Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13088/jiis.2022.28.2.147

Prediction of patent lifespan and analysis of influencing factors using machine learning  

Kim, Yongwoo (Department of Technology Management, Graduate School of Technology & Innovation Management, Hanyang University)
Kim, Min Gu (Department of Technology Management, Graduate School of Technology & Innovation Management, Hanyang University)
Kim, Young-Min (Department of Technology Management, Graduate School of Technology & Innovation Management, Hanyang University)
Publication Information
Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems / v.28, no.2, 2022 , pp. 147-170 More about this Journal
Abstract
Although the number of patent which is one of the core outputs of technological innovation continues to increase, the number of low-value patents also hugely increased. Therefore, efficient evaluation of patents has become important. Estimation of patent lifespan which represents private value of a patent, has been studied for a long time, but in most cases it relied on a linear model. Even if machine learning methods were used, interpretation or explanation of the relationship between explanatory variables and patent lifespan was insufficient. In this study, patent lifespan (number of renewals) is predicted based on the idea that patent lifespan represents the value of the patent. For the research, 4,033,414 patents applied between 1996 and 2017 and finally granted were collected from USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). To predict the patent lifespan, we use variables that can reflect the characteristics of the patent, the patent owner's characteristics, and the inventor's characteristics. We build four different models (Ridge Regression, Random Forest, Feed Forward Neural Network, Gradient Boosting Models) and perform hyperparameter tuning through 5-fold Cross Validation. Then, the performance of the generated models are evaluated, and the relative importance of predictors is also presented. In addition, based on the Gradient Boosting Model which have excellent performance, Accumulated Local Effects Plot is presented to visualize the relationship between predictors and patent lifespan. Finally, we apply Kernal SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to present the evaluation reason of individual patents, and discuss applicability to the patent evaluation system. This study has academic significance in that it cumulatively contributes to the existing patent life estimation research and supplements the limitations of existing patent life estimation studies based on linearity. It is academically meaningful that this study contributes cumulatively to the existing studies which estimate patent lifespan, and that it supplements the limitations of linear models. Also, it is practically meaningful to suggest a method for deriving the evaluation basis for individual patent value and examine the applicability to patent evaluation systems.
Keywords
Patent; Patent lifespan; Patent renewal; Patent value;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Molnar, C. (2020). Interpretable machine learning (2nd Edition), Independently published.
2 박상영, 최영재, & 이성주. (2021). 지속적 활용이 가능한 산학협력 특허 특성 분석. 한국산학기술학회 논문지, 22(3), 568-578.
3 장관용, & 양동우. (2014). 특허기술수명에 영향을 미치는 결정요인에 관한 실증 연구: 한국등록특허 갱신데이터를 활용하여. 지식재산연구, 9(2), 79-108.
4 추기능, & 박규호. (2010). 특허의 경제적 수명의 결정요인에 관한 연구: 갱신자료를 활용한 생존분석. 지식경영연구, 11(1), 65-81.   DOI
5 Barirani, A., Beaudry, C., & Agard, B. (2017). Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 271-283.   DOI
6 Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, 1189-1232.
7 Apley, D. W., & Zhu, J. (2020). Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 82(4), 1059-1086.   DOI
8 Choi, Y. M., & Cho, D. (2018), A study on the time-dependent changes of the intensities of factors determining patent lifespan from a biological perspective, World Patent Information, 54, 1-17.   DOI
9 De Rassenfosse, G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2018). Are patent fees effective at weeding out low quality patents?, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27(1), 134-148.   DOI
10 Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. MIT press.
11 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.   DOI
12 Pitkethly, R. (1997), The valuation of patents: a review of patent valuation methods with consideration of option based methods and the potential for further research, Research Papers in Management Studies-University of Cambridge Judge Institute of Management Studies.
13 Schankerman, M. (1998), How valuable is patent protection? Estimates by technology field, the RAND Journal of Economics, 29(1), 77-107.   DOI
14 Guellec, D., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent, Economics letters, 69(1), 109-114   DOI
15 Danish, M. S., Ranjan, P., & Sharma, R. (2021), Determinants of patent survival in emerging economies: Evidence from residential patents in India, Journal of Public Affairs, 21(2), e2211.
16 Bessen, J. (2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932-945.   DOI
17 Choi, J., Jeong, B., Yoon, J., Coh, B. Y., & Lee, J. M. (2020). A novel approach to evaluating the business potential of intellectual properties: A machine learning-based predictive analysis of patent lifetime, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 145, 106544.   DOI
18 Ernst, H., Leptien, C., & Vitt, J. (2000). Inventors are not alike: The distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 47(2), 184-199.   DOI
19 Fisher, A., Rudin, C., & Dominici, F. (2019). All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneously. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20(177), 1-81.
20 Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2011). Innovation and its discontents. In Innovation and Its Discontents. Princeton University Press.
21 Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND journal of economics, 129-151.   DOI
22 Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.
23 Og, J. Y., Pawelec, K., Kim, B. K., Paprocki, R., & Jeong, E. (2020), Measuring patent value indicators with patent renewal information, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(1), 16.   DOI
24 Schankerman, M., & Pakes, A. (1986), Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period. The Economic Journal, 96(384), 1052-1076.   DOI
25 Van Zeebroeck, N. (2011). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of innovation and new technology, 20(1), 33-62.   DOI
26 Lanjouw, J. O. (1993), Patent Protection: Of What Value and for How Long?, NBER Working Paper, No. 4475.
27 Pakes, A., & Schankerman, M. (1984), The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources, R&D, patents, and productivity, University of Chicago Press.
28 Reitzig, M. (2002), Valuing patents and patent portfolios from a corporate perspective : theoretical considerations, applied needs and future challenges : background paper for discussion, UN. ECE. High Level Task Force on Valuation and Capitalization of Intellectual Assets, 26.
29 Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research policy, 33(6-7), 939-957.   DOI
30 Scherer, F. M., Harhoff, D., & Kukies, J. (2000), Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation, Journal of Evolutionary Economics volume, 10, 175-200.   DOI
31 Sullivan, R. J. (1994), Estimates of the value of patent rights in Great Britain and Ireland 1852-1876, Economica, 61(241), 37-58.   DOI
32 Van Zeebroeck, N., Stevnsborg, N., De La Potterie, B. V. P., Guellec, D., & Archontopoulos, E. (2008). Patent inflation in Europe. World Patent Information, 30(1), 43-52.   DOI
33 Shapiro, C. (2000). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innovation policy and the economy, 1, 119-150.   DOI
34 Jaffe, A. B. (2000). The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research policy, 29(4-5), 531-557.   DOI
35 Van Zeebroeck, N., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2011a). The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of innovation and new technology, 20(3), 283-308.   DOI
36 Van Zeebroeck, N., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2011b). Filing strategies and patent value. Economics of innovation and new technology, 20(6), 539-561.   DOI