Evaluation device

Abstract

To provide a method of evaluating classifications assigned to industrial property rights, and a method of evaluating the industrial property rights based on the evaluation of the classifications.SOLUTION: An evaluation device 10 acquires an evaluation classification, or a classification of an industrial property right of an evaluation target, and evaluation target reference date. The evaluation device 10 refers to an industrial property right information database 111 to evaluate the industrial property right of the evaluation target on the basis of a score associated with the same classification as the evaluation classification and the sane evaluation reference date as the evaluation target reference date.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to an evaluation device for evaluating classifications assigned to industrial property rights. The present invention relates to an evaluation device for evaluating industrial property rights.

Background Art

[0002] Patent Document 1 discloses an apparatus for evaluating the value of patent rights and utility model rights, which are industrial property rights, from the contents of patent publication gazettes, patent gazettes, published utility model gazettes, or utility model gazettes.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] By the way, for example, the number of patent classifications assigned to a patent is used in patent evaluation as an index indicating the breadth of the technical applicability of the patent. However, the inventor has noticed that the trends of patents assigned the same patent classification can be used in evaluation as an index reflecting the popularity and decline of the industrial field to which the patent classification belongs.

[0005] An object of the present invention is to provide a method for evaluating classifications assigned to industrial property rights and a method for evaluating industrial property rights based on the evaluation of such classifications.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0006] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is An evaluation device that is connected to a database in which scores indicating evaluations of classifications are recorded in association with the classifications and an evaluation reference date according to the content of industrial property rights, and evaluates industrial property rights to be evaluated based on the database, The score is calculated based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose predetermined date associated with a specific procedure in the industrial property rights belonging to the classification is before the evaluation reference date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging after the evaluation reference date, In the database, the scores are recorded for each of the plurality of classifications for each of a plurality of evaluation reference dates, The evaluation device, Obtains an evaluation classification that is the classification of the industrial property rights to be evaluated and an evaluation target reference date, Refers to the database and evaluates the industrial property rights to be evaluated based on the score associated with the same classification as the evaluation classification and the same evaluation reference date as the evaluation target reference date.

[0007] An evaluation device according to an aspect of the present invention, Is connected to a database in which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and each assigned classification are recorded in association with a plurality of industrial property rights, and refers to the database to evaluate the industrial property rights to be evaluated, The evaluation device, Obtains an evaluation classification that is the classification of the industrial property rights to be evaluated and an evaluation target reference date, Refers to the database and calculates a score indicating an evaluation of the classification based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose predetermined date in the industrial property rights belonging to the evaluation classification is before the evaluation target reference date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging after the evaluation target reference date, Evaluates the industrial property rights to be evaluated based on the calculated score.

[0008] An evaluation device according to an aspect of the present invention, An evaluation device is connected to a database in which, for a plurality of industrial property rights, a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and a classification assigned to each are associated and recorded, and for each classification, calculates a score indicating an evaluation of the classification. The evaluation device refers to the database and calculates the score based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose predetermined date associated with a specific procedure in the industrial property rights belonging to the classification is before the evaluation reference date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging to the classification after the evaluation reference date. The evaluation device calculates the score for each of the plurality of classifications for each of the plurality of evaluation reference dates.

[0009] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is connected to a database in which a score indicating an evaluation of a classification is recorded in association with the classification and an evaluation reference date for a classification assigned according to the content of an industrial property right, and evaluates an industrial property right to be evaluated based on the database. The score is calculated based on an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose predetermined date associated with a specific procedure in the industrial property rights belonging to the classification belongs to the evaluation reference date. In the database, the score is recorded for each of the plurality of classifications for each of the plurality of evaluation reference dates. The evaluation device acquires an evaluation classification that is the classification of the industrial property right to be evaluated and an evaluation target reference date, refers to the database, and evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the score associated with the same classification as the evaluation classification and the same evaluation reference date as the evaluation target reference date.

[0010] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is connected to a database in which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and a classification assigned to each are associated and recorded for a plurality of industrial property rights, and refers to the database to evaluate an industrial property right to be evaluated. The evaluation device acquires an evaluation classification that is the classification of the industrial property right to be evaluated and an evaluation reference date, refers to the database, and calculates a score indicating the evaluation of the classification based on an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging to the evaluation classification on the predetermined date in the industrial property rights belonging to the evaluation classification and belonging to the evaluation reference date, evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the calculated score.

Effect of the Invention

[0011] According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a method for evaluating a classification given to an industrial property right and a method for evaluating an industrial property right based on the evaluation of the classification.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0012]

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0013] Examples of embodiments according to the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0014] (Classification Evaluation) FIG. 1 illustrates the configuration of an evaluation apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment. The evaluation apparatus 10 is an apparatus for evaluating classifications assigned to industrial property rights. The evaluation apparatus 10 calculates a score indicating the evaluation of a classification (hereinafter referred to as the classification score).

[0015] As used herein, the term "industrial property right" includes not only registered industrial property rights but also industrial property rights that are pending application and not yet registered. Hereinafter, including industrial property rights that are pending application, they are simply referred to as industrial property rights.

[0016] Classifications assigned to industrial property rights are classifications assigned to patents, classifications assigned to utility models, It includes the classification assigned to the design and the category assigned to the trademark. The classification is assigned according to the content of the industrial property right, and one or more classifications are assigned to one industrial property right. The classification assigned to the industrial property right is published in the gazette of that industrial property right. For example, in the Japanese patent laid-open gazette and patent gazette, the International Patent Classification (IPC) and the Japanese original patent classification (FI and F-term) are published as classifications.

