IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p1763-d494763.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated Survival Model for Predicting Patent Litigation Hazard

Author

Listed:
  • Youngho Kim

    (Department of Industrial Management Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Sangsung Park

    (Department of Big Data and Statistics, Cheongju University, Chungbuk 28503, Korea)

  • Junseok Lee

    (MICUBE Solution, Seoul 06719, Korea)

  • Dongsik Jang

    (Department of Industrial Management Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Jiho Kang

    (Machine Learning Big Data Institute, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

Patent litigation occurs when a company’s product or service violates the scope of another company’s patent rights. When they occur, companies suffer a disruption to the sales of their products and services, thus hindering the sustainability of their business activities. For this reason, companies have established and analyzed wide-ranging strategies to prevent patent litigation. Of those, statistical and machine learning-based quantitative methods using patent big data have several advantages, such as a reduced cost and objective results. Existing quantitative methods analyze patent information and litigation based on the time of data collection. However, the values of patents and their litigation hazards change over time. In addition, the existing methods do not take into account censored data; that is, patents that may result in litigation after the data is collected. In this paper, to solve this problem we propose an integrated survival model that considers censored data and predicts patent litigation hazards over time. The proposed model is a non-parametric survival analysis method based on a random survival forest. It uses pre-trained word2vec and clustering to effectively reflect the technology fields as well as the quantitative information of the patent. The word2vec is a technique for natural language processing and enables the use of patent text information. In order to examine the practicality of the integrated survival model, an experiment is conducted with patent big data related to sensor semiconductors based on AI technology applicable to robotics. In the experiment, it was found that the litigation hazard occurred 150 months after the patent application and increase rapidly from 200 months. Furthermore, the proposed model showed better predictive performance than other survival analysis models. The proposed model could be used by potential defendants to protect their patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Youngho Kim & Sangsung Park & Junseok Lee & Dongsik Jang & Jiho Kang, 2021. "Integrated Survival Model for Predicting Patent Litigation Hazard," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:1763-:d:494763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1763/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1763/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Wagner, S. & Cockburn, I., 2010. "Patents and the survival of Internet-related IPOs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 214-228, March.
    3. Yoshifumi Nakata & Xingyuan Zhang, 2012. "A survival analysis of patent examination requests by Japanese electrical and electronic manufacturers," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 31-54, October.
    4. Roberto Moro-Visconti, 2022. "The Valuation of Digital Intangibles," Springer Books, Springer, edition 2, number 978-3-031-09237-4, December.
    5. Eun Han & So Sohn, 2015. "Patent valuation based on text mining and survival analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 821-839, October.
    6. Marco Guerzoni & Consuelo R. Nava & Massimiliano Nuccio, 2019. "The survival of start-ups in time of crisis. A machine learning approach to measure innovation," Papers 1911.01073, arXiv.org.
    7. Ying Xie & David Giles, 2011. "A survival analysis of the approval of US patent applications," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(11), pages 1375-1384.
    8. Llobet, Gerard, 2003. "Patent litigation when innovation is cumulative," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1135-1157, October.
    9. Erzurumlu, S. Sinan & Pachamanova, Dessislava, 2020. "Topic modeling and technology forecasting for assessing the commercial viability of healthcare innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. Junseok Lee & Ji-Ho Kang & Sunghae Jun & Hyunwoong Lim & Dongsik Jang & Sangsung Park, 2018. "Ensemble Modeling for Sustainable Technology Transfer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Xi Yang & Xiang Yu, 2020. "Preventing Patent Risks in Artificial Intelligence Industry for Sustainable Development: A Multi-Level Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-21, 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. Shumin Bai & Xiaofeng Ji & Bingyou Dai & Yongming Pu & Wenwen Qin, 2022. "An Integrated Model for the Geohazard Accident Duration on a Regional Mountain Road Network Using Text Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Hu, Zewen & Zhou, Xiji & Lin, Angela, 2023. "Evaluation and identification of potential high-value patents in the field of integrated circuits using a multidimensional patent indicators pre-screening strategy and machine learning approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).

    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. 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.
    2. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "The Financing of Innovative Firms," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 1(1).
    3. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    4. Darcy, Jacques & Krämer-Eis, Helmut & Guellec, Dominique & Debande, Olivier, 2009. "Financing technology transfer," EIB Papers 10/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    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. Zhang, Gupeng & Xiong, Libin & Duan, Hongbo & Huang, Dujuan, 2020. "Obtaining certainty vs. creating uncertainty: Does firms’ patent filing strategy work as expected?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    7. Kou Zonglai & Zhang Jian, 2007. "Endogenous licensing in cumulative innovation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 2(3), pages 424-457, July.
    8. Jeon, Haejun, 2015. "Patent infringement, litigation, and settlement," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 99-111.
    9. Haejun Jeon, 2016. "Patent litigation and cross licensing with cumulative innovation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 119(3), pages 179-218, November.
    10. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2020. "The disciplinary effect of post-grant review – Causal evidence from European patent opposition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    11. Buzzacchi, Luigi & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2008. "Patent litigation insurance and R&D incentives," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 272-286, December.
    12. Wagner, Stefan & Wakeman, Simon, 2016. "What do patent-based measures tell us about product commercialization? Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1091-1102.
    13. Ting Meng & Richard Carew & Wojciech J. Florkowski, 2020. "Determinants of the grant lag and the surrender lag of horticultural crop plant breeders’ rights applications: Survival analysis with competing risks," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 489-512, December.
    14. Bottazzi, Laura, 2009. "The role of venture capital in alleviating financial constraints of innovative firms," EIB Papers 9/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    15. Harhoff, Dietmar, 2009. "The role of patents and licenses in securing external finance for innovation," EIB Papers 11/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    16. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    17. Dierker, Daniel A. & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2002. "The Butcher The Baker The Pharmaceutical Maker: Why The Agricultural Biotech Industry May Differ From The General Biotech Industry," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19728, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Marco Grazzi & Chiara Piccardo & Cecilia Vergari, 2022. "Turmoil over the crisis: innovation capabilities and firm exit," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 537-564, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:1763-:d:494763. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.