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 present 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 an aspect of the present invention is An evaluation device that evaluates an industrial property right under evaluation based on the database, which is connected to a database in which a score indicating the evaluation of a classification is recorded, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of the industrial property right, The score is calculated based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose designated date associated with a specific procedure in the industrial property rights belonging to the classification falls before the valuation date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose date falls after the valuation date. The database records the scores for each of the multiple classifications for each of the multiple evaluation date sets. The evaluation device is The valuation classification, which is the classification of the industrial property rights subject to valuation, and the valuation reference date are obtained. The industrial property rights subject to evaluation are evaluated based on the same classification as the evaluation classification and the score associated with the same evaluation date as the evaluation date, by referring to the database.

[0007] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is: An appraisal device that is connected to a database in which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and a classification assigned to each of multiple industrial property rights are recorded and linked, and that appraises an industrial property right to be appraised by referring to the said database, The evaluation device is The valuation classification, which is the classification of the industrial property rights subject to valuation, and the valuation reference date are obtained. By referring to the aforementioned database, a score indicating the evaluation of the classification is calculated based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights belonging to the aforementioned evaluation classification whose predetermined date falls before the aforementioned evaluation reference date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose date falls after the aforementioned evaluation reference date. Based on the calculated score, the industrial property rights subject to evaluation are assessed.

[0008] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is: An evaluation device that is connected to a database in which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and the classification assigned to each of multiple industrial property rights are recorded in association, and calculates a score indicating the evaluation of each 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 falls before the evaluation date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose date falls after the evaluation date. The evaluation device calculates the score for each of the multiple classifications for each of the multiple evaluation reference dates.

[0009] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is: An evaluation device that evaluates an industrial property right under evaluation based on the database, which is connected to a database in which a score indicating the evaluation of a classification is recorded, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of the industrial property right, 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 right belonging to the classification, falls on the valuation date. The database records the scores for each of the multiple classifications for each of the multiple evaluation date sets. The evaluation device is The valuation classification, which is the classification of the industrial property rights subject to valuation, and the valuation reference date are obtained. The industrial property rights subject to evaluation are evaluated based on the same classification as the evaluation classification and the score associated with the same evaluation date as the evaluation date, by referring to the database.

[0010] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present invention is: An appraisal device that is connected to a database in which a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure and a classification assigned to each of multiple industrial property rights are recorded and linked, and that appraises an industrial property right to be appraised by referring to the said database, The evaluation device obtains an evaluation classification, which 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 and having the predetermined date belonging to the evaluation reference date among the industrial property rights, and evaluates the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the calculated score.

Effect of the Invention

[0011] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating a classification assigned to an industrial property right and a method for evaluating an industrial property right based on the evaluation of the classification can be provided.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0012] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 illustrates the configuration of an evaluation device according to the present embodiment. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 shows an example of an industrial property right information database. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 shows an example of a classification score calculation process executed by a control unit. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 shows an example of an application number table showing the number of patent applications to which classification A63F13 / 69,510 is assigned. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 shows 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. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 shows an example of a score table regarding the number of applications included in a score database. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 shows 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 2016 as the evaluation reference date. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 shows an example of a classification evaluation database. [Figure 9]Figure 9 shows an example of an abandonment rate table, which indicates the abandonment rate of patents assigned classification A63F13 / 69,510, for which the deadline for payment of maintenance annuities from the 4th to 6th year has arrived. [Figure 10] Figure 10 shows a graph illustrating the trend of the abandonment rate in the abandonment rate table in Figure 9. [Figure 11] Figure 11 shows an example of the evaluation score calculation process performed by the control unit. [Figure 12] Figure 12 shows an example of a list of projects that a customer wishes to have evaluated. [Figure 13] Figure 13 illustrates the configuration of an evaluation device according to a modified example of this embodiment. [Figure 14] Figure 14 shows an example of the evaluation score calculation process performed by the control unit. [Figure 15] Figure 15 illustrates an example of a table showing classifications and the number of objections raised regarding those classifications. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0013] With reference to the attached drawings, an example of an embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail below.

[0014] (Classification and evaluation) Figure 1 illustrates the configuration of the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment. The evaluation device 10 is a device for evaluating the classification assigned to industrial property rights. The evaluation device 10 calculates a score indicating the evaluation of the classification (hereinafter referred to as the classification score).

[0015] As used herein, the term “industrial property rights” includes not only registered industrial property rights but also industrial property rights that are pending registration but not yet registered. Hereafter, industrial property rights that are pending registration will also be referred to simply as industrial property rights.

