Patent valuation apparatus, patent valuation system, and patent valuation method

Abstract

To easily and objectively achieve monetary value evaluation of a patent by a market approach, utilizing AI without relying on manpower.SOLUTION: A patent value evaluation device according to the present invention includes: a database 1 storing a plurality of pieces of comparative patent information linked to monetary value obtained from patent infringement litigation information; text information acquisition means 3 for acquiring text information of a patent to be evaluated; and monetary value determination means 2 for comparing the text information of the patent to be evaluated with the comparative patent information, extracting the comparative patent information most similar to the patent to be evaluated, and determining monetary value of the patent to be evaluated by referring to the monetary value linked to the extracted comparative patent information.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

Technical Field

[0005]

[0001] The present invention relates to an evaluation apparatus, an evaluation system, and an evaluation method for evaluating the value of a patent from a patent gazette.

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, as an apparatus and a system for evaluating patent value, there have been, for example, the patent evaluation apparatus described in Patent Document 1 and the evaluation system described in Patent Document 2. These evaluate the inventions for which patent applications have been filed based on the information recorded in the patent database, but all evaluate by referring to bibliographic information of the filed patents, the examination process, the technical field of the invention, etc. Although the relative technical value of the patent could be evaluated, the monetary value was not evaluated.

[0003] On the other hand, the evaluation of the monetary value of a patent is an essential matter when calculating the corporate value monetarily in due diligence such as M&A. In such cases, any one of the market approach, income approach, and cost approach, which are general asset value evaluation methods conventionally used by experts such as accountants and lawyers, has been manually performed.

[0004] Among these evaluation methods, the market approach in patent value calculation evaluates the value of the target patent by referring to the transaction prices of similar patents and has been considered the most accurate method. However, regarding patents, it has been said that the available transaction information is insufficient and a sufficient evaluation cannot be performed. For this reason, usually, the income approach that calculates by making full use of discounting methods such as DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) for the expected future income has been mainly used.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0005]

Patent Document 1

Patent Document 2

[0006] Conventional income-based valuation methods have several drawbacks. For example, the production plan of the patent-owning company is a crucial evaluation factor, requiring manual interviews and resulting in cumbersome valuation procedures. Furthermore, if the patent is transferred to another entity, such as a non-manufacturing company, the valuation becomes entirely different, rendering past valuations useless. On the other hand, market-based valuation methods, as mentioned above, suffer from the difficulty of collecting patent value information. Moreover, both valuation methods rely on manual appraisals, requiring lengthy and expensive processes, and making objective valuation difficult due to significant variations in the appraiser's subjective assessment. Therefore, this invention aims to automate and objectively perform patent valuation using the market approach. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] The patent valuation device according to the present invention comprises a database storing multiple comparative patent information linked to monetary value, means for acquiring text information of a patent to be evaluated, and means for comparing the text information of the patent to be evaluated with the multiple comparative patent information, extracting the comparative patent information most similar to the patent to be evaluated, and determining the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated by referring to the monetary value linked to the extracted comparative patent information.

[0008] Furthermore, the multiple comparative patent information linked to the aforementioned monetary value is obtained from infringement litigation information related to the comparative patent information.

[0009] Furthermore, the aforementioned monetary value is the amount of damages obtained from the court records.

[0010] Furthermore, the comparative patent information consists of a pair of the monetary value of each patent extracted from the infringement litigation information and one or more parameter groups included in the patent publication of the said patent.

[0011] Furthermore, the monetary value determination means compares the parameters included in the patent to be evaluated with the parameters of the comparative patent information to extract the comparative patent information that is most similar to the patent to be evaluated, and determines the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated by referring to the monetary value corresponding to the extracted comparative patent information.

[0012] Furthermore, the parameters of the comparative patent information include the technical classification information and technical keywords of the patent.

[0013] Furthermore, in the patent valuation system according to the present invention, the database and the means for determining monetary value are stored on a cloud server, the text information of the patent to be evaluated is obtained from an external source via the internet, and the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated is output to an external source via the internet.

[0014] Furthermore, the patent valuation method of the present invention includes the steps of: reading text data of the patent to be evaluated; extracting patent information from the text data of the patent to be evaluated; reading multiple comparative patent information linked to monetary value from a database; selecting the comparative patent information most similar to the patent to be evaluated from the multiple comparative patent information; and setting the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated by referring to the monetary value linked to the selected comparative information.

