Presentation and Analysis of Patent Information and Other Information
Aggregation, analysis, and presentation of financial and IP-related information in a common interface are described.
Latest IP Street, Inc. Patents:
- Presentation and analysis of docket information and financial information
- Presentation and Analysis of Docket Information and Financial Information
- Presentation and analysis of docket information and financial information
- Processing and Presenting Intellectual Property and Other Information
- Processing and Presenting Intellectual Property and Other Information
This document is a continuation of international application PCT/US2008/078861, filed Oct. 3, 2008, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/977,629, filed Oct. 4, 2007, and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/978,088, filed Oct. 5, 2007, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
COPYRIGHT NOTICEA portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material to which a claim for copyright is made. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but reserves all other copyright rights whatsoever.
BACKGROUNDInnovation is a key factor for many companies to succeed in a globally competitive world. Protection of innovation via intellectual property (IP) helps those companies convert innovation into business assets. Today, Intangible assets represent a significant share of the market capitalizations of many of the most successful and innovative companies. Yet, to the business community and many professionals who are not IP legal experts, intellectual property generally, and patents specifically, remain somewhat of a mystery to fully understand, assess, and value.
The detailed description is described with reference to the accompanying figures. In the figures, the left-most digit(s) of a reference number identifies the figure in which the reference number first appears. The use of the same reference numbers in different figures indicates similar or identical items.
Across the globe, various mechanisms exist for recognizing or granting rights for intangibles such as inventions, creative expressions, symbols of goodwill, etc. Inventions are typically protected using patents, creative expressions are typically protected using copyrights, and symbols of goodwill are typically protected using trademarks (e.g., including trade dress and the like).
Various exemplary methods, systems, devices, described herein relate to intellectual property and information germane to intellectual property, especially for purposes of assessment or valuation of intellectual property.
The computing device 102 is configured to access information, such as information in the databases 112, 114, 116, 118, over one or more networks. In the example of
The information collected in the databases may be of domestic or international scope. For instance, the financial DB 112 may represent databases that hold stock and financial information for US companies, or for non-US companies. Further, the administrative legal DB 116 may represent other sources of information, such as European patent information available from the European Patent Office, or Japanese patent information available from the Japanese Patent Office. Essentially, the computing device 102 may draw from any number of US or world based sources of financial, legal, and IP related information.
The computing device 102 acquires information from the one or more databases 112-118, aggregates the information, and assesses that information via the analysis modules 108. Once processed, the computing device 102 stores the aggregated and analyzed information in an integrative database 119, which allows accessibility to portions or all of the aggregated information.
The computing device 102 is further configured to present the information graphically as indicated by the graphic 120. The graphic 120 may be a printed page or displayed using a display device (e.g., associated with a computer, a terminal, etc.). The graphic 120 consists of a collection of informational items arranged on a page to convey visually certain aspects of the underlying IP asset, such basic information, key statistics, scope of IP rights, and financial information of the asset owner and how the IP related events may impact financial or operational aspects of the asset owner. The graphic 120 may consist of any number of informational items. In certain implementations, the number and arrangement of the items may be configurable by users. For instance, a service hosted on the computing device 102 may allow a user to select from a menu of possible items and arrange those items on the graphic 120. Examples of possible graphics are shown and discussed below. However, these are merely representative, as other graphics may be used to convey the information.
In the example of
In the example of
The title area 122 of the graphic 120 is reserved for the title of the document as well as other general data about the document. For instance, the title area 122 of a graphic generated for a patent document may include the inventor name(s) or the assignee of the patent. For a trademark document, the title area 122 may include the assignee of the trademark or the class of goods and services.
The description 123 may include a brief summary of the asset covered by the IP document. In the case of a patent, the description 123 may be the abstract or summary portion of the document. Alternatively, it may be one of the claims, or selected text from the detailed description section of the patent document. In the case of a trademark, it may be a description of the goods or services.