[0016] The classifications assigned to industrial property rights include the classifications assigned to patents and the classifications assigned to utility models. This includes classifications assigned to designs and classifications assigned to trademarks. Classifications are assigned according to the content of the industrial property right, and one or more classifications are assigned to a single industrial property right. The classifications assigned to an industrial property right are published in the gazette of that industrial property right. For example, Japanese patent publications and patent gazettes include classifications such as the International Patent Classification (IPC) and Japan's own patent classifications (FI and F-terms).

[0017] Scores can be represented by numbers or letters. For example, scores may be set so that higher scores correspond to higher evaluations.

[0018] As illustrated in Figure 1, the evaluation device 10 comprises a storage unit 11 and a control unit 12. The control unit 12 is connected to the storage unit 11 via a network for communication. The control unit 12 may also be configured to form a single device together with the storage unit 11.

[0019] The memory unit 11 includes an industrial property rights information database 111 and a classification and valuation database 112. The industrial property rights information database 111 records information on multiple industrial property rights. Information on industrial property rights includes, for example, the country of application, the type of right, the application number, This includes information such as the registration number, applicant, rights holder, classification, filing date, priority date, publication date, examination request date, registration date, opposition date, abandonment date, and information regarding the payment of maintenance fees (payment deadline, payment status, etc.). The filing date, priority date, publication date, examination request date, registration date, opposition date, abandonment date, and payment deadline date are examples of prescribed dates associated with a particular procedure.

[0020] Furthermore, "a specified date associated with a particular procedure" includes not only the date on which the procedure was performed, but also the date on which the procedure was not performed and thus determined. For example, the date of renunciation includes not only the date on which the renunciation procedure was actively performed or the date on which the renunciation was determined by the renunciation procedure, but also the date on which the renunciation was determined due to the failure to perform the particular procedure. Dates on which the renunciation was determined due to the failure to perform the particular procedure include, for example, the date on which the renunciation was determined without an appeal procedure or a response to an order, or the date on which the right expired due to the failure to pay the maintenance pension.

[0021] Figure 2 shows an example of the Industrial Property Rights Information Database 111. The Industrial Property Rights Information Database 111 includes information for each industrial property right, such as the management number, country of application, type of right, classification, application number, application date, publication date, examination request date, registration date, abandonment date, and applicant information. In Figure 2, under the type of right, P represents a patent and U represents a utility model.

[0022] For example, as shown in Figure 1, the evaluation device 10 is communicably connected to the Japan Patent Office system 30 via the communication network 20. For example, the evaluation device 10 periodically obtains information on newly published or registered industrial property rights and updated industrial property rights from the Japan Patent Office system 30 via the communication network 20 and records it in the industrial property rights information database 111.

[0023] The classification and evaluation database 112 records scores for classifications assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, associated with the classification and the evaluation date. The evaluation date is the date on which the score was calculated. As described later, the score is calculated by the control unit 12 and recorded in the classification and evaluation database 112.

[0024] The control unit 12 is configured to calculate a score for each classification for each of several evaluation date sets. Specifically, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property rights 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 date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose date is after the evaluation date. The control unit 12 then writes the calculated score to the classification evaluation database 112, associating it with the classification and the evaluation date.

[0025] Figure 3 shows an example of the classification score calculation process performed by the control unit 12. Figure 3 illustrates how the classification score assigned to industrial property rights is calculated using the number of industrial property right applications and the filing date. The filing date is an example of a predetermined date associated with a specific procedure. The number of applications is an example of an index based on the number of applications.

[0026] First, as illustrated in Figure 3, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property rights information database 111 and creates an application count table consisting of the application date and number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to a predetermined classification (STEP 1).

[0027] Figure 4 shows an example of an application count table indicating the number of patent applications assigned the classification A63F13 / 69,510. For example, the control unit 12 calculates the number of applications for each year from 2005 to 2019 based on the industrial property rights information database 111 shown in Figure 2.

[0028] Next, as shown in Figure 3, the control unit 12 refers to the application count table and calculates the trend ratio of the number of applications based on a predetermined evaluation date (STEP 2). The trend ratio of the number of applications is a value that shows the ratio of the number of applications whose filing date belongs to a period before the evaluation date (hereinafter also referred to as the number of earlier applications) to the number of applications whose filing date belongs to a period after the evaluation date (hereinafter also referred to as the number of later applications). For example, the control unit 12 calculates the trend ratio of the number of applications as the ratio of the average rate of change of the number of earlier applications to the average rate of change of the number of later applications.

[0029] For example, in the application count table shown in Figure 4, if the evaluation date is set to 2010, the control unit 12 calculates the average rate of change in the number of patent applications filed during the past five years from the evaluation date as the average rate of change in the number of previous applications. 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). This results in an average rate of change in the number of previous applications of 10.6. Note that the period for calculating the average rate of change in the number of previous applications is not limited to the past five years and can be set as appropriate.