[0017] The score is represented by a numerical value or an alphabet. For example, the score can be set so that the higher the evaluation, the higher the numerical value of the score.

[0018] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the evaluation device 10 includes a storage unit 11 and a control unit 12. The control unit 12 is communicably connected to the storage unit 11 via a network. Note that the control unit 12 and the storage unit 11 may be configured as one device.

[0019] The storage unit 11 includes an industrial property right information database 111 and a classification evaluation database 112. In the industrial property right information database 111, information on a plurality of industrial property rights is recorded. The information on the industrial property right includes, for example, the country of application, type of right, application number, registration number, applicant, right holder, classification, application date, priority date, publication date, examination request date, registration date, opposition filing date, abandonment date, information related to the payment of maintenance annuity (due date, payment status, etc.). The application date, priority date, publication date, examination request date, registration date, opposition filing date, abandonment date, and due date are examples of predetermined dates associated with specific procedures.

[0020] Note that the "predetermined date associated with a specific procedure" includes not only the date on which the specific procedure was carried out, but also the date determined due to the non - carrying out of the specific procedure. For example, the abandonment date includes not only the date on which the abandonment procedure was actively carried out or the date on which the abandonment was determined by the abandonment procedure, but also the date on which the abandonment was determined due to the non - carrying out of a specific procedure. The date on which the abandonment was determined due to the non - carrying out of a specific procedure includes, for example, the date on which the abandonment was determined due to the non - filing of a request for examination or a response to a notice, or the date on which the rights became invalid due to the non - payment of the maintenance annuity procedure.

[0021] Figure 2 shows an example of the industrial property right information database 111. The industrial property right information database 111 contains, for each industrial property right, a management number, the country of application, the type of right, classification, application number, filing date, publication date, request for examination date, registration date, abandonment date, and applicant information. In Figure 2, in the type of right, P indicates a patent and U indicates a utility model.

[0022] As shown in FIG. 1, for example, the evaluation device 10 is communicably connected to the Patent Office system 30 via the communication network 20. For example, the evaluation device 10 periodically acquires, via the communication network 20, information on newly published or registered industrial property rights and updated information on industrial property rights from the Patent Office system 30, and records them in the industrial property right information database 111.

[0023] In the classification evaluation database 112, scores are recorded in association with the classification and the evaluation reference date for the classification assigned according to the content of the industrial property right. The evaluation reference date is the date used as a reference for calculating the score. The score is calculated by the control unit 12 and recorded in the classification evaluation database 112 as will be described later.

[0024] The control unit 12 is configured to calculate a score for each classification for each of a plurality of evaluation reference dates. Specifically, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property right information database 111, and calculates a score based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose predetermined date associated with a specific procedure in the industrial property rights belonging to the classification is before the evaluation reference date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging after the evaluation reference date. Then, the control unit 12 writes the calculated score in association with the classification and the evaluation reference date into the classification evaluation database 112.

[0025] FIG. 3 shows an example of the classification score calculation process executed by the control unit 12. In FIG. 3, a method of calculating the score of the classification given to the industrial property right using the number of applications and the application date of the industrial property right is shown. The application date is an example of a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure. The number of applications is an example of an index corresponding to the number of cases.

[0026] First, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property right information database 111 to create an application number table composed of the application dates and the number of applications of the industrial property rights belonging to a predetermined classification (STEP1).

[0027] FIG. 4 shows an example of an application number table showing the number of applications of patents to which the classification A63F13 / 69,510 is given. For example, the control unit 12 calculates the number of applications for each year from 2005 to 2019 based on the industrial property right information database 111 shown in FIG. 2.

[0028] Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 3, the control unit 12 refers to the application number table to calculate a trend ratio of the number of applications based on a predetermined evaluation reference date (STEP2). The trend ratio of the number of applications is a value indicating the ratio between the number of applications whose application date belongs before the evaluation reference date (hereinafter also referred to as the number of previous applications) and the number of applications whose application date belongs after the evaluation reference date (hereinafter also referred to as the number of subsequent applications). For example, the control unit 12 calculates the ratio between the average change rate of the number of previous applications and the average change rate of the number of subsequent applications as the trend ratio of the number of applications.

[0029] For example, in the application number table shown in FIG. 4, when the evaluation reference date is set to 2010, the control unit 12 calculates, as the average change rate of the previous application number, the average change rate of the number of patent applications filed during the past five years from the evaluation reference date. Specifically, the total number of patent applications filed from 2006 to 2010 (18 + 5 + 12 + 10 + 8) is divided by the period from 2006 to 2010 (5). As a result, the average change rate of the previous application number is 10.6. Note that the period for calculating the average change rate of the previous application number is not limited to the past five years and can be set as appropriate.

[0030] In addition, the control unit 12 calculates, as the average change rate of the subsequent application number, the average change rate of the number of patent applications filed after the evaluation reference date. Specifically, the total number of patent applications filed from 2011 to 2019 is divided by the period from 2011 to 2019. As a result, the average change rate of the subsequent application number is 63. Note that the period for calculating the average change rate of the subsequent application number is not limited to the period from the evaluation reference date to the most recent date and can be set as appropriate.

[0031] FIG. 5 is a graph showing the transition of the number of applications in the application number table of FIG. 4 and the average change rate calculated with 2010 as the evaluation reference date. In FIG. 5, the bar graph shows the number of applications, and the solid line broken line graph shows the cumulative number of applications. Note that the cumulative number of applications up to 2005 is calculated as 100. Also, the slope of the broken line graph with a broken line indicates the average change rate calculated with 2010 as the evaluation reference date. As shown in FIG. 5, the number of applications is small until 2011 and increases after 2012. Therefore, the average change rate of the subsequent application number (the slope of the broken line graph with a broken line after 2010) with 2010 as the evaluation reference date is larger than the average change rate of the previous application number (the slope of the broken line graph before 2010).

