Valuable Patents Redux: On the Enduring Merit of Using Patent Characteristics to Identify Valuable Patents

By Allison, John R.; Sager, Thomas W. | Texas Law Review, June 2007 | Go to article overview

Valuable Patents Redux: On the Enduring Merit of Using Patent Characteristics to Identify Valuable Patents


Allison, John R., Sager, Thomas W., Texas Law Review


In 2004, John Allison, Mark Lemley, Kimberly Moore, and Derek Trunkey published an article, Valuable Patents, reporting the results of the most comprehensive study ever done comparing various characteristics of patents that ended up in infringement litigation with patents that had not been litigated.1 Allison et al. compared a very large population of unlitigated patents-approximately three million-with a set of more than 6,800 litigated patents for which the infringement litigation terminated in 1999 or 2000.2 Appropriate adjustments were made for the different ages of the patents.3 Because of the size of the data set, the large study was not finely graded.4 Thus, Allison et al. also performed a much more finely graded study comparing characteristics of a random sample of 300 of the litigated patents that were issued during 1996-1998 (25% of the litigated patents issued during that time period) with a random sample of 1,000 unlitigated patents issued during the same time period.5 Based on the consensus that litigated patents are on average more valuable than unlitigated ones and thus represent a subset of all valuable patents, Allison et al. found among other things that litigated patents have significantly more total claims, independent claims, prior art references, and forward citations (citations to the patents by later patents) than unlitigated patents.6 Litigated patents are also relatively young; that is, litigation tends to occur during the first few years after patents are issued.7 The authors concluded not only that many valuable patents can be identified retrospectively but also that reasonable predictions can be made about patents that are likely to be valuable enough to be litigated.8

David Adelman and Kathryn DeAngelis challenge the use of patent characteristics to identify valuable patents either retrospectively or prospectively.9 Adelman and DeAngelis 's primary empirical contentions regarding the unsuitability of patent characteristics for identifying valuable patents are: (1) the distribution of the value of patents is highly skewed, with most having little or no value and only a relatively small portion having any value at all;10 (2) the distributions of the several patent characteristics (called "patent metrics" by Adelman and DeAngelis) often viewed as indicators of value are skewed, thus rendering them unreliable as relevant value metrics;11 (3) Valuable Patents' findings of differences in the characteristics of litigated and unlitigated patents that are statistically significant does not mean that the differences are of a practically significant magnitude;12 and (4) the "base-rate" problem, which may occur when attempting to predictively identify a small subset of a population, prevents Valuable Patents' results from having any predictive power.13

Among other, less important criticisms, Adelman and DeAngelis observe that the sample study yields some results at variance with the large population study for a few technology areas.14 Allison et al. stated in Valuable Patents that their small study is not comparable with the large population study15-a position that we reaffirm here. In the large population study, Allison et al. were forced to use the same National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) database of patents16 that Adelman and DeAngelis use in their article because there is no other available database containing such a large number of patents with some usable patent characteristics. Although useful, that database is deficient in a number of ways, largely because of its sheer size. The six technology or industry fields reported in that database are extremely coarse and are based on the highly flawed classification system of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). As a result, the identified fields are characterized by huge data-comparability problems; a category like Computers and Communications (CompComm) necessarily includes patents covering many disparate technology areas. This is the exact reason why Allison et al.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Valuable Patents Redux: On the Enduring Merit of Using Patent Characteristics to Identify Valuable Patents
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.