[0030] Furthermore, the control unit 12 calculates the average rate of change in the number of patent applications filed after the evaluation date as the average rate of change in the number of subsequent applications. Specifically, it divides the total number of patent applications filed from 2011 to 2019 by the period from 2011 to 2019. This results in an average change rate of 63 in the number of subsequent applications. Note that the period for calculating the average change rate of subsequent applications is not limited to the period from the evaluation date to the most recent date, but can be set as appropriate.

[0031] Figure 5 is a graph showing the trend in the number of patent applications in the application count table in Figure 4 and the average rate of change calculated with 2010 as the evaluation date. In Figure 5, the bar graph shows the number of patent applications, and the solid line graph shows the cumulative number of patent applications. The cumulative number up to 2005 is calculated as 100. The slope of the dashed line graph shows the average rate of change calculated with 2010 as the evaluation date. As shown in Figure 5, the number of patent applications was low until 2011 and increased from 2012 onwards, so the average rate of change of the number of patent applications after 2010 (the slope of the dashed line graph from 2010 onwards) is greater than the average rate of change of the number of patent applications before 2010 (the slope of the line graph before 2010).

[0032] The control unit 12 calculates the trend ratio of the number of applications, using 2010 as the evaluation base, as 63 / 10.6 = 5.94. In this example, 2010, the evaluation base date, is used when calculating the average rate of change of the number of applications prior to the current year, but it may also be used when calculating the average rate of change of the number of applications after the current year.

[0033] Next, as shown in Figure 3, the control unit 12 converts the calculated trend ratio of the number of applications into a score (STEP 3). For example, as illustrated in Figure 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] Figure 6 shows an example of a score table for the number of applications included in the score database 113. The score table assigns scores corresponding to the trend ratio of the number of applications. In this example, the scores are represented using numerical values ​​from 0 to 5. The scores are, The system is designed so that the score increases as the trend ratio of the number of applications increases.

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

[0036] Next, as shown in Figure 3, the control unit 12 determines whether a score is calculated for all evaluation criteria dates (STEP 4). If the control unit 12 determines that a score has not been calculated for all evaluation criteria dates (NO in STEP 4), it returns to STEP 2 and repeats the score calculation until a score is calculated for all evaluation criteria dates.

[0037] In this example, the control unit 12 sets each filing date (year of filing from 2005 to 2019) in the application count table shown in Figure 4 as the evaluation reference date, and repeats STEP 2 and STEP 3 until a score based on each evaluation reference date is calculated.

[0038] For example, in the application count table shown in Figure 4, if the evaluation date is 2016, the average rate of change in the number of applications prior to 2016 is calculated as 88.2 based on the number of patent applications filed from 2012 to 2016. The average rate of change in the number of applications subsequent to 2016 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 date is 37.67 / 88.2 = 0.43, and according to the score table shown in Figure 6, the score for classification A63F13 / 69,510 with an evaluation date of 2016 is calculated as 0.

[0039] Figure 7 is a graph showing the trend in the number of patent applications in the application table in Figure 4 and the average rate of change calculated with 2016 as the evaluation date. In Figure 7, the bar graph shows the number of patent applications, and the solid line graph shows the cumulative number of patent applications. The slope of the dashed line graph shows the average rate of change calculated with 2016 as the evaluation date. As shown in Figure 7, the number of patent applications increased from 2012 to 2016, but has decreased since 2017. As a result, the average rate of change of the number of patent applications after 2016 (the slope of the dashed line graph from 2016 onwards) is smaller than the average rate of change of the number of patent applications before 2016 (the slope of the line graph before 2016).

[0040] Next, as shown in Figure 3, if the control unit 12 determines that scores have been calculated for all evaluation criteria dates (YES in STEP 4), it determines whether scores have been calculated for all classifications (STEP 5). If the control unit 12 determines that scores have not been calculated for all classifications (NO in STEP 5), it returns to STEP 1 and repeats the score calculation until scores have been calculated for all classifications.

[0041] Then, once scores have been calculated for all classifications (YES in STEP 5), the control unit 12 records the calculated scores in the classification evaluation database 112, associating them with the corresponding classification and evaluation date. 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 date.

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

[0043] Here, the number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification tends to fluctuate depending on whether the industrial field belonging to that classification is in its introductory, growth, maturity, or decline phase. For example, when an industrial field is in its introductory or growth phase, the number of applications for industrial property rights assigned to the classification to which that industrial field belongs tends to increase. On the other hand, when an industrial field is in its maturity or decline phase, the number of applications for industrial property rights assigned to the classification to which that industrial field belongs tends to remain constant or decrease. Therefore, the trend in the number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification can serve as an indicator reflecting the popularity or decline of the industrial field belonging to that classification.

[0044] According to the evaluation device 10 of this embodiment, the classification score is calculated based on a comparison of the number of applications filed before the evaluation date and the number of applications filed after the evaluation date for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification. In other words, the classification is evaluated based on the trend in the number of applications for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification filed before and after the evaluation date. Therefore, the evaluation of the classification can reflect the trends and declines of the industrial fields to which that classification belongs.

[0045] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the score is set to be higher the larger the trend ratio, that is, the greater the average rate of change in the number of later applications is than the average rate of change in the number of earlier applications. For example, as can be seen in Figure 5, if the number of applications filed after the evaluation date (2010) has increased, the average rate of change in the number of later applications will be greater than the average rate of change in the number of earlier applications. On the other hand, as can be seen in Figure 7, if the number of applications filed after the evaluation date (2016) has decreased, the average rate of change in the number of later applications will be smaller than the average rate of change in the number of earlier applications. Therefore, by setting the score to be higher the greater the average rate of change in the number of later applications is than the average rate of change in the number of earlier applications, it is possible to perform an evaluation of the classification that reflects the trends and declines of the industrial fields belonging to that classification.

[0046] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the classification is evaluated based on the number of patent applications. However, as illustrated by management numbers No. 1 and No. 5 in Figure 2, if the same classification is assigned to both 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 also be calculated based on the number of procedures other than applications, such as the number of publications, requests for examination, registrations, oppositions, and abandonments. In this case, in STEP 1 of Figure 3, instead of the application number table, a predetermined count table is created showing the number of publications, requests for examination, registrations, oppositions, or abandonments for each year. Then, in STEP 2, a trend ratio is calculated from the predetermined count table, and in STEP 3, the calculated trend ratio is converted into a score. The scores for the number of publications, requests for examination, registrations, or oppositions may be set so that, for example, the score increases as the trend ratio increases. Alternatively, the score for abandonments may be set so that the score decreases as the trend ratio increases.

[0048] For example, the number of publications, like the number of applications, tends to fluctuate depending on the stage of introduction, growth, maturity, or decline of the industrial sector belonging to that classification. For example, the number of examination requests, registrations, oppositions, or abandonments tends to fluctuate depending on the feasibility and attention given to the industrial sector belonging to that classification. Therefore, when calculating scores using these numbers, it is possible to evaluate the classification in a way that reflects the trends and declines of the industrial sector belonging to that classification.

[0049] Furthermore, instead of the number of cases, a percentage derived from the number of cases may be used to calculate the score. An example of a percentage derived from the number of cases is the abandonment rate. The abandonment rate is, for example, the ratio of the number of abandoned patents (forfeiture of rights due to non-payment of maintenance fees or active abandonment) to the total number of patents for which the maintenance fee payment deadline has arrived, and can be calculated as: Number of abandoned patents / (Number of abandoned patents + Number of patents for which fees were paid) × 100.

[0050] Figure 9 shows an example of an abandonment rate table for patents with classification A63F13 / 69,510 whose maintenance annuity payments for years 4 through 6 are due. Figure 10 is a graph showing the trend of abandonment rates in the abandonment rate table in Figure 9. For example, for patents whose maintenance annuity payment deadline for years 4 through 6 was due in 2003, there were 36 payments and 8 abandonments. Therefore, the abandonment rate is 8 / (36+8)×100=18.2%.

[0051] For example, in STEP 1 of Figure 3, the abandonment rate table shown in Figure 9 is created, and in STEP 2, the trend ratio is calculated from the abandonment rate table. The trend ratio of the abandonment rate is calculated as the ratio of the abandonment rate whose payment due date is before the evaluation date to the abandonment rate whose payment due date is after the evaluation date. Then, in STEP 3, the calculated trend ratio is converted into a score. The score for the abandonment rate may be set such that, for example, the score decreases as the value of the trend ratio increases.

[0052] For example, if the rate of patent abandonment after the evaluation date is greater than the rate of patent abandonment before the evaluation date, it can be inferred that the industrial sector belonging to that classification is in decline after the evaluation date, and that the evaluation date is just before the decline period. Therefore, even when calculating a score using a ratio derived from the number of cases such as the abandonment rate, it is possible to perform an evaluation that reflects the trends and declines of the industrial sector belonging to that classification as part of the classification evaluation.

[0053] Figure 9 shows the abandonment rate for patents whose maintenance fee payment deadlines for years 4 through 6 are due. However, the abandonment rate may also be calculated for groups of patents whose payment deadlines are due in years 3 or earlier, or in years 7 or later, or for patents whose payment deadline is due in only one year.

[0054] (Valuation of industrial property rights) The evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment may be configured to evaluate the industrial property rights to be evaluated based on the evaluation of the classification assigned to the industrial property rights to be evaluated (hereinafter referred to as the evaluation classification).

[0055] Specifically, the evaluation device 10 may be configured to refer to the classification evaluation database 112 and calculate a score indicating the evaluation of the industrial property right being evaluated (hereinafter referred to as the evaluation score) based on the same classification score as the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right being evaluated. The evaluation score may be expressed as a number or alphabet. For example, the evaluation score may be set so that a higher evaluation corresponds to a higher numerical value.

[0056] Figure 11 shows an example of the evaluation score calculation process performed by the control unit 12 configured in this way. Figure 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 reference date.

[0057] First, the control unit 12 obtains the valuation reference date and the valuation classification assigned to the industrial property right being valued (STEP 11). For example, as shown in Figure 1, the valuation device 10 is connected to the customer's terminal 40 via the communication network 20. The valuation device 10 obtains information about the industrial property right being valued, including the valuation reference date and the valuation classification, from the customer's terminal 40 via the communication network 20. The customer's terminal 40 may be a terminal owned by the customer, or a terminal not owned by the customer that the customer has logged into. The terminal may be a personal computer, a tablet terminal, or a mobile phone terminal.

[0058] Figure 12 shows an example of a list of cases that a customer wishes to have evaluated. The case list is created by the customer on their terminal 40 and transmitted from the customer's terminal 40 to the control unit 12. In this example, the case list includes user management number, country of application, type and classification of industrial property right, application number, application date, and applicant information. In this example, the control unit 12, From the case list, it is determined that the filing date, which is the evaluation reference date, is 2010, and the evaluation classifications assigned to the patent under evaluation are A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520. Note that although the case list in Figure 12 contains information on only one industrial property right under evaluation, it may contain information on multiple industrial property rights under evaluation.

[0059] Next, the control unit 12 refers to the classification evaluation database 112 and obtains the score for a classification that is the same as the evaluation classification and is associated with the same evaluation reference date as the evaluation reference date. (STEP 12). In this example, the evaluation target date is 2010, and the evaluation classifications are A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520. Therefore, the control unit 12 refers to the classification evaluation database 112 shown in Figure 8 and obtains the score (5) for classification A63F13 / 69,510, where the evaluation target date is 2010, and the score (4) for classification A63F13 / 69,520, where the evaluation target date is 2010.

[0060] Next, the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated based on the acquired classification scores (STEP 13). In this example, there are two evaluation classifications (A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520), so there are also two classification scores (5 and 4). The control unit 12 uses, for example, the score that shows the highest value among the scores of the multiple classifications as the evaluation score of the industrial property right to be evaluated. In this example, the score of classification A63F13 / 69,510 (5) is greater than the score of classification A63F13 / 69,520 (4), so the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score of the patent to be evaluated as 5.

[0061] According to the evaluation device 10 of this embodiment, the industrial property rights to be evaluated are evaluated based on the evaluation of the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property rights to be evaluated, so that the evaluation can reflect the trends and declines of the industrial fields to which the evaluation classification belongs.

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

[0063] (A variation of the valuation of industrial property rights) In this embodiment, the evaluation device 10, when evaluating the industrial property rights to be evaluated, refers to the classification evaluation database 112 and obtains a score for the same classification as the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property rights to be evaluated from among a plurality of pre-calculated classification scores. However, the evaluation device 10 may also be configured to calculate the score of the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property rights to be evaluated when evaluating the industrial property rights to be evaluated.

[0064] Figure 13 illustrates the configuration of an evaluation device 100 according to a modified example of this embodiment. Note that, for the sake of clarity, the explanation of components having the same reference numerals as those already described in the description of the evaluation device 10 will be omitted.

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

[0066] As illustrated in Figure 13, the evaluation device 100 comprises a storage unit 101 and a control unit 102. The control unit 102 is communicated to the storage unit 101 via a network. The control unit 102 may also be configured to form a single device together with the storage unit 101.

[0067] The memory unit 101 includes an industrial property rights information database 111 and a score database 113. The industrial property rights information database 111 records information on multiple industrial property rights. The score database 113 records a score table for calculating evaluation classification scores from trend ratios.

[0068] Figure 14 shows an example of the evaluation score calculation process performed by the control unit 12. Figure 14 shows how the score of the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right being evaluated is calculated using the number of applications and filing dates of industrial property rights belonging to the same classification as the industrial property right being evaluated, and the filing date of the industrial property right being evaluated. The filing 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 applications. The filing date of the industrial property right being evaluated is an example of the reference date for evaluation.

[0069] First, the control unit 12 obtains the valuation reference date and the valuation classification assigned to the industrial property right being valued (STEP 21). For example, as shown in Figure 13, the valuation device 10, The control unit 12 obtains information about the industrial property rights to be evaluated, including the evaluation classification and the evaluation reference date, from a list of cases acquired from the customer's terminal 40 via the communication network 20. For example, from the case list shown in Figure 12, the control unit 12 determines that the application date, which is the evaluation reference date, is 2010, and that the evaluation classifications assigned to the patents to be evaluated are A63F13 / 69,510 and A63F13 / 69,520.

[0070] Next, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property rights information database 111 and creates an application count table consisting of the application dates and application counts of industrial property rights belonging to the same classification as the evaluation classification (STEP 22). In this example, the control unit 12 refers to the industrial property rights information database 111 shown in Figure 2 and creates, for example, an application count table for classification A63F13 / 69,510 shown in Figure 4.

[0071] Next, the control unit 12 refers to the application count table and calculates the trend ratio of the number of applications based on the evaluation target date (STEP 23), and converts the calculated trend ratio of the number of applications into a score (STEP 24).

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

[0073] Furthermore, the control unit 12 calculates the average rate of change in the number of subsequent applications, which is the average rate of change in the number of patent applications filed after 2010, the evaluation reference date. Specifically, it divides the total number of patent applications filed from 2011 to 2019 by the period from 2011 to 2019. As a result, the average rate of change in the number of subsequent applications 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 Figure 6 and calculates a score of 5 for the evaluation category A63F13 / 69,510.

[0075] Next, as shown in Figure 14, the control unit 12 determines whether a score is calculated for all evaluation categories (STEP 25). If the control unit 12 determines that a score has not been calculated for all evaluation categories (NO in STEP 25), it returns to STEP 22. The scoring process is repeated until a score has been calculated for all evaluation categories.

[0076] For example, as shown in Figure 12, the industrial property right being evaluated is assigned not only to classification A63F13 / 69,510 but also to classification A63F13 / 69,520. Therefore, the control unit 12 also creates an application count table for classification A63F13 / 69,520, which is being evaluated. Then, the control unit 12 calculates the trend ratio of the number of applications based on the evaluation reference date of 2010, and refers to the score table shown in Figure 6 to calculate the score for classification A63F13 / 69,520.

[0077] Then, once scores have been calculated for all evaluation categories (YES in STEP 25), the control unit 12 calculates the evaluation score for the industrial property right being evaluated based on the calculated scores for each evaluation category (STEP 26). In cases where there are multiple evaluation categories, as in this example, the control unit 12 uses, for example, the score that shows the highest value among the scores of the multiple evaluation categories as the evaluation score for the industrial property right being evaluated.

[0078] According to the evaluation device 100 of this embodiment, 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, so that the evaluation can reflect the trends and declines of the industrial fields to which the evaluation classification belongs. Furthermore, since a score is calculated only for the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated, the processing burden on the control unit 12 can be reduced compared to when a score is calculated for classifications other than the evaluation classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated.

[0079] In this embodiment, the evaluation classification score is calculated based on the number of applications. However, the evaluation classification score may also be calculated based on the number of publications, the number of examination requests, the number of registrations, the number of oppositions, the number of abandonments, etc. Alternatively, the evaluation classification score may be calculated based on a ratio calculated from the number of cases. An example of a ratio calculated from the number of cases is: This includes abandonment rates and market share. Market share is, for example, the ratio of a particular applicant's applications to the total number of applications, and can be calculated by the number of applications by the particular applicant / total number of applications × 100. When the evaluation classification score is calculated based on market share, the control unit 12 obtains applicant information from the information on the industrial property rights being evaluated, as shown in Figure 12. For example, if the market share of a particular applicant who filed applications after the evaluation reference date is higher than the market share of a particular applicant who filed applications before the evaluation reference date, it can be inferred that the applicant's monopoly rate in the industrial field belonging to that classification has increased since the evaluation reference date. Therefore, even when calculating the evaluation classification score using a ratio calculated from the number of applications, it is possible to perform an evaluation that reflects the trends and declines in the industrial field belonging to that classification.

[0080] The control unit 12 and control unit 102, which have the various functions described above, are the processor, It includes non-temporary recording means and temporary recording means. The non-temporary recording means and temporary recording means can be implemented by general-purpose memory. Examples of general-purpose memory include ROM and RAM. In this case, the ROM contains a computer program that performs the above-mentioned processing. (Computer-readable instructions) may be stored. The processor may be implemented by a general-purpose microprocessor that works in cooperation with general-purpose memory. Examples of general-purpose microprocessors include CPUs, MPUs, and GPUs. The general-purpose microprocessor selects at least a portion of the computer program stored in ROM and loads it into RAM, and then works in cooperation with RAM to execute the above-mentioned process. The above-mentioned computer program may be pre-installed in general-purpose memory, or it may be downloaded from an external server device via a wireless communication network and then installed in general-purpose memory.

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

[0082] Although embodiments of the present invention have been described above, it goes without saying that the technical scope of the present invention should not be interpreted as being limited by the description of these embodiments. These embodiments are merely examples, and it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various modifications to 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 the scope of its equivalents.

[0083] In the above embodiments, a method for evaluating the classification of patents and evaluating patents as an example of industrial property rights was described using evaluation devices 10 and 100. However, evaluation devices 10 and 100 may be configured to evaluate the classification of utility models, designs, or trademarks and to evaluate utility models, designs, or trademarks in addition to or instead of patents.

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

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

[0086] In the above embodiment, the evaluation reference date is set at predetermined intervals (in this example, annually). However, the evaluation reference date may be set every six months for one period and annually for another.

[0087] In the above embodiment, evaluation device 10 and evaluation device 100 perform classification evaluation and evaluation of the industrial property rights to be evaluated for Japanese industrial property rights. However, evaluation device 10 and evaluation device 100 also perform evaluation of foreign industrial property rights, either in place of or in addition to those for Japan. It may be configured to perform classification assessments and assessments of industrial property rights under assessment.

[0088] In the above embodiment, one industrial property right is counted as one item. However, multiple industrial property rights belonging to a family may also be counted as one item. Examples of families include a divisional application and the original application from which the divisional application is based, or an application filed first in a first country and an application filed in a second country based on the priority of that application (for example, a Japanese application and a foreign application based on the priority of that Japanese application), a group of applications in the transition countries of an international application such as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), or a group of applications in the designated countries of a regional application such as an EP. For example, instead of counting the original application and the divisional application as two separate items, the original application and the divisional application may be counted together as one item.

[0089] In the above embodiment, the industrial property rights information database 111 is included in the recording unit 11 of the evaluation device 10, but the industrial property rights information database 111 may be located outside the evaluation device 10. Similarly, the industrial property rights information database 111 is included in the storage unit 101 of the evaluation device 100, but it may be located outside the evaluation device 100. In this case, the industrial property rights information database 111 may be located, for example, within the Japan Patent Office system 30. Alternatively, the industrial property rights information database 111 may be a database containing data obtained from the Japan Patent Office system 30 or data processed from such data (for example, a commercial database or a database created by a company using the evaluation device 10). The evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to access the industrial property rights information database 111 via the communication network 20.

[0090] In the above embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to perform processing related to other procedures in addition to the evaluation of classification and the evaluation of the industrial property rights to be evaluated. For example, if the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 are used by a management company that manages the payment of maintenance fees to maintain industrial property rights, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to inquire about the payment of maintenance fees for industrial property rights, calculate an evaluation score for the industrial property rights to be inquired about, and notify the customer of the calculated evaluation score. This allows the applicant or right holder to make a decision on the payment of maintenance fees while referring to the evaluation score. In this case, information on the industrial property rights to be evaluated may be obtained from a management case database contained in the storage units 11 and 101.

[0091] In the above embodiment, evaluation device 10 and evaluation device 100 set the filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated as the evaluation reference date. However, the evaluation reference date may be set to a date related to a procedure different from the filing date of the industrial property right to be evaluated. Alternatively, the evaluation reference date may be set to a date different from the date related to the procedure of the industrial property right to be evaluated. For example, the date immediately preceding the day of evaluation may be set as the evaluation reference date. For example, as shown in Figure 5, there may be cases where the number of applications increased sharply after the filing date (2010) of the industrial property right to be evaluated, but the number of applications in recent years is small, and the industrial field to which the classification belongs is in decline. In this case, if the filing date (2010) of the industrial property right to be evaluated is set as the evaluation reference date, the score of the evaluation classification will be high (for example, 5 as shown in Figure 8), and will not be significantly affected by the decrease in the number of applications since 2017. On the other hand, For example, as shown in Figure 7, if the valuation base date is set to 2016, which is later than the filing date of the industrial property right being evaluated (2010), the valuation classification score will be lower (for example, 0 as shown in Figure 8), reflecting the decrease in the number of applications from 2017 onwards. In this way, By setting the most recent date as the evaluation reference date, it becomes possible to evaluate the classification in a way that reflects the most recent trends in the industrial sectors belonging to the evaluation classification.

[0092] In the above embodiment, if the classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated includes a classification that has been deprecated, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured so that the scores of the deprecated classifications are not considered 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 scores of the deprecated classifications. Alternatively, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured not to refer to the scores of the deprecated classifications when calculating the classification scores and evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated. Information on deprecated classifications can be obtained from the Japan Patent Office system 30. For example, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to obtain information on deprecated classifications from the Japan Patent Office system 30 and record the deprecated classifications in the storage unit 11.

[0093] For example, even if a classification has been abolished, the information on industrial property rights provided by the Japan Patent Office System 30 may still contain the abolished classification without being deleted. Therefore, For example, when creating a table of application counts for a discontinued classification, the number of applications from the year the classification was discontinued will be zero, thus reducing the accuracy of the classification's score evaluation. Therefore, by not using discontinued classifications in the evaluation score calculation, the decrease in the accuracy of the evaluation score can be mitigated.