[0032] The control unit 12 calculates the trend ratio of the number of applications with 2010 as the evaluation criterion as 63 / 10.6 = 5.94. In this example, 2010, which is the evaluation criterion date, is used when calculating the average change rate of the previous number of applications, but it may also be used when calculating the average change rate of the subsequent number of applications.

[0033] Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 3, the control unit 12 converts the calculated trend ratio of the number of applications into a score (STEP3). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the evaluation device 10 includes a score database 113. The score database 113 records a score table for calculating a score from the trend ratio.

[0034] FIG. 6 shows an example of a score table for the number of applications included in the score database 113. In the score table, scores are set corresponding to the trend ratio of the number of applications. In this example, the score is represented by a numerical value from 0 to 5. The score is set such that the higher the value of the trend ratio of the number of applications, the higher the score.

[0035] The control unit 12 refers to the score table shown in FIG. 6 and converts the calculated trend ratio of the number of applications into a score. Specifically, as described above, since the trend ratio with the evaluation criterion date of 2010 in the classification A63F13 / 69,510 is 5.94, the control unit 12 calculates the score with the evaluation criterion date of 2010 in the classification A63F13 / 69,510 as 5.

[0036] Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 3, the control unit 12 determines whether scores have been calculated for all evaluation criterion dates (STEP4). If the control unit 12 determines that scores have not been calculated for all evaluation criterion dates (NO in STEP4), it returns to STEP2 and repeats the calculation of scores until scores have been calculated for all evaluation criterion dates.

[0037] In this example, the control unit 12 sets each filing date (the years in which applications were filed from 2005 to 2019) in the application number table shown in FIG. 4 as the evaluation reference date, and repeats STEP2 and STEP3 until the scores based on each evaluation reference date are calculated.

[0038] For example, in the application number table shown in FIG. 4, when the evaluation reference date is 2016, the average change rate of the previous application numbers is calculated as 88.2 based on the number of patent applications filed from 2012 to 2016. The average change rate of the subsequent application numbers is calculated as 37.67 based on the number of patent applications filed from 2017 to 2019. As a result, the trend ratio when 2016 is used as the evaluation reference is 37.67 / 88.2 = 0.43, and according to the score table shown in FIG. 6, the score for classification A63F13 / 69,510 with the evaluation reference date of 2016 is calculated as 0.

[0039] FIG. 7 is a graph showing the transition of the application numbers in the application number table of FIG. 4 and the average change rate calculated with 2016 as the evaluation reference date. In FIG. 7, the bar graph shows the application numbers, and the solid line broken line graph shows the cumulative number of application numbers. Also, the slope of the broken line graph with a broken line indicates the average change rate calculated with 2016 as the evaluation reference date. As shown in FIG. 7, the application numbers increase from 2012 to 2016, but decrease after 2017. As a result, the average change rate of the subsequent application numbers with 2016 as the evaluation reference date (the slope of the broken line graph with a broken line after 2016) is smaller than the average change rate of the previous application numbers (the slope of the broken line graph before 2016).

[0040] Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 3, when the control unit 12 determines that scores have been calculated for all the evaluation reference dates (YES in STEP4), it determines whether scores have been calculated for all the classifications (STEP5). If the control unit 12 determines that scores have not been calculated for all the classifications (NO in STEP5), it returns to STEP1 and repeats the calculation of scores until scores have been calculated for all the classifications.

[0041] Then, when scores are calculated for all classifications (YES in STEP5), the control unit 12 associates the calculated scores with the corresponding classifications and the evaluation reference dates and records them in the classification evaluation database 112. Note that the timing of recording the scores in the classification evaluation database 112 may be performed each time a score is calculated for each classification or each evaluation reference date.

[0042] FIG. 8 shows an example of the classification evaluation database 112. The classification evaluation database 112 includes information on the evaluation reference dates and scores for each classification. In this example, scores with each year from 2005 to 2019 calculated using the application number table shown in FIG. 4 and the score table shown in FIG. 5 are recorded as the evaluation reference dates. For example, for classification A63F13 / 69,510, 5 is recorded as the score for the evaluation reference date in 2010, and 0 is recorded as the score for the evaluation reference date in 2016.

[0043] Here, the number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification tends to vary according to the introduction period, growth period, maturity period, or decline period of the industrial field to which the classification belongs. For example, when a certain industrial field is in the introduction period or growth period, the number of applications for industrial property rights to which the classification to which the industrial field belongs is granted tends to increase. On the other hand, for example, when a certain industrial field is in the maturity period or decline period, the number of applications for industrial property rights to which the classification to which the industrial field belongs is granted tends to be constant or decrease. Therefore, the trend of the number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification can be an indicator reflecting the popularity or obsolescence of the industrial field to which the classification belongs.

[0044] According to the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment, a classification score is calculated based on a comparison between the number of applications filed before the evaluation reference date and the number of applications filed after the evaluation reference date in industrial property rights belonging to the same classification. In other words, the classification is evaluated based on the trend of the number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification filed before and after the evaluation reference date. Therefore, as an evaluation of the classification, an evaluation reflecting the popularity and decline of the industrial field to which the classification belongs can be performed.