[0015] Furthermore, multiple comparative patent information linked to monetary value is obtained from infringement litigation information related to the aforementioned comparative patent information.

[0016] Furthermore, the aforementioned monetary value is the amount of damages obtained from the court records.

[0017] In addition, the comparative patent information is composed of a pair of the monetary value for each patent extracted from the infringement lawsuit information and one or a plurality of parameter groups included in the patent gazette of the patent.

[0018] Further, after determining the patent technical classification of the patent to be evaluated, a step of reading a plurality of comparative patent information corresponding to the patent technical classification from a database is further provided.

Advantages of the Invention

[0019] According to the patent value evaluation apparatus, patent value evaluation system, and patent value evaluation method of the present invention, since the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated can be quickly evaluated based on an automatic and objective criterion, in due diligence and the like implemented in M&A and credit investigations by financial institutions, there is an effect that the value of intangible assets owned by enterprises and the like can be accurately grasped, and it can also contribute to the activation of corporate activities, such as serving as a judgment material during the inventory of patents.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0020] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the overall configuration of a patent value evaluation system including the patent value evaluation apparatus of this invention. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the internal configuration of the monetary value determination means included in the patent value evaluation apparatus of this invention. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the operation steps executed in the monetary value determination means of this invention. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram schematically showing the determination of similarity executed in the monetary value determination means of this invention. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a diagram schematically showing the determination of similarity executed using a comparison type in the monetary value determination means of this invention. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is another flowchart showing the operation steps executed in the monetary value determination means of this invention. [Figure 7]FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a list of comparative patent information, which is an example of patent information associated with a monetary value. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is an example of a list including concepts of inventions extracted by semantic search from a patent gazette which is comparative patent information. [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a diagram showing the relationship between a technical field derived from comparative patent information and an average value of the monetary value of patents included in the field. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the average value and frequency of the monetary value of patents for each technical field derived from the comparative patent information. [Figure 11] FIG. 11 is a list showing classes (ranks) of amounts for classifying damage amounts used for determining the monetary value of this invention.

BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION

[0021] Embodiment 1 FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the overall configuration of this invention. In FIG. 1, reference numeral 1 denotes a database storing comparative patent information. This comparative patent information is extracted from each patent gazette associated with the monetary value of a patent, and includes language information such as the title, abstract, and claims of the invention, technical classification codes (IPC, CPC, etc.), WIPO's technical classification (IPC AND TECHNOLOGY CONCORDANCE TABLE), numerical data such as the number of citations and the number of times cited, and further concepts of the invention (technical keywords) extracted by semantic search from the patent gazette, and is organized in a list format as shown in, for example, FIG. 7 or FIG. 8.

[0022] This comparative patent information is created, for example, by extracting patents whose monetary value is clearly stated from the litigation records of patent infringement lawsuits, and by obtaining various data from the relevant patent publications. As an example, the list shown in Figure 7 was compiled by collecting and organizing approximately 1400 patent lawsuits in the United States where the amount of damages was clearly stated, using Clarivate's Dirts-ip intellectual property case collection system. In addition, the invention concepts included in Figure 8 were extracted using semantic search in Questel's Orbit-intelligence.

[0023] In Figure 1, 2 is a means for determining monetary value. For example, it compares the text information of the patent to be evaluated 4, obtained from the text information acquisition means 3 (a user terminal) via the internet line 6, with multiple comparative patent information obtained from the database 1. It extracts the comparative patent information most similar to the patent to be evaluated, and determines the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated by referring to the monetary value associated with the extracted comparative patent information. The determined monetary value is output to the output means 5 (a user terminal) via the internet line 6.

[0024] In this embodiment, the database 1 and the monetary value determination means 2 are stored on a cloud server 7, forming a so-called SaaS system. However, the present invention can also be implemented in a so-called standalone configuration, where all components are stored on a single computer. That is, the database 1 and the monetary value determination means 2 are mounted on a single device, and the acquisition of text information of the patent to be evaluated 4 and the output of the determined monetary value are performed within the patent valuation device without using the internet connection 6.

[0025] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the internal configuration of the monetary value determination means 2 shown in Figure 1. The input text-formatted patent information to be evaluated is temporarily stored in the memory for the patent to be evaluated 22 via the input UI (User Interface) 21. Next, the patent information to be evaluated is input to the processing unit 24, which compares it with the comparative patent information pre-stored in the memory for comparative patent information 23 to extract the comparative patent information that is most similar to the patent to be evaluated. The monetary value of the patent to be evaluated is then determined by referring to the monetary value associated with the extracted comparative patent information. The determined monetary value is output externally via the output UI 25.