The image 124 provides a visual of the asset being protected by the IP. For a patent, the image 124 may include an illustration from the patent document, such as one of the figures. For a trademark document, the image 124 may include an image of the mark.
The key information 125 is provided to allow the system administrators to designate certain data for inclusion on the graphic. For a patent document, such key information may include a filing date of the application, an issue date of when the patent issued, a publication date, any priority dates, inventor name(s), the US Examiner who examined the patent application, the law firm handling prosecution of the patent, the class within which the Patent Office classified the invention, a claim count (e.g., total claims, independent claims, etc.), the art unit examining the application, the allowance rate of the art unit, other related patents or applications, key references cited during prosecution, and so forth. Similar information may be provided for other IP assets, such as trademarks and copyright registrations.
The information used to populate the title 122, description 123, image 124, and key information 125 may be retrieved from one or more databases. For instance, much of this information may be found at an administrative legal DB 116 maintained by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Alternatively, this information may be retrieved from other commercial sources, such as services promoted by Thomson®, Lexis/Nexis®, and Google®.
The ownership area 126 is provided for a graphic showing the chain of ownership from the time of filing to the present. For an IP document, such as a patent, this area visually depicts assignment data retrieved from the administrative legal DB 116 of the US Patent and Trademark Office.
The administrative process area 127 concerns key data pertaining to how the IP asset was formed. Consider the context of a patent document. When securing a patent, an applicant first files a patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office, where it is examined. During the examination process, a record is created detailing the Examiner's review of the application and any responsive comments or changes to the patent application made by the applicant. For instance, the Examiner often rejects the initial application on the grounds that the invention as claimed is not novel or is obvious in view of that which is already known in the field of technology. The Examiner cites prior art references and submits arguments as to why the invention as claimed should not be allowed. In response, the applicant commonly submits rebuttal arguments and may on occasions amend the claims to change their scope in an effort to persuade the Examiner that the application should be allowed. This process is called “patent prosecution” and the record created is typically referred to as the “file wrapper history” or simply, “file history”. During this process, the scope of the IP asset may change and this scope change often has an impact on the value of the ultimate IP asset.
The computing device 102 retrieves the file history (or other administrative record) from the US Patent and Trademark Office (or other appropriate agency) or from a third party supplier. The analysis modules 108 classify and extract key portions of the file history and store them in the memory 106. For instance, in the context of patents, the analysis modules 108 may identify claims, amendments to the claims, arguments made by the Examiner, rebuttal arguments advanced by the applicant, key references, excerpts from those references, pertinent filings or admissions (e.g., terminal disclaimers, information disclosure statements, etc.), reasons for allowance, and so forth. Various forms of analysis (e.g., statistical, semantic, etc.) may be performed on the file history extracts stored in the memory 106 to provide key insights into the formation of the IP asset.
The administrative area 127 provides a graphic that visually conveys to the reader how the IP asset progressed during the administrative period (e.g., during patent prosecution) and how that process may have affected the scope of the IP asset. The graphic is intended to convey at a glance whether the IP assets scope changed significantly or not during the administrative process. Further, it is intended to reveal whether the process involved many interactions with the agency or a few, as a proxy for how clean or messy the file history, which often plays a role in whether the asset owner chooses to assert the asset in litigation or offer it for licensing. One example graphic is shown in
The landscape analysis 128 is an area that visually conveys information pertaining to how the IP asset fits within a larger context. The landscape may be directed to technology, or a company's portfolio, or to one or more competitors portfolios, or to a particular geographical region, or to any number of contexts. In the example of
The integrative financial/legal information area 130 is provided prominently on the graphic 120, in the upper right hand quadrant. It provides one or more visual cues to correlate certain legal events or transactions with certain financial parameters. In one example shown in