[0045] Also, in this embodiment, it is set such that the larger the trend ratio, that is, the larger the average change rate of the number of later applications is than the average change rate of the number of earlier applications, the higher the score. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, when the number of applications filed after the evaluation reference date (2010) is increasing, the average change rate of the number of later applications is larger than the average change rate of the number of earlier applications. On the other hand, as shown in FIG. 7, when the number of applications filed after the evaluation reference date (2016) is decreasing, the average change rate of the number of later applications is smaller than the average change rate of the number of earlier applications. Therefore, by setting the score to increase as the average change rate of the number of later applications is larger than the average change rate of the number of earlier applications, as an evaluation of the classification, an evaluation reflecting the popularity and decline of the industrial field to which the classification belongs can be performed.

[0046] Also, in this embodiment, the classification is evaluated based on the number of patent applications. However, as exemplified by the control numbers No. 1 and No. 5 in FIG. 2, when the same classification is assigned to patents and utility models, the classification may be evaluated based on the number of patent applications and the number of utility model applications.

[0047] In this embodiment, the classification score is calculated based on the number of applications. However, the score may be calculated based on the number of procedures other than applications, such as the number of publications, the number of examination requests, the number of registrations, the number of opposition filings, and the number of abandonments. In this case, in STEP1 of FIG. 3, instead of the application number table, a predetermined number table showing the number of publications, examination requests, registrations, opposition filings, or abandonments for each year is created. Then, in STEP2, the trend ratio is calculated from the predetermined number table, and in STEP3, the calculated trend ratio is converted into a score. Note that the score for the number of publications, examination requests, registrations, or opposition filings can be set, for example, to increase as the value of the trend ratio increases. Alternatively, the score for the number of abandonments can be set to decrease as the value of the trend ratio increases.

[0048] For example, similar to the number of applications, the number of publications tends to vary according to the introduction period, growth period, maturity period, or decline period of the industrial field to which the classification belongs. For example, the number of examination requests, registrations, opposition filings, or abandonments tends to vary depending on the feasibility and attention of the industrial field to which the classification belongs. Therefore, even when calculating the score using these numbers, as an evaluation of the classification, an evaluation reflecting the popularity and obsolescence of the industrial field to which the classification belongs can be performed.

[0049] In addition, for calculating the score, instead of the number, for example, a ratio calculated from the number may be used. Examples of the ratio calculated from the number include the abandonment rate. The abandonment rate is, for example, the ratio of the number of abandoned (rights invalidation due to non-payment of maintenance annuity or active abandonment) patents to the total number of patents for which the maintenance annuity payment deadline has arrived, and can be calculated by abandonment number / (abandonment number + payment number) × 100.

[0050] Figure 9 shows an example of a waiver rate table indicating the waiver rate of patents granted with classification A63F13 / 69,510 for which maintenance annuities from the 4th to the 6th year arrive. Figure 10 is a graph showing the transition of the waiver rate in the waiver rate table of Figure 9. For example, for patents whose payment deadline for maintenance annuities from the 4th to the 6th year arrives in 2003, the number of paid cases is 36 and the number of waived cases is 8. Therefore, the waiver rate is 8 / (36 + 8)×100 = 18.2%.

[0051] For example, in STEP1 of Figure 3, the waiver rate table shown in Figure 9 is created, and in STEP2, the trend ratio is calculated from the waiver rate table. The trend ratio of the waiver rate is calculated by the ratio of the waiver rate for which the payment deadline date belongs before the evaluation reference date and the waiver rate for which the payment deadline date belongs after the evaluation reference date. Then, the trend ratio calculated in STEP3 is converted into a score. The score regarding the waiver rate can be set, for example, to be lower as the value of the trend ratio becomes larger.

[0052] For example, when the waiver rate of patents with a payment deadline date after the evaluation reference date is larger than the waiver rate of patents with a payment deadline date before the evaluation reference date, it can be inferred that, after the evaluation reference date, the field of the industrial field belonging to that classification is in a decline period and the time point of the evaluation reference date is before the decline period. Therefore, even when calculating a score using a ratio calculated from the number of cases such as the waiver rate, as an evaluation of the classification, an evaluation reflecting the popularity and decline of the industrial field belonging to that classification can be performed.

[0053] Note that in Figure 9, the waiver rate is calculated for patents whose payment deadline for maintenance annuities from the 4th to the 6th year arrives. However, the waiver rate may be calculated for a group of patents whose payment deadlines for multiple years before the 3rd year or after the 7th year arrive, or the waiver rate may be calculated for patents whose payment deadline for only a certain year arrives.

[0054] (Evaluation of Industrial Property Rights) The evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment may be configured to evaluate an industrial property right to be evaluated based on an evaluation of a classification (hereinafter referred to as an evaluation classification) assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated.

[0055] Specifically, the evaluation device 10 may be configured to calculate a score (hereinafter referred to as an evaluation score) indicating the evaluation of the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the score of the same classification as the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated by referring to the classification evaluation database 112. The evaluation score is represented by a numerical value or an alphabet. For example, the evaluation score may be set such that the higher the evaluation, the higher the numerical value of the evaluation score.

[0056] FIG. 11 shows an example of the evaluation score calculation process executed by the control unit 12 configured as described above. FIG. 11 shows a method in which the evaluation score is calculated using the filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated. The filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated is an example of the evaluation target reference date.

[0057] First, the control unit 12 acquires the evaluation target reference date and the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated (STEP11). For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the evaluation device 10 is connected to the customer's terminal 40 via the communication network 20. The evaluation device 10 acquires information on the industrial property right to be evaluated including the evaluation target reference date and the evaluation classification from the customer's terminal 40 via the communication network 20. Note that the customer's terminal 40 may be a terminal owned by the customer or a terminal that the customer has logged in to but does not own. The terminal may be a personal computer, a tablet terminal, or a mobile phone terminal.