[0026] Figure 3 is a flowchart showing the process performed in the above-described monetary value determination means 2. Specifically, in STEP 1, the patent information to be evaluated is read, then in STEP 2, the patent information necessary for the comparison work, such as the invention's language information and technical code information, is extracted from the patent information to be evaluated, and then in STEP 3, the comparative patent information is read from the database. Then, in STEP 4, the similarity between the patent information to be evaluated and the comparative patent information is evaluated using both, and the comparative patent information that is most similar to the patent to be evaluated is selected. Next, in STEP 5, the monetary value (amount) of the patent to be evaluated is set by referring to the amount associated with the selected comparative patent, and the result is output as the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated.

[0027] More specifically, the similarity determination described above is performed as shown in Figure 4 by extracting feature quantities as parameters from the text information of the patent to be evaluated 4 through morphological analysis, comparing them with feature quantities for each amount extracted from the comparative patent information 11, which serves as training data, to determine the similarity, and then determining the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated by referring to the amount associated with the most similar comparative patent information. The above feature quantities include classification codes such as WIPO technology domains, IPC, CPC, etc., product names, elemental technology names, number of claim words, problems, implementing technology terms, standards / standard names, inventors, original applicants, number of cited documents, number of cited documents, etc., but are not limited to these, and words or morphemes described in the patent publication can also be extracted as feature quantities through semantic search. For example, as an example of semantic search, the number of descriptions of specific technical terms included in one or more patent specifications and their location within the specifications (claims, abstracts, examples, etc.) can be used to extract important concepts of the invention and use them as feature quantities.

[0028] Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5, comparative types 12 created by categorizing comparative patent information 11 by monetary rank may be used as training data. Similarity determination is the same as the method shown in Figure 4, but for example, if there are thousands of comparative patent information entries, it would be necessary to perform the comparison work with a single patent to be evaluated thousands of times. However, if a comparative type has been created in advance, it is sufficient to perform the comparison work in just a few dozen times, which significantly reduces the computation time for similarity determination and the computational load on the system.

[0029] Embodiment 2 Figure 6 shows a flowchart of the invention according to Embodiment 2 of the present invention. In the figure, STEP 1 and STEP 2 are the same as the flowchart in Figure 3 according to Embodiment 1, however, in the invention according to Embodiment 2, the technical classification of the patent to be evaluated is determined in advance in STEP 21. The technical classification is determined by referring to the technical classification code such as IPC of the patent to be evaluated. Alternatively, the technical classification may be determined based on the so-called WIPO technical classification (IPC AND TECHNOLOGY CONCORDANCE TABLE).

[0030] Next, in STEP 31, comparative patent information corresponding to the technology classification determined in STEP 21 is retrieved. The subsequent steps are the same as the flowchart in Figure 3. In STEP 4, the similarity between the patent to be evaluated and the comparative patent information is evaluated using both, and the most similar comparative patent information is selected. Then, in STEP 5, the monetary value (amount) of the patent to be evaluated is set by referring to the amount associated with the selected comparative patent, and the result is output as the monetary value of the target patent.

[0031] In this way, by pre-determining the technical classification of the patent to be evaluated and narrowing the scope of comparative patent information to similar technical classifications, and then comparing other features, the processing time for determining similarity can be significantly reduced. Furthermore, the commonality of keywords and other elements increases when comparing other features, resulting in improved accuracy of the determination.

[0032] As an example, Figure 9 shows the relationship between the WIPO technology classifications (35 classifications in total) of patents (approximately 1400) accumulated as comparative patent information and the average amount of damages (frequency mean) in infringement lawsuits for each patent, specifically the "average damages by technology field." As can be seen from Figure 9, the average damages in the pharmaceutical field exceed $200,000,000 (USD), while in fields such as machinery and electrical engineering, they fall below $50,000,000 (USD). This shows that the amount of damages, and thus the monetary value of patents, differ significantly depending on the technology field, and it is considered reasonable to first narrow down the technology classifications and then determine the degree of similarity within that range.

[0033] Figure 10 shows the average value (frequency mean) and frequency (number of cases) of damages for the comparative patent information mentioned above, for each technology classification. In Figure 10, the horizontal axis represents the damage amount (USD) on a logarithmic scale, and the frequency of each amount is counted as the sum of those classified into the 10 amount ranks (classes) shown in Figure 11.

