Guangyun Deng, Hui-Chung Che and Yingwu Peng

Correspondence: Hui-Chung Che, drcharlie918@yeah.net

Freed Technologies, Ltd. and Shenzhen GongBiao Intellectual Property Judicial Appraisal Center, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.

pdf (632.1 Kb) | doi: https://doi.org/10.47260/bae/1127

Abstract

19,082 China utility model patents were retrieved from invalidation reexaminations decisions. A thorough analysis using ANOVA was conducted across nine technology areas for discussing the variances between weak utility models, in any of which all claims were invalid through the reexaminations, and strong utility models, in any of which at least one claim was remaining valid. Four high value indicators for classifying utility models were found, including description word count, examination duration, figure count and claim count, to respectively show significance in five technology areas; wherein the strong patents showed significantly higher means of indicators in every technology areas of significance. Two fair value indicators for classification were found, including IPC count and abstract word count, to respectively show significance in three technology areas. Two low value indicators for classification were found, including inventor count and applicant count, showing significance in two or less technology areas. Technology distinction was shown. The overall technology and technology G (physics) were respectively provided with the most number of five valuable indicators, while technology C (chemistry and metallurgy) and D (textiles; paper) were respectively provided with the least number of three valuable indicators. The technologies provided with more valuable indicators were more applicable for classifying strong/weak utility models. The strong utility models were shown to be provided with more claim terms, more figures, richer description content and longer examination duration. The criteria for classification was therefore obtained.

Keywords:

  Patent, ANOVA, Utility Model, Reexamination, Invalidation.

References

Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A., Moore, K.A. and Trunkey, R.D. (2004). Valuable patents. The Georgetown Law Journal, 92, p. 435.

Boeing, P. and Mueller, E. (2019). Measuring China's patent quality: Development and validation of ISR indices. China Economic Review, 57, 101331. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHIECO.2019.101331

Chen, C.Y., Chu, C.L., Che, H.C., Tsai, H.W. and Bai, B. (2022). Using Patent Drawings to Differentiate Stock Return Rate of China Listed Companies. A Study on China Patent Species of Invention Grant, Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 12(3), pp.71-106. https://doi.org/10.47260/amae/1234

Chen, C.Y., Chu, C.L., Che, H.C. and Tsai, H.W. (2022). Using Patent Drawings to Differentiate Stock Return Rate of China Listed Companies. A Study on China Patent Species of utility model. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 12(4), pp.1-33. https://doi.org/10.47260/amae/1241

Dang, J. and Motohashi, K. (2015). Patent statistics: A good indicator for innovation in China? Patent subsidy program impacts on patent quality. China Economic Review, 35(Sep), pp.137-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.03.012

Galasso, A. and Schankerman, M.A. (2015). Patent Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit. Economics, Law, December, 168347832. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12219

Han, X., Zhu, D., Lei, M. and Daim, T. U. (2021). R&D trend analysis based on patent mining: An integrated use of patent applications and invalidation data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, June, 120691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120691

Li, X. (2012). Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: an institutional view. Research Policy, 41(1), pp.236-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.003

Reitzi, M. (2004). Improving Patent valuations for management purposes – validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6-7), pp.939-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.02.004.

Tsai, H.W., Che, H.C. and Bai, B. (2021a, September). Exploring Technology Variety Effect on Stock Return Rate in China Stock Market. Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering, 19-206, Macao, China. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494583.3494621

Tsai, H.W., Che, H.C. and Bai, B. (2021b). How Does Patent Examination Indicate Stock Performance? An Empirical Study of China Stock Market and Patents. Internal Journal of Economics and Research, 12(i5), pp.01-29 (so).

Tsai, H.W., Che, H.C. and Bai, B. (2022). Longer Patent Life Representing Higher Value? A Study on China Stock Market and China Patents. Bulletin of Applied Economics, 9(1), pp.115-136. https://doi.org/10.47260/bae/918

Tsai, H.W. and Che, H.C. (2022). Industry Difference on Patent Drawing’s Capability for Differentiating Stock Rates of Return of Chinese Listed Companies in Non-Manufacturing Industry Sectors -- An Explore into Invention Publication Patents and Utility Model Grant Patents. Bulletin of Applied Economics, 10(1), pp.21-67. https://doi.org/10.47260/bae/1012

Zeebroeck, N.V. (2007). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(1).