[0058] FIG. 12 shows an example of a list of cases for which a customer desires an evaluation. The case list is created by the customer on the customer's terminal 40 and transmitted from the customer's terminal 40 to the control unit 12. In this example, the case list includes user management numbers, application countries, types of industrial property rights, classifications, application numbers, filing dates, and applicant information. In this example, the control unit 12 From the case list, it is determined that the filing date, which is the reference date for evaluation, is 2010, and the evaluation classifications assigned to the patent to be evaluated are A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520. Note that the case list in Figure 12 contains only the information of one industrial property right to be evaluated, but it may also contain the information of multiple industrial property rights to be evaluated.

[0059] Subsequently, the control unit 12 refers to the classification evaluation database 112 to obtain the score of the classification that is in the same classification as the evaluation classification and is associated with the same evaluation reference date as the evaluation target reference date. (STEP12). In this example, since the evaluation target reference date is 2010 and the evaluation classifications are A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520, the control unit 12 refers to the classification evaluation database 112 shown in Figure 8 to obtain the score (5) of the classification A63F13 / 69,510 with the evaluation target date of 2010 and the score (4) of the classification A63F13 / 69,520 with the evaluation target date of 2010.

[0060] Subsequently, the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the obtained classification scores (STEP13). In this example, since there are two evaluation classifications (A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520), there are also two classification scores (5 and 4). The control unit 12 uses, for example, the score indicating the maximum value among the scores of multiple classifications as the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated. In this example, since the score (5) of the classification A63F13 / 69,510 is greater than the score (4) of the classification A63F13 / 69,520, the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score of the patent to be evaluated as 5.

[0061] According to the evaluation device 10 of the present embodiment, since the industrial property right to be evaluated is evaluated based on the evaluation of the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated, it is possible to perform an evaluation that reflects the popularity and obsolescence of the industrial field belonging to the evaluation classification.

[0062] In this embodiment, the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the score indicating the maximum value among the scores of a plurality of classifications. However, the control unit 12 may be configured to calculate the evaluation score based on the average value of the scores of a plurality of classifications. By using the average value of the scores in this way, the industrial property right to be evaluated can be comprehensively evaluated. Alternatively, instead of the average value, the evaluation score may be configured to be calculated based on the median value or other statistical values of the scores of a plurality of classifications. Alternatively, when the number of applications used to calculate the score of a classification is less than a predetermined number, the control unit 12 may be configured not to consider the score of the classification. Thereby, a decrease in the accuracy of the evaluation of the industrial property right to be evaluated can be suppressed.

[0063] (Modification Example of Evaluation of Industrial Property Rights) When the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated, it refers to the classification evaluation database 112 and acquires the score of the same classification as the evaluation classification given to the industrial property right to be evaluated from among the scores of a plurality of classifications calculated in advance. However, the evaluation device 10 may be configured to calculate the score of the evaluation classification given to the industrial property right to be evaluated when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated.

[0064] FIG. 13 illustrates the configuration of an evaluation device 100 according to a modification example of this embodiment. Note that, for members having the same reference numerals as those already described in the description of the evaluation device 10, the description thereof is omitted for the sake of convenience of explanation.

[0065] The evaluation device 100 is configured to evaluate the evaluation classification given to the industrial property right to be evaluated when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated, and to evaluate the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the evaluation of the classification.

[0066] As illustrated in FIG. 13, the evaluation apparatus 100 includes a storage unit 101 and a control unit 102. The control unit 102 is communicably connected to the storage unit 101 via a network. Note that the control unit 102 and the storage unit 101 may be configured as one device.

[0067] The storage unit 101 includes an industrial property right information database 111 and a score database 113. Information on a plurality of industrial property rights is recorded in the industrial property right information database 111. A score table for calculating a score of an evaluation classification from a trend ratio is recorded in the score database 113.

[0068] FIG. 14 shows an example of evaluation score calculation processing executed by the control unit 12. In FIG. 14, a method of calculating a score of an evaluation classification given to an industrial property right to be evaluated is shown using the filing date and the number of filings of industrial property rights belonging to the same classification as the evaluation classification given to the industrial property right to be evaluated and the filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated. The filing date is an example of a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure. The number of filings is an example of an index according to the number of cases. The filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated is an example of an evaluation target reference date.

[0069] First, the control unit 12 acquires an evaluation target reference date and an evaluation classification given to the industrial property right to be evaluated (STEP21). For example, as shown in FIG. 13, the evaluation apparatus 10 acquires information on the industrial property right to be evaluated including the evaluation classification and the evaluation target reference date from the case list acquired from the customer's terminal 40 via the communication network 20. For example, from the case list shown in FIG. 12, the control unit 12 determines that the filing date, which is the evaluation target reference date, is 2010, and the evaluation classifications given to the patent to be evaluated are A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520.

[0070] Subsequently, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property right information database 111 and creates an application number table composed of the filing dates and the number of applications of industrial property rights belonging to the same classification as the evaluation classification (STEP22). In this example, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property right information database 111 shown in FIG. 2 and creates, for example, an application number table for classification A63F13 / 69,510 shown in FIG. 4.

[0071] Subsequently, the control unit 12 refers to the application number table, calculates a trend ratio of the number of applications based on the evaluation target reference date (STEP23), and converts the calculated trend ratio of the number of applications into a score (STEP24).

[0072] For example, in the application number table shown in FIG. 4, the control unit 12 calculates, as the average change rate of the previous application numbers, the average change rate of the number of patent applications filed during the past five years from 2010, which is the evaluation target reference date. Specifically, the total number of patent applications filed from 2006 to 2010 is divided by the period from 2006 to 2010. As a result, the average change rate of the previous application numbers is 10.6.

[0073] Also, the control unit 12 calculates, as the average change rate of the subsequent application numbers, the average change rate of the number of patent applications filed after 2010, which is the evaluation target reference date. Specifically, the total number of patent applications filed from 2011 to 2019 is divided by the period from 2011 to 2019. As a result, the average change rate of the subsequent application numbers is 63. Therefore, the control unit 12 calculates the trend ratio as 5.94.

[0074] Then, the control unit 12 refers to the score table shown in FIG. 6 and calculates the score of classification A63F13 / 69,510, which is the evaluation classification, as 5.

[0075] Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 14, the control unit 12 determines whether scores have been calculated for all evaluation classifications (STEP25). If the control unit 12 determines that scores have not been calculated for all evaluation classifications (NO in STEP25), it returns to STEP22 and repeats the calculation of scores until scores have been calculated for all evaluation classifications.

[0076] For example, as shown in FIG. 12, in addition to classification A63F13 / 69,510, the industrial property right to be evaluated is also given classification A63F13 / 69,520. Therefore, the control unit 12 also creates an application number table for classification A63F13 / 69,520 which is the evaluation target. Then, the control unit 12 obtains the trend ratio of the number of applications based on the reference date of 2010 which is the evaluation target reference date, refers to the score table shown in FIG. 6, and calculates the score of classification A63F13 / 69,520.

[0077] Then, when scores have been calculated for all evaluation classifications (YES in STEP25), the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the scores of the calculated evaluation classifications (STEP26). When there are multiple evaluation classifications as in this example, the control unit 12 uses, for example, the score showing the maximum value among the scores of the multiple evaluation classifications as the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated.

[0078] According to the evaluation apparatus 100 of the present embodiment, since the industrial property right to be evaluated is evaluated based on the evaluation of the evaluation classifications given to the industrial property right to be evaluated, it is possible to perform an evaluation that reflects the popularity and decline of the industrial field belonging to the evaluation classification. Also, since scores are calculated only for the evaluation classifications given to the industrial property right to be evaluated, the processing load on the control unit 12 can be reduced compared to the case where scores are also calculated for classifications other than the evaluation classifications given to the industrial property right to be evaluated.

[0079] In this embodiment, the score of the evaluation classification is calculated based on the number of applications. However, the score of the evaluation classification may be calculated based on, for example, the number of publications, the number of examination requests, the number of registrations, the number of opposition filings, the number of abandonments, etc. Alternatively, the score of the evaluation classification may be calculated based on the ratio calculated from the number of cases. Examples of the ratio calculated from the number of cases include the abandonment rate, the occupancy rate, etc. The occupancy rate is, for example, the ratio of the number of applications of a specific applicant to the total number of applications, and can be calculated by (the number of applications of a specific applicant / the total number of applications) × 100. When the score of the evaluation classification is calculated based on the occupancy rate, the control unit 12 acquires the information of the applicant from the information regarding the industrial property right to be evaluated as shown in FIG. 12. For example, when the occupancy rate of a specific applicant filed after the evaluation target reference date is larger than the occupancy rate of a specific applicant filed before the evaluation target reference date, it can be inferred that the monopoly rate by the applicant in the industrial field belonging to that classification is high after the evaluation reference date. Therefore, even when calculating the score of the evaluation classification using the ratio calculated from the number of cases, an evaluation reflecting the popularity and decline of the industrial field belonging to that classification can be performed.

[0080] The control unit 12 and the control unit 102 having the various functions described so far include a processor, non-temporary recording means, and temporary recording means. The non-temporary recording means and the temporary recording means can be realized by a general-purpose memory. Examples of the general-purpose memory include ROM and RAM. In this case, the ROM stores the computer program for executing the above-described processing (Computer-readable instructions) can be stored. The processor can be implemented by a general-purpose microprocessor that operates in cooperation with general-purpose memory. Examples of the general-purpose microprocessor can include a CPU, an MPU, and a GPU. The general-purpose microprocessor designates at least a part of a computer program stored on a ROM and expands it on a RAM, and executes the above-described processing in cooperation with the RAM. The above computer program may be pre-installed in the general-purpose memory, or may be downloaded from an external server device via a wireless communication network and then installed in the general-purpose memory.

[0081] The processor may be implemented by an application-specific integrated circuit capable of executing the above computer program, such as a microcontroller, an ASIC, or an FPGA. In this case, the above computer program is pre-installed in a storage element included in the application-specific integrated circuit. Each processor can also be implemented by a combination of a general-purpose microprocessor and an application-specific integrated circuit.

[0082] As described above, the embodiments of the present invention have been explained. Needless to say, the technical scope of the present invention should not be construed in a limited manner by the description of this embodiment. This embodiment is merely an example, and those skilled in the art will understand that various modifications of the embodiments are possible within the scope of the invention described in the claims. The technical scope of the present invention should be determined based on the scope of the invention described in the claims and its equivalent scope.

[0083] In the above embodiment, the evaluation apparatus 10 and the evaluation apparatus 100 have been described for a method of evaluating patent classification and evaluating a patent as an example of industrial property rights. However, the evaluation apparatus 10 and the evaluation apparatus 100 can be configured to evaluate classification in utility models, designs, or trademarks and evaluate utility models, designs, or trademarks instead of or in addition to patents.

[0084] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 calculate the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated based only on the score of the evaluation classification. However, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to calculate the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated based on other indicators in addition to the score of the evaluation classification.

[0085] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation reference date or the evaluation target reference date is set on an annual basis. However, the evaluation reference date or the evaluation target reference date may be set on a monthly basis or a daily basis.

[0086] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation reference date is set at predetermined intervals (in this example, on an annual basis). However, the evaluation reference date may be set, for example, every six months for a certain period and every year for other periods.

[0087] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 perform classification evaluation and evaluation of the industrial property right to be evaluated for industrial property rights in Japan. However, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to perform classification evaluation and evaluation of the industrial property right to be evaluated for foreign industrial property rights instead of or in addition to Japan. Classification evaluation and evaluation of the industrial property right to be evaluated may be performed.

[0088] In the above-described embodiment, one industrial property right is counted as one case. However, a plurality of industrial property rights that are a family may be counted as one case. Examples of a family include a divisional application and the original application from which the divisional application originated, or an application first filed in a first country and an application in a second country based on the priority of the application (for example, a Japanese application and a foreign application based on the priority of the Japanese application), an application group in a transition country of an international application such as PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), and an application group in designated countries of a regional application such as EP. For example, instead of counting the original application and the divisional application as two cases respectively, the original application and the divisional application are counted as one case together.

[0089] In the above-described embodiment, the industrial property right information database 111 is included in the recording unit 11 of the evaluation device 10, but the industrial property right information database 111 may be provided outside the evaluation device 10. Similarly, the industrial property right information database 111 is included in the storage unit 101 of the evaluation device 100, but the industrial property right information database 111 may be provided outside the evaluation device 100. In this case, the industrial property right information database 111 can be arranged, for example, within the Patent Office system 30. Alternatively, the industrial property right information database 111 may be, for example, a database in which data acquired from the Patent Office system 30 or data obtained by processing the said data is recorded (for example, a commercial database or a database created by the company using the evaluation device 10). The evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 can be configured to refer to the industrial property right information database 111 via the communication network 20.

[0090] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 can be configured to perform processing related to other procedures in addition to the evaluation of classification and the evaluation of the industrial property right to be evaluated. For example, when the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 are used by a management company that manages the payment of maintenance annuities for maintaining industrial property rights, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 can be configured to make an inquiry about the payment of the maintenance annuity of the industrial property right, calculate the evaluation score of the industrial property right subject to the inquiry, and notify the customer of the calculated evaluation score. Thereby, the applicant or the right holder can make a judgment on the payment of the maintenance annuity while referring to the evaluation score. In this case, the information regarding the industrial property right to be evaluated can be acquired from the management case database included in the storage units 11 and 101.

[0091] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 set the filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated as the evaluation target reference date. However, the evaluation target reference date may be set to a date related to a procedure different from the filing date in the industrial property right to be evaluated. Alternatively, the evaluation target reference date may be set to a date different from the date related to the procedure in the industrial property right to be evaluated. For example, the date closest to the date of evaluation may be set as the evaluation target reference date. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, although the number of applications has increased rapidly after the filing date (2010) of the industrial property right to be evaluated, the number of recent applications is small, and the industrial field to which the classification belongs may be in a recession period. In this case, if the filing date (2010) of the industrial property right to be evaluated is set as the evaluation target reference date, the score of the evaluation classification will be high (for example, 5 as shown in FIG. 8), and it will not be affected much by the decrease in the number of applications after 2017. On the other hand, For example, as shown in FIG. 7, if 2016, which is after the filing date (2010) of the industrial property right to be evaluated, is set as the evaluation target reference date, the score of the evaluation classification will be low (for example, 0 as shown in FIG. 8), and the decrease in the number of applications after 2017 will be reflected. Thus, By setting the date closest to the date of evaluation as the evaluation target reference date, it is possible to evaluate the classification by reflecting the recent trends in the industrial field to which the evaluation classification belongs.

[0092] In the above-described embodiment, when the classification used for the industrial property right to be evaluated includes a classification that has been abolished, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured not to consider the score of the abolished classification when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated. For example, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured not to calculate the score of the abolished classification. Alternatively, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to calculate the score of the classification and not to refer to the score of the abolished classification when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated. Note that information on the abolished classification can be obtained from the Patent Office system 30. For example, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to obtain information on the abolished classification from the Patent Office system 30 and record the abolished classification in the storage unit 11.

[0093] For example, even if a classification has been abolished, there is a possibility that the abolished classification remains without being deleted in the information on industrial property rights provided by the Patent Office system 30. Therefore, For example, when creating an application number table for an abolished classification, the number of applications after the year in which the classification was abolished becomes 0, resulting in a decrease in the accuracy of the evaluation of the classification score. Therefore, by not using the abolished classification for calculating the evaluation score, it is possible to suppress a decrease in the accuracy of the evaluation of the evaluation score.

[0094] In the above-described embodiment, when calculating the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated, if the classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated has not passed a predetermined period since its establishment, the evaluation apparatus 10 and the evaluation apparatus 100 may be configured not to consider the score of the classification that has not passed the predetermined period since its establishment. For example, the evaluation apparatus 10 and the evaluation apparatus 100 may be configured not to calculate the score of the newly established classification. Alternatively, for example, after calculating the score of the classification, if it is determined that the classification is a newly established classification, the evaluation apparatus 10 and the evaluation apparatus 100 may be configured not to refer to the score of the newly established classification when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated. Note that information on the newly established classification can be obtained from the Patent Office system 30. For example, the evaluation apparatus 10 and the evaluation apparatus 100 may be configured to obtain information on the newly established classification from the Patent Office system 30 and record the newly established classification in the storage unit 11.

[0095] For example, although retroactive regrant is performed for the newly established classification with respect to past applications, it may take several years until regrant. Therefore, for example, when creating an application number table for the newly established classification, the number of applications before the year of establishment of the newly established classification becomes 0, resulting in a decrease in the accuracy of the evaluation of the classification score. Therefore, by not using the evaluation of the newly established classification for a certain period in calculating the evaluation score, a decrease in the evaluation accuracy of the evaluation score can be suppressed.