The global IP/market information area 140 is provided to correlate market data with IP-related legal aspects. For instance, in one implementation, the global IP/market information area 140 visually conveys market data about a product being protected, in part, by the corresponding IP asset. As an example, suppose the graphic 120 is for a US patent covering a communications chip used in cell phones. Here, a world map may be shown with different regions of the world color coded to exhibit different cell market growth rates (or penetration rates, or sales figures, or other market data). Correlated with this view is another view of how well the IP asset maps to those regions. In one example, a second world map is juxtaposed with the first one and shows through different colors those regions in which the IP asset is protected by patents. In other implementations, such as those involving an interactive UI, the two world maps may be consolidated, and the user can hover over the various regions to learn whether the market data and whether IP rights for this asset extend to the selected region. More detailed information is provided below with reference to
The IP category information area 142 provides information items pertaining more generally to IP data relevant to IP document. For instance, the area 142 may provide information about the class within which the IP document is assigned. It may alternatively provide information about the group art unit within which the IP document was examined, or the family tree showing other related IP documents, or IP filing rates in this particular technology worldwide. One example is shown in
The IP share area 144 contains information items derived from analysis of ownership of IP documents within a particular technology area or class of the IP document being assessed. For instance, this area 144 may provide a breakdown of ownership of the IP documents in a particular class at the US Patent and Trademark Office to which the subject IP document belongs. As shown in
The IP rights analysis area 146 is an area reserved for results of an analysis of the scope of rights attached to the IP document. In the context of patents, the scope of a patent document is dictated by the scope of the claims. Thus, the analysis is performed on the claims of the IP documents, and a graphical representation of scope is generated for presentation. In
The graphic 120 produced by the system 100 may be used in many contexts. Financial professionals may use the graphic 120 and other higher level analyses to investigate the ties between financial aspects of a company and that company's IP portfolio. IP professionals may use the graphic 120 as a portfolio tool to analyze their own portfolios, as well as others (e.g., competitors, acquisition targets, etc.). IP professionals may further use the graphic 120 in transactions, as well as to assess opportunities in geographical regions or technology sectors.
It is further noted that
Information associated with the single IP document 201 is stored in an integrative DB 119. Information may be data 232 and other information 234, typically structured for ease of access and relationships for purposes of queries. In general, the DB 119 includes information for a plurality of IP documents. For example, the DB 119 may include information for patents and patent applications in the US and Europe for a particular class (US and corresponding European class) filed and/or issued between the years 1980 and present. It may further include the file histories or other agency records pertaining to the IP documents. The integrative DB 119 may be implemented as part of memory 108 in
A level II analysis commences with a query 240, for trends, performance, etc., for example of an owner of the IP rights associated with the single IP document 201. The level II analysis and integration 250 accesses information in the DB 119 and generates a level II presentation 260. A level II presentation 260 may present information based on a portfolio analysis for a company. Other types of analyses are also possible, for example, inventor, examiner, former assignee, country, competitor, etc. This level II presentation 260 may be presented in near real-time to the user submitting the query, or alternatively stored in the integrative DB 119, or in other memory, for later retrieval and presentation to the user or another user submitting a similar query.
One example landscape analysis item 128 is depicted as graphic element 430. The landscape graphic element 430 presents information in two dimensions over a third, time-based dimension. In the example of
The time periods allow one to see changes in the number of patents issued with respect to time, for example, as a technology develops. Further, trends become apparent as the points cluster with outliers. Such data is amenable to further analysis using statistical techniques. The class “fingerprint” facilitates review as it provides a framework for systematic analysis of claims. For example, a person or algorithm may commence an analysis at the lower left (fewer unique words and fewer total words). Such claims may have a tendency to be broader in scope or, in other words, a probability analysis may show that claims in the lower left have a greater chance of being broader than claims in the upper right. Where the number of patents is large (e.g., thousands), such an approach can help manage patent assessment in a more systematic manner (e.g., for valuation, litigation risk, product clearance, etc.).
