grade (corrected) evaluation results according to the user's selection. Can provide. For example, only the (corrected) evaluation result of the technical evaluation index may be selectively provided according to the user's selection.

6 is a view showing an evaluation result confirmation UI and an evaluation result detailed display UI according to an embodiment of the present invention.

In one embodiment, after the evaluation is completed through the patent evaluation system 100, when the evaluation result confirmation UI 710 of the user interface unit 150 selects a specific evaluation grade, a patent list corresponding to the grade is output and the evaluation result The detailed display UI 720 outputs an evaluation grade (corrected) evaluation result and / or an evaluation report and / or a summary and / or drawings when a specific evaluation patent is selected from the patent list, so that the user can check the evaluation result. Can provide.

Although described above with reference to preferred embodiments of the present invention, those skilled in the art variously modify and change the present invention without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention as set forth in the claims below. You can understand that you can.

Claims

An evaluation target patent decision unit for determining a patent including a specific technology classification, a specific keyword, or a specific patent number as an evaluation target patent;

A precision evaluation item selection unit selecting at least one precision evaluation item for the evaluation target patent; And

It includes an evaluation performance unit for performing a precise evaluation of the patent through weighted sum of the precision evaluation items,

The evaluation unit,

The first type, which is the competitor or the main right holder, of the cited subject type of the patent to be evaluated, the second type, which is not the inventor or the applicant of the patent to be evaluated, other than the first type; And a third type that is the same person as the inventor or applicant of the patent to be evaluated; and the weight of the first type is higher than the weight of the second type, and the weight of the second type is higher than the weight of the third type. Highly determined patent evaluation system.
According to claim 1,

Further comprising a patent receiving unit for receiving a patent evaluated by a specific other evaluation system,

The patent evaluation system, wherein the evaluation target patent decision unit determines patents corresponding to some evaluation sections among patents received by the patent reception unit as the evaluation target patents.
The method of claim 1, wherein the precision evaluation item selection unit

Patent evaluation system characterized in that it includes the citation subject of the evaluation target patent as a precise evaluation item.
The method of claim 1, wherein the precision evaluation item selection unit

Patent evaluation system, characterized in that it includes the family country type or annual payment period or the number of applications of others / own products in the at least one precise evaluation item.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit

Patent evaluation system characterized in that the weight is classified and set according to the number of times the patent to be evaluated is applied to the product of itself or another person.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit

Classifying the cited subject type according to the user's selection or detecting the patent share, patent growth rate, or number of patents to be evaluated, and based on the detected patent share, patent growth rate, or number of patents to be evaluated Patent evaluation system characterized by classifying the cited subject type.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit

Patent evaluation system characterized in that the weight is set based on the type of the family country set of the patent to be evaluated.
The method of claim 7, wherein the evaluation unit

When the family country set corresponds to the first set type, the patent evaluation system is characterized in that the weight is higher than the case corresponding to the second set type.
The method of claim 8, wherein the evaluation unit

If the type of the national set of the family patent includes all of the United States (US), Europe (EU) and Japan (JP), it is classified as the first set type, and when it includes only some countries, it is classified as the second set type. Patent evaluation system characterized in that.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit

Patent evaluation system, characterized in that the weight is set based on the number of annual payments or payment periods of the patents to be evaluated and the higher the number of payments of the annual fees or the longer the payment periods.