帳號:guest(54.82.119.116)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士論文系統以作者查詢全國書目勘誤回報
作者姓名(中文):徐鼎昀
作者姓名(英文):Ding-Yun Hsu
論文名稱(中文):比較專利被引證數與專家判斷之專利價值差異之研究:以中置式電機電動輔助自行車為例
論文名稱(外文):A Comparative Study of the Difference of Patent Value Between Patent Forward Citations and Expert Judgment: The Case of Mid-drive Electric Bike
指導教授姓名(中文):耿筠
指導教授姓名(英文):Yun Ken
口試委員姓名(中文):耿筠
蔡鴻文
陳宥杉
口試委員姓名(英文):Yun Ken
Hung-wen Tsai
Yu-Shan Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱:專利研究所
學號:M10424016
出版年(民國):107
畢業學年度:106
學期:2
語文別:中文
論文頁數:95
中文關鍵詞:專利指標專利價值專利評價專利被引證數
外文關鍵詞:Patent IndicatorPatent ValuePatent ValuationPatent Forward Citation
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:41
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏收藏:0
各方專利權人、企業、國家等,無不想要探究單件或是多件專利的價值。例如以會計的方式計算專利價格,或是專利分析評估綜合價值,甚至是利用書目計量學的專利指標評價。本研究以中置式電動輔助自行車相關專利為標的,交由專家判斷專利價值,並與該些專利之被引證數指標所判斷之專利價值進行比較,試圖了解專利被引證數作為專利價值指標的適切性。
本研究與財團法人自行車暨健康科技工業研究發展中心-技術研發部資深工程師合作,將美國專利資料庫檢索之中置式電動輔助自行車相關專利,交由專家人工進行判讀與專利價值評等,再將評等結果:低價值、中價值、高價值專利群組與專利歷年申請件數、專利被引證數進行分析。藉由歷年件數與歷年被引證數分析,了解分析標的之歷年發展趨勢與引證接收概況;利用歷年專利之專家評等價值分布、被引證趨勢分析、各評等價值之個別分析,探討專家判斷之專利價值與被引證數的關係與差異;最後將被引證數為零之專利額外討論,了解專利被引證數指標無法判斷之專利的表現。
分析結果經整彙整如下六點:(1)中置式電機電動輔助自行車產業近年快速成長,該分析標的屬新興技術;(2)專家評等專利價值越高之專利群組,平均被引證數也就越高;(3)依專家評等結果來看,早期專利評為低價值比例較高,越近期之專利,評等為中、高價值之比例越高;(4)由於時間累積,時序上,中期專利被引證數相對其他時期高,但據專家判斷結果,中、低價值比例較高;(5)在本研究分析標的領域中,以專家評等為基準,專利被引證數作為專利價值的判斷方式,有較高機率產生誤判;(6)被引證數為零之專利,有一定數量被專家評等為低、中、高價值,專利被引證數指標於被引證數零時,仍須仰賴專家判斷。
Patentees, Entities, and even countries, everyone wants to know how much a patent or a group of patents is worth. People have been using accounting method to evaluate patent value, patent analysis to assess comprehensive value, and even patent indicators of the bibliometric method to evaluate. This research focus on patents about mid-drive electric bike. By letting the experts to evaluate the value of a patent and comparing them to the value determine by the patent forward citation indicators, we try to understand the appropriateness of using the forward citations as a patent indicator.
The research cooperates with the senior engineer from the R&D department of the Cycling & Health Tech Industry R&D Center. After letting the expert manual read and judged the patent value of the US patent related to mid-drive electric bike, distribute the patents into three groups: low value, middle value, and high value. Then, analyze the outcome of patent value groups with the historical patent applications and patent forward citations.
The historical patent applications and patent forward citation analysis are used to understand the developing trend of the subject over the years and the overview of the forward citation; the distribution of patent value groups rated by the expert, forward citation trend analysis, and individual analysis of each patent value groups are used to determine the difference and relationship between patent value rated by the expert and forward citation. At last, the additional discussion of patents having 0 forward citations are used to understand the performance of the patents which are unable to be determine by the forward citation indicator.
The result are organized and listed as follows: (1) The mid-drive electric bike industry is growing drastically in recent years, the analysis subject is a new technology; (2) The higher the patent value rated by the expert is, the more the average forward citations; (3) From the perspective of the expert rating result, the earlier patents have higher proportion being low value, and the more recent ones are more likely to be middle value or high value; (4) Because of the accumulation of time, chronologically, patents in the mid-term have higher forward citations than the others, but are rated more to be low and middle value; (5) In the technical field of the research, with the baseline of the expert rating, using forward citation to determine the patent value has a higher probability of misjudge; (6) Patents having 0 forward citation are possible to be rated all low, middle, or high value, as a result, patent forward citation indicator should still rely on the expert’s judgement.
