Summary of analysis criteria

Overview of analysis methodology

The analysis provided by PatentPia is based on patentsets (documentsets). PatentPia uses the following steps STEP 0 : Analysis subject item/menu for patents related to field (e.g., transparent displays) of a particular company (LG Electronics) with subsequent forward citations by examiners, STEP 1 : Determine the input patent set for the subject of analysis (e.g., the patents in possession of Apple that contain 'augmented reality') in i) the title of invention, ii) the abstract, and iii) the claims of the patent), and

STEP 2 : Compose a target patent set corresponding to the analysis topic item/menu based on the confirmed input patent set (in many cases, input patent set = target patent set); and

STEP 3 : Based on the target patent set, generate analysis data (No. of patents in possession by subsequent companies citing the input patent set, (by when the examiner citation occurred,) corresponding to the analysis topic item.

Below are the results of the above example.

[Link]

Analysis scheme

In the above example, the analysis criteria requires i) identification of the U.S. patent set held by LG Electronics, ii) identification of the patent set for transparent displays, iii) definition of examiner (avoidance) citations, iv) definition of the year of occurrence of examiner (avoidance) citations, and v) identification of the right holders of the subsequent patents in possession of the examiner (avoidance) citations and the U.S. patent set held by those right holders.

Analysis Scheme

The analysis criteria scheme has i) criteria for the patentset under analysis, ii) criteria for patent intervention events centered on patents, and iii) criteria for non-patent intervention events centered on companies. Then, the determination of the patent set to be analyzed includes i) right holder level, ii) technology field level, and iii) inventor level. Representative of patent intervention events are patent purchases (transactions) or patent litigations/trials. Company-centered patent non-intervention events include M&A or investments.

https://whimsical.com/gc-m-and-a-en-PRVsrk1tkdd5JpoyK1vMQD

In the above example, i) and v) are related to the finalization of patent sets at the right holder level, and ii) is related to the finalization of patent sets at the technology field level. Above iii) and iv) are related to the definition of topic items/menu for analysis, such as forward citations by examiners.

Brief description of important analysis criteria

2. Patents to which a CPC is granted as the main patent classification and also includes patents to which a CPC is granted as a sub classification 3) Reflects upgrades/changes in the mapping relationship between 'CPC vs. Patent' | | | Technical field (keyword expression) | If certain keyword expressions are defined as patents in the patent's i) title of invention, ii) abstract, and iii) claims,
3. Incorporation of British expressions (e.g., fibre → fiber, color → color, etc.)
4. Incorporation of abbreviations (e.g., GPS system → global positioning system)
5. Incorporation of AKA (also known as, e.g., additive manufacturing → 3d printing)
6. Other | 1) Stemmed expressions (e.g., visualization, visualizing, visualed → visual) to be integrated
7. Considering integrating keywords extracted from embodiment areas | | Technical field (CPC + keyword) | CPC applies criteria by technology field (CPC) Keyword is based on technical field (keyword expression) | | | Buy (there) | 0) Patent transfer through M&A is included
8. Assignments from inventor to original assignee are excluded from purchases (transactions)
9. Transfer of ownership between company groups (e.g. Microsoft → Microsoft technology licensing, or Samsung Display → Samsung Electronics) excluded from No. of purchased patents (transactions)
10. Exclude partial (equity) assignments, addition of some right holders from shared right holders, etc. | | | litigation | 1) Will cover patent infringement and confirmation litigations filed in the first instance in district court
11. Will also include patent litigations at the ITC (less than 1.5% of the total) | | | trial | 1) Only inter partes trials (invalidation trials, confirmation trials) with the PTAB as the other party are included
12. Excludes trials with the Intellectual Property Office as the other party (appeals against decision of rejection, etc.) | | | forward citations | Sources of preceding patents in a citation relationship (references)
13. Preceding patents cited by the examiner
14. Preceding patents used by the examiner in a rejection
15. Preceding patents by IDS | 1) Will also include preceding patents in the background art
16. Overseas literature will also be included | | forward citations by examiners | Of the above citation relationships, 1) and 2) | | | Rejection (true) | Of the above citation relationships, 2) | Provide separation between preceding patents rejected for novelty and those rejected for non-obviousness | | No. of patents rejecting subsequent patents (*) | Patentability determinations related to the No. of patents rejecting subsequent patents include i) novelty, and ii) non-obviousness. | | | M&A/Investments | Scope of M&A
17. Only M&A that PatentPia i) collects&recognizes, ii) the company (acquirer) has US patents in possession, and iii) are reflected in the PatentPia DB are considered.
18. M&A related to a specific technology field are treated as M&A in that technology field if at least one of the defendant company's patents is related to field | Hold investments to the same standards as M&A | | Others | | |