[0096] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 calculate the score of the evaluation classification based on a comparison of indicators according to the number of industrial property rights assigned the same classification as the evaluation classification belonging before and after the evaluation target reference date. However, the evaluation device 10 may be configured to calculate the score of the evaluation classification based on an indicator according to the number of industrial property rights assigned the same classification as the evaluation classification belonging to the evaluation target reference date. In this case, the application number database shown in FIG. 4 is not created. The control unit 12 refers to the industrial property right information database 111, calculates, for example, the number of applications for industrial property rights assigned the same classification as the evaluation classification filed on the evaluation target reference date, and calculates the score of the evaluation classification based on the calculated number of applications. The score of the evaluation classification can be set, for example, so that the higher the number of applications, the higher the score. For example, in the number of applications shown in FIG. 5, 2019 may be set as the evaluation target reference date, and the score of the evaluation classification may be calculated based on the number of applications filed in 2019. Alternatively, for example, in the abandonment rate shown in FIG. 10, 2022 may be set as the evaluation target reference date, and the score of the evaluation classification may be calculated based on the ratio abandoned in 2022.

[0097] In the above-described embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to evaluate the industrial property right of the evaluation target based on the number of times of a specific procedure related to the same classification as the evaluation classification of the industrial property right of the evaluation target. Examples of the number of times of the specific procedure include the number of times an opposition has been filed, the number of times information has been provided, the number of times a lawsuit has been filed, or the number of times an invalidation trial has been conducted. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to calculate the score of the evaluation classification by referring to a table in which the classification and the number of times an opposition has been filed for that classification are recorded in association with each other. For example, it can be inferred that the higher the degree of attention of the industrial field belonging to a classification in which the number of opposition filings, information provision times, lawsuit times, or invalidation trial times is large, the higher the degree of attention of the industrial field belonging to that classification. Therefore, even when calculating the score using the number of times of a specific procedure, it is possible to perform an evaluation that reflects the popularity and decline of the industrial field belonging to that classification.

Explanation of Signs

[0098] 10 Evaluation device 11 Memory unit 12 Control unit 20 Communication network 30 Patent Office system 40 Customer terminal 100 Evaluation device 101 Memory unit 102 Control unit 111 Industrial property right information database 112 Classification evaluation database 113 Score database

Claims

1. An evaluation device that calculates a score for the classification based on a comparison between an index corresponding to any one of the number of applications, the number of publications, the number of examination requests, the number of registrations, the number of opposition filings, and the number of abandonments before the evaluation reference date in industrial property rights belonging to the same classification and an index corresponding to the number of such procedures after the evaluation reference date.

2. An evaluation device for the classification that calculates a score indicating the evaluation of the classification, associated with the classification and an evaluation reference date, for a classification assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, wherein the score is calculated based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights to which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure in the industrial property rights belonging to the classification belongs before the evaluation reference date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging after the evaluation reference date.

3. The evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined date is the filing date.

4. The evaluation device, calculates the score based on a comparison between an average change rate of an index corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date belongs before the evaluation reference date and an average change rate of an index corresponding to the number of cases belonging after the evaluation reference date. The evaluation device according to claim 2.

5. The higher the score, the greater the average change rate of the index corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date belongs after the evaluation reference date compared to the average change rate of the index corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date belongs before the evaluation reference date. The evaluation device according to claim 2.

6. The evaluation device according to claim 1 or claim 2 that does not calculate the score for the classification that has been abolished from use.

7. The evaluation device according to claim 1 or claim 2 that does not calculate the score for the classification for which a predetermined period has not elapsed since its establishment.

8. An evaluation device for the classification that calculates a score indicating the evaluation of the classification, associated with the classification and an evaluation reference date, for a classification assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, wherein the score for the classification that has been abolished from use is not calculated.

9. An evaluation device for the classification that calculates a score indicating the evaluation of the classification, associated with the classification and an evaluation reference date, for a classification assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, wherein the score for the classification for which a predetermined period has not elapsed since its establishment is not calculated.

10. An evaluation device that is connected to a database in which scores indicating the evaluation of a classification are recorded, associated with the classification and an evaluation reference date, in accordance with the content of an industrial property right, and evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the database, obtains a plurality of evaluation classifications that are a plurality of classifications of the industrial property right to be evaluated, calculates the score for each of the plurality of evaluation classifications by referring to the database, evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the plurality of calculated scores, and when the classification that has been abolished from use is included in the plurality of classifications, does not consider the score of the classification that has been abolished from use when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated.

11. An evaluation device that is connected to a database in which scores indicating the evaluation of a classification are recorded, associated with the classification and an evaluation reference date, in accordance with the content of an industrial property right, and evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the database, obtains a plurality of evaluation classifications that are a plurality of classifications of the industrial property right to be evaluated, calculates the score for each of the plurality of evaluation classifications by referring to the database, evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the plurality of calculated scores, and when the classification that has not passed a predetermined period since its establishment is included in the plurality of classifications, does not consider the score of the classification that has not passed a predetermined period since its establishment when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated.

12. An evaluation device that is connected to a database in which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and the classifications assigned to each are recorded, and evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated by referring to the database, wherein the evaluation device obtains an evaluation classification that is a classification of the industrial property right to be evaluated, calculates a score indicating the evaluation of the classification based on an index corresponding to the number of cases of the industrial property right belonging to the evaluation classification with respect to the predetermined date in the industrial property right belonging to the evaluation classification by referring to the database, and evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the calculated score.

Images