[0034] As can be seen from Figure 10, the amount of damages differs significantly not only in average values ​​but also in the sum of frequencies for each technology classification, and it is clear that not only the magnitude of damages but also the number of lawsuits differs greatly for each technology. In other words, determining the similarity of the patent being evaluated and the comparative patent information within the same technology classification is considered appropriate from the standpoint of efficiency and accuracy, because their features and monetary value are similar within the same technology classification.

[0035] In each of the embodiments described above, the comparative patent information was extracted from litigation records of patent infringement cases in the United States, along with the corresponding patent information and damages. However, it is also possible to obtain information from litigation records in other countries. Furthermore, the language in which the patent to be evaluated is not limited to English; patents written in any language can be used. In such cases, it is necessary to translate either the comparative patent information or the patent to be evaluated, or both. However, a translation function may be added to the apparatus or system of the present invention.

[0036] Furthermore, when determining similarity, indicators other than information that can be extracted from the patent specification may be used as features, such as the market size or market coverage rate of the relevant technology. [Industrial applicability]

[0037] This technology makes it possible to easily and objectively evaluate the monetary value of patents, enabling accurate assessment of the intangible asset value of patent-holding companies during due diligence and M&A, thereby contributing to the development of economic activity. Furthermore, it can serve as a value indicator when buying and selling patents as a company's liquid asset, contributing to improved corporate profitability. [Explanation of symbols]

[0038] 1. Database containing comparative patent information 2. Means of determining monetary value 3. Means for acquiring text information 4. Patents to be evaluated 5 Output means 6. Internet connection 7 Cloud Servers 11. Comparison using licensed intelligence 12. Comparison by type

Claims

1. A patent valuation apparatus characterized by comprising: a database storing multiple comparative patent information linked to monetary value; a means for acquiring text information of a patent to be evaluated; and a means for comparing the text information of the patent to be evaluated with the multiple comparative patent information, extracting the comparative patent information most similar to the patent to be evaluated, and determining the monetary value linked to the extracted comparative patent information as the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated.

2. The patent valuation device according to claim 1, characterized in that the multiple comparative patent information linked to the aforementioned monetary value is extracted from infringement litigation information.

3. The patent valuation device according to claim 2, characterized in that the aforementioned monetary value is the amount of damages obtained from the infringement litigation information.

4. The patent valuation device according to claim 3, characterized in that the comparative patent information consists of a pair of the monetary value of each patent extracted from the infringement litigation information and one or more parameter groups contained in the patent publication of the patent.

5. The patent valuation apparatus according to claim 4, characterized in that the monetary value determination means compares the parameters extracted from the text information of the patent to be evaluated with the parameters of the comparative patent information to extract the comparative patent information that is most similar to the patent to be evaluated, and determines the monetary value corresponding to the extracted comparative patent information as the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated.

6. The patent valuation apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that the parameters of the comparative patent information include the technical classification information and technical keywords of the comparative patent information.

7. A patent valuation system comprising a cloud server storing the database and the monetary value determination means described in claim 1, wherein text information of the patent to be evaluated is acquired externally via an internet connection, and the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated is output externally via the internet connection.

8. A patent valuation method comprising the steps of: reading text data of a patent to be evaluated; extracting patent information from the text data of the patent to be evaluated; reading multiple comparative patent information linked to monetary value from a database; selecting the comparative patent information most similar to the patent to be evaluated from the multiple comparative patent information; and setting the monetary value linked to the selected comparative patent information as the monetary value of the patent to be evaluated.

9. The patent valuation method according to claim 8, characterized in that the multiple comparative patent information linked to the aforementioned monetary value is extracted from infringement litigation information.

10. The patent valuation method according to claim 9, characterized in that the aforementioned monetary value is the amount of damages obtained from the infringement litigation information.

11. The patent valuation method according to claim 10, characterized in that the comparative patent information consists of a pair of the monetary value of each patent extracted from the infringement litigation information and one or more parameter groups contained in the patent publication of the patent.

12. The patent valuation method according to any one of claims 8 to 11, characterized in that, prior to the step of reading a plurality of comparative patent information linked to monetary value from a database, the patent technology classification of the patent to be evaluated is determined, and in the step of reading a plurality of comparative patent information linked to monetary value from a database, a plurality of comparative patent information corresponding to the patent technology classification is read from the database.

Images