摘要 I
ABSTRACT III
誌謝 V
目錄 VII
表目錄 IX
圖目錄 X
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 8
1.3 研究目的 9
1.4 章節概要 10
第二章 文獻探討 13
2.1 專利資訊 13
2.2 專利引證 14
2.3 專利價值與專利指標 17
2.4 以引證為基礎的專利指標 20
2.5 以引證為基礎的專利指標與專利價值的相關實證研究 23
2.5.1 技術上重要專利的引證率(Carpenter, Narin & Wool, 1981) 23
2.5.2 專利作為企業技術實力的指標(Narin, Noma & Perry, 1987) 24
2.5.3 引證數為工業重要專利指標(Albert, Avery, Narin & McAllister, 1991) 25
2.5.4 引證頻率與專利發明的價值(Harhoff, Narin, Scherer & Vopel, 1999) 26
2.5.5 引證、家族、專利價值之不同看法(Harhoff, Scherer & Vopel,2003) 28
2.6 本章小節 28
第三章 研究設計 31
3.1 探索性研究 31
3.2 研究流程 34
3.3 研究範疇 35
3.3.1 研究標的 35
3.3.2 資料庫選擇 38
3.4 專利資料蒐集 39
3.4.1 初步檢索 39
3.4.2 確定檢索式 43
3.4.3 人工篩選 45
3.4.4 檢索遺漏 46
3.4.5 專利資訊彙整 47
3.5 合作專家背景 48
3.6 專利價值評等與分析 50
3.6.1 專利價值評等原則 50
3.6.2 專利價值評等分析 51
3.7 資料分析限制 53
第四章 分析結果 55
4.1 整體分析 55
4.1.1 歷年專利件數 55
4.1.2 歷年專利被引證數 56
4.2 專利價值分析 57
4.2.1 整體被引證趨勢 60
4.2.2 歷年專利價值分布 62
4.2.3 評等低價值專利分析 63
4.2.4 評等中價值專利分析 66
4.2.5 評等高價值專利分析 68
4.3 被引證數為零之專利分析 70
第五章 結論 73
5.1 分析結果總結 73
5.2 未來研究建議 75
參考文獻 77
1.阮明淑、梁峻齊(2009),專利指標發展研究,圖書館學與資訊科學,35(2)。
2.陳永穎(2016),電助自行車市場發展趨勢分析,拓樸產業研究所。
3.陳怡之(2004),結合專利分析與技術策略之技術鑑價模型發展與實證(國科會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC92-2416-H-155-001-CC3)。桃園縣:元智大學企業管理系。
4.經濟部智慧財產局(2017),智慧局公布106年受理專利商標申請概況,經濟部智慧財產局新聞稿。
5.Abrams, D. S., Akcigit, U., & Popadak, J. (2013). Patent Value and Citations: Creative Destruction or Strategic Disruption? (No. w19647). National Bureau of Economic Research.
6.Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. The American economic review, 678-690.
7.Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research policy, 20(3), 251-259.
8.Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2003). Valuable patents. Geo. Lj, 92, 435.
9.Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1988). Using patent information in technology business planning—I. Research-Technology Management, 31(6), 42-46.
10.Brockhoff, K. K. (1992). Instruments for patent data analyses in business firms. Technovation, 12(1), 41-59.
11.Campbell, R. S., & Nieves, A. L. (1979). Technology Indicators Based on Patent Data: The Case of Catalytic Converters: Phase I Report, Design and Demonstration. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
12.Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., & Woolf, P. (1981). Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3(4), 160-163.
13.Ernst, H. (1995). Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to company performance. Technovation, 15(4), 225-240.
14.Ernst, H. (1998a). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(4), 279-308.
15.Ernst, H. (1998b). Industrial research as a source of important patents. Research policy, 27(1), 1-15.
16.Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World patent information, 25(3), 233-242.
17.Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69-84.
18.Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic lndicators. Joumal _of Economic.
19.Hall, B. H., & London, I. F. S. (2004, October). Patent data as indicators. In WIPO Conference Proceedings.
20.Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2000). Market value and patent citations: A first look (No. w7741). national bureau of economic research.
21.Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.
22.Harhoff, D. (2003). Legal challenges to patent validity in the US and Europe. In Presentation to OECD Conference on IPR, Innovation, and Economic Performance (August 28, 2003).
23.Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and statistics, 81(3), 511-515.
24.Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.
25.Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569.
26.Karki, M. M. S. (1997). Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool. World Patent Information, 19(4), 269-272.
27.Lanjouw, J. O. (1998). Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value. The Review of Economic Studies, 65(4), 671-710.
28.Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND journal of economics, 129-151.
29.Mard, M. J. (2001). Financial Factors: Analysis of Royalty Rate Based on Market Comparisons. The Licensing Journal, 21(2), 30-31.
30.Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research policy, 16(2-4), 143-155.
31.Nordhaus, W. D. (1967). The optimal life of a patent (No. 241). Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
32.OECD (2016a), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing.
33.OECD (2016b), G20 INNOVATION REPORT 2016, OECD Publishing.
34.Pakes, A. (1984). Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks.
35.Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first look. In R&D, patents, and productivity (pp. 55-72). University of Chicago Press.
36.Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research policy, 26(2), 141-156.
37.Putnam, J. D. (1997). The value of international patent rights.
38.Reitzig, M. (2003). What determines patent value?: Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy, 32(1), 13-26.
39.Schankerman, M., & Pakes, A. (1985). Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During thePost-1950 Period.
40.Schmookler, J. (1951). Invention and Economic Development.
41.Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth.
42.Shapiro, A. R. (1989). A rush to the patent office. Across the Board, 26(6), 7-9.
43.Teece, D. J. (2000). Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long range planning, 33(1), 35-54.
44.Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 172-187.
45.Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and new technology, 5(1), 19-50.
46.WIPO (2017). World intellectual property indicators 2017. WIPO publication, pp. 7-97.
47.Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2004). A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool for high-technology trend. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(1), 37-50.
全文檔公開日期:2023/06/15 (本校及區域網路)
全文檔公開日期:2023/06/15 (校外網際網路)
全文檔公開日期:2023/06/15 (國家圖書館)
電子全文
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *