IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v90y2012i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0522-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying patent infringement using SAO based semantic technological similarities

Author

Listed:
  • Hyunseok Park

    (Pohang University of Science and Technology)

  • Janghyeok Yoon

    (Pohang University of Science and Technology)

  • Kwangsoo Kim

    (Pohang University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Companies should investigate possible patent infringement and cope with potential risks because patent litigation may have a tremendous financial impact. An important factor to identify the possibility of patent infringement is the technological similarity among patents, so this paper considered technological similarity as a criterion for judging the possibility of infringement. Technological similarities can be measured by transforming patent documents into abstracted forms which contain specific technological key-findings and structural relationships among technological components in the invention. Although keyword-based technological similarity has been widely adopted for patent analysis related research, it is inadequate for identifying patent infringement because a keyword vector cannot reflect specific technological key-findings and structural relationships among technological components. As a remedy, this paper exploited a subject–action–object (SAO) based semantic technological similarity. An SAO structure explicitly describes the structural relationships among technological components in the patent, and the set of SAO structures is considered to be a detailed picture of the inventor’s expertise, which is the specific key-findings in the patent. Therefore, an SAO based semantic technological similarity can identify patent infringement. Semantic similarity between SAO structures is automatically measured using SAO based semantic similarity measurement method using WordNet, and the technological relationships among patents were mapped onto a 2-dimensional space using multidimensional scaling (MDS). Furthermore, a clustering algorithm is used to automatically suggest possible patent infringement cases, allowing large sets of patents to be handled with minimal effort by human experts. The proposed method will be verified by detecting real patent infringement in prostate cancer treatment technology, and we expect this method to relieve human experts’ work in identifying patent infringement.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2012. "Identifying patent infringement using SAO based semantic technological similarities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 515-529, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0522-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0522-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0522-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-011-0522-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. Janghyeok Yoon & Sungchul Choi & Kwangsoo Kim, 2011. "Invention property-function network analysis of patents: a case of silicon-based thin film solar cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(3), pages 687-703, March.
    3. Carree, M. A. & Klomp, L. & Thurik, A. R., 2000. "Productivity convergence in OECD manufacturing industries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 337-345, March.
    4. Stephen Johnson, 1967. "Hierarchical clustering schemes," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 32(3), pages 241-254, September.
    5. Claude Crampes & Corinne Langinier, 2002. "Litigation and Settlement in Patent Infringement Cases," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 258-274, Summer.
    6. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    7. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    8. J. Kruskal, 1964. "Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 29(1), pages 1-27, March.
    9. Martin G. Moehrle, 2010. "Measures for textual patent similarities: a guided way to select appropriate approaches," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 95-109, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jose M. Vicente-Gomila & Anna Palli & Begoña Calle & Miguel A. Artacho & Sara Jimenez, 2017. "Discovering shifts in competitive strategies in probiotics, accelerated with TechMining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1907-1923, June.
    2. Yang, Chao & Huang, Cui & Su, Jun, 2018. "An improved SAO network-based method for technology trend analysis: A case study of graphene," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 271-286.
    3. Sunghyun Nam & Sejun Yoon & Nagarajan Raghavan & Hyunseok Park, 2021. "Identifying Service Opportunities Based on Outcome-Driven Innovation Framework and Deep Learning: A Case Study of Hotel Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Yuan Zhou & Heng Lin & Yufei Liu & Wei Ding, 2019. "A novel method to identify emerging technologies using a semi-supervised topic clustering model: a case of 3D printing industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 167-185, July.
    5. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 883-909, December.
    6. Xuefeng Wang & Huichao Ren & Yun Chen & Yuqin Liu & Yali Qiao & Ying Huang, 2019. "Measuring patent similarity with SAO semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Liu, Zhenfeng & Feng, Jian & Uden, Lorna, 2023. "Technology opportunity analysis using hierarchical semantic networks and dual link prediction," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Yoon, Janghyeok & Park, Hyunseok & Seo, Wonchul & Lee, Jae-Min & Coh, Byoung-youl & Kim, Jonghwa, 2015. "Technology opportunity discovery (TOD) from existing technologies and products: A function-based TOD framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 153-167.
    9. Apreda, Riccardo & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & dell'Orletta, Felice & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2019. "Expert forecast and realized outcomes in technology foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 277-288.
    10. Farshad Madani, 2015. "‘Technology Mining’ bibliometrics analysis: applying network analysis and cluster analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 323-335, October.
    11. Chao Yang & Donghua Zhu & Xuefeng Wang & Yi Zhang & Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2017. "Requirement-oriented core technological components’ identification based on SAO analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1229-1248, September.
    12. An, Xin & Li, Jinghong & Xu, Shuo & Chen, Liang & Sun, Wei, 2021. "An improved patent similarity measurement based on entities and semantic relations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    13. Woondong Yeo & Seonho Kim & Byoung-Youl Coh & Jaewoo Kang, 2013. "A quantitative approach to recommend promising technologies for SME innovation: a case study on knowledge arbitrage from LCD to solar cell," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 589-604, August.
    14. Gustafsson, Robin & Kuusi, Osmo & Meyer, Martin, 2015. "Examining open-endedness of expectations in emerging technological fields: The case of cellulosic ethanol," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 179-193.
    15. Chen, Liang & Xu, Shuo & Zhu, Lijun & Zhang, Jing & Yang, Guancan & Xu, Haiyun, 2022. "A deep learning based method benefiting from characteristics of patents for semantic relation classification," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    16. Guo, Junfang & Wang, Xuefeng & Li, Qianrui & Zhu, Donghua, 2016. "Subject–action–object-based morphology analysis for determining the direction of technological change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 27-40.
    17. Chen, Lixin, 2017. "Do patent citations indicate knowledge linkage? The evidence from text similarities between patents and their citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 63-79.
    18. Janghyeok Yoon & Hyunseok Park & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identifying technological competition trends for R&D planning using dynamic patent maps: SAO-based content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 313-331, January.
    19. Liang Chen & Shuo Xu & Lijun Zhu & Jing Zhang & Xiaoping Lei & Guancan Yang, 2020. "A deep learning based method for extracting semantic information from patent documents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 289-312, October.
    20. Zhou, Yuan & Dong, Fang & Kong, Dejing & Liu, Yufei, 2019. "Unfolding the convergence process of scientific knowledge for the early identification of emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 205-220.
    21. Hei Chia Wang & Yung Chang Chi & Ping Lun Hsin, 2018. "Constructing Patent Maps Using Text Mining to Sustainably Detect Potential Technological Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    22. Chung, Jaemin & Ko, Namuk & Kim, Hyeonsu & Yoon, Janghyeok, 2021. "Inventor profile mining approach for prospective human resource scouting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Serge Pajak, 2016. "Do innovative firms rely on big secrets? An analysis of IP protection strategies with the CIS 4 survey," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 516-532, July.
    2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    3. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    4. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    5. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2010. "Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 472-503, September.
    6. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    7. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    8. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    9. Miric, Milan & Boudreau, Kevin J. & Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2019. "Protecting their digital assets: The use of formal & informal appropriability strategies by App developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    10. Philipp N. Baecker, 2007. "Real Options and Intellectual Property," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-48264-2, December.
    11. Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Liu, John S., 2016. "A novel approach to identify the major research themes and development trajectory: The case of patenting research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 71-82.
    12. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    15. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    16. Ponce, Carlos J., 2007. "More secrecy... more knowledge disclosure? : On disclosure outside of patents," UC3M Working papers. Economics we077241, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    17. Schankerman, Mark & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality : Examination, Fees, and the Courts," Other publications TiSEM fa319822-6e68-4e05-8547-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Useche, Diego, 2014. "Are patents signals for the IPO market? An EU–US comparison for the software industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1299-1311.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    20. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2009. "Business And Financial Method Patents, Innovation, And Policy," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(4), pages 443-473, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent mining; Patent litigation; Subject–action–object; SAO; Natural language processing; NLP; Multidimensional scaling; Patent analysis; Patent risk;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • C82 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0522-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.