[0094] In the above embodiment, if a predetermined period has not elapsed since the classification assigned to the industrial property right to be evaluated was newly established, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured not to consider the score of a classification that has not been established for a predetermined period when calculating the evaluation score of 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 a newly established classification. Alternatively, for example, if the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 determine after calculating the score of a classification that it is a newly established classification, they may be configured not to refer to the score of the newly established classification when evaluating the industrial property right to be evaluated. Information on newly established classifications can be obtained from the Japan Patent Office system 30. For example, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to obtain information on newly established classifications from the Japan Patent Office system 30 and record the newly established classifications in the storage unit 11.

[0095] For example, newly established classifications are retroactively reassigned to past applications, but this reassignment process can take several years. Therefore, when creating an application count table for a newly established classification, the number of applications prior to the year of establishment will be zero, which reduces the accuracy of the classification score evaluation. To mitigate this decrease in accuracy, newly established classifications can be excluded from the evaluation score calculation for a certain period.

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

[0097] In the above embodiment, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to evaluate the industrial property right being evaluated based on the number of specific procedures related to the same classification as the evaluation classification of the industrial property right being evaluated. Examples of the number of specific procedures include the number of times an objection 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 Figure 15, the evaluation device 10 and the evaluation device 100 may be configured to calculate a score for the evaluation classification by referring to a table in which the classification and the number of objections filed related to that classification are recorded in association. For example, the more objections, information provided, lawsuits, or invalidation trials a classification has been filed, the more attention the industrial sector belonging to that classification is likely to receive. Therefore, even when calculating a score using the number of specific procedures, it is possible to perform an evaluation that reflects the trends and declines of the industrial sector belonging to that classification. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0098] 10 Evaluation device 11 Storage section 12 Control Unit 20 Communication Networks 30. Japan Patent Office System 40 Customer terminals 100 Evaluation device 101 Storage section 102 Control Unit 111 Industrial Property Rights Information Database 112 Classification and Evaluation Database 113 Score Database

Claims

1. An evaluation device that calculates a score for a classification based on a comparison between an index corresponding to the number of procedures (number of applications, publications, requests for examination, registrations, oppositions, or abandonments) prior to the valuation date for industrial property rights belonging to the same classification and an index corresponding to the number of such procedures after the valuation date.

2. A classification evaluation device that calculates a score indicating the evaluation of a classification, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, An evaluation device in which 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 falls before the evaluation date and an index corresponding to the number of industrial property rights whose date falls after the evaluation date.

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

4. The evaluation device is The evaluation device according to claim 2, which calculates the score based on a comparison between the average value of an indicator corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date falls before the evaluation reference date and the average value of an indicator corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date falls after the evaluation reference date.

5. The evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the score is higher the greater the average value of the index corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date falls after the evaluation reference date is greater than the average value of the index corresponding to the number of cases where the predetermined date falls before the evaluation reference date.

6. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1 or claim 2, which does not calculate the score for the classification that has been discontinued.

7. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the score for the classification that has not been established for a predetermined period of time is not calculated.

8. A classification evaluation device that calculates a score indicating the evaluation of a classification, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, An evaluation device that does not calculate the score for the aforementioned classification that has been discontinued.

9. A classification evaluation device that calculates a score indicating the evaluation of a classification, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of industrial property rights, An evaluation device that does not calculate scores for the aforementioned classifications for which a predetermined period has not elapsed since their establishment.

10. An evaluation device that evaluates an industrial property right under evaluation based on the database, which is connected to a database in which a score indicating the evaluation of a classification is recorded, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of the industrial property right, Obtain multiple valuation classifications, which are multiple classifications of the industrial property rights subject to evaluation. Referencing the database, calculate the score for each of the multiple evaluation categories. Based on the multiple scores calculated, the industrial property rights subject to evaluation are assessed. An evaluation device that, when evaluating the industrial property rights being evaluated, does not consider the score of the deprecated classification when evaluating the industrial property rights being evaluated, if the classifications include the classifications that have been deprecated.

11. An evaluation device that evaluates an industrial property right under evaluation based on the database, which is connected to a database in which a score indicating the evaluation of a classification is recorded, associated with the classification and the evaluation date, for classifications assigned according to the content of the industrial property right, Obtain multiple valuation classifications, which are multiple classifications of the industrial property rights subject to evaluation. Referencing the database, calculate the score for each of the multiple evaluation categories. Based on the multiple scores calculated, the industrial property rights subject to evaluation are assessed. An evaluation device that, when evaluating the industrial property rights subject to evaluation, does not consider the score of the classification that has not been established for a predetermined period of time when the classification includes a classification that has is established for the predetermined period of time.

Images