As described herein, a formula 450 may be used to characterize a claim or “fingerprint” a claim. In the example of
Once this information is extracted, the architecture 600 includes a system 630 that uses the extracted information to acquire additional information germane to assessing and/or valuing intellectual property. As an example, and non-exhaustive list, that information may include stock performance information 632 (e.g., based on the assignee 612), international patent filings 634 (e.g., based on the countries information 620), licensing information 636, international locations expansion history 638 of the company, international court proceedings 640, international diffusion of technology 642, multimedia and other news events 644, international arbitration and mediation 646, and international competitors 648.
The lower world map 720 includes patent information, for example, related to a particular patent document. Different colors or gray scales (or other visual techniques) are used in the lower world map 720 to differentiate among countries and/or regions according to where corresponding filings are made for a given patent document. Here, the countries are one color or shade if a patent application has been filed in the country or region, a second color or shade if a patent has issued, and a third color or shade if no patents were pursued. In a computer-implemented embodiment, the map 720 includes menu options 722 activated using a pointing device, voice command, or the like. Here, the pointer is hovering over Europe, and patent information pertaining to any filings in Europe is provided in the menu options 722. In the example map 720 of
As noted, the method 800 may be used, in part, to help produce the landscape analysis 128. As shown in
The plot 920 optionally includes menu features such as the menu 925 where a user may select a unique word on the plot 920 and then cause a display of claim X where the word is highlighted, cause display of a specification for the patent document where the word is highlighted and/or cause a search for the word in claim Y (or another claim in the same patent document or in a different patent document).
By enabling this more refined analysis, the methods described herein allow the user to distinguish among key claims in a very quick and intuitive manner. The user may quickly ascertain through this UI the relative scopes of the claims, even though the proxy analysis plots them in the same general vicinity.
An exemplary method optionally accesses a database affiliated with a governmental agency such as the USPTO to acquire the continuity information, which is represented as agency record 1212). Once acquired, color code markers are assigned to various events in the agency record, such as continuation and divisional data, and aligned along a time line. An exemplary menu feature 1214 allows a user to select a patent family member and display the full document, status of the document, and/or an abstract for the document. Other options may include depiction of the graphic 120, links to other sibling or related applications, and the like.
As also shown in
In the example of
In the graphic 1410, prosecution events correspond to different radii. The filing data 9-95 corresponds to the largest radius, representing a broad claim at time of filing (more accurate, fewer unique words at time of filing). During prosecution, the claim was amended and narrowed due to, for example, a reference (U.S. Pat. No. 5,356,447), which is displayed next to the circle. Yet later, an examiner's amendment narrowed the claim by adding more unique words and hence a smaller radius. In the example of
In the graphic 1420, the prosecution event line is an active control that a user may interact with to further understand prosecution of the patent application (e.g., of a selected claim or claims). The user may position a cursor 1425 on the prosecution event line where an exemplary method causes display of an associated reference 1427 and an associated claim scope. The graphic 1430 represents the display when a user moves the cursor 1435 to a different prosecution event that resulted in the scope of the claims being narrowed from that of filing (represented by the outer circle) to that illustrated by the colored inner circle. This represents the situation where the scope was narrowed because the applicant amended the claims to differentiate over a cited reference 1437.
For the graphic element 1610, a metric versus average for a classification may be shown (e.g., +/−% of average). In the example of
The method 2010 includes selecting a time 2012 on the timeline and then displaying data for the selected time 2014 for one or more of the items in the graphic. The method 2020 includes selecting a time frame 2022 on the timeline and then displaying data for the selected time frame 2024 for one or more of the items in the graphic. The method 2030 includes selecting one or more events 2032 from a graphic item and then displaying data for the selected event(s) 2034 for one or more of the items in the graphic. In this manner, the user can gain a much broader appreciation as to how aspects related to the IP document may change over time.
In the example of
In a particular example, a user may have a list of patents and/or patent applications on a desktop. When an update occurs for one of these, then the patent and/or patent application becomes highlighted. When the user clicks on the highlighted patent and/or patent application, a window is launched to display an updated graphic for that patent and/or patent application.
In another example, a user has a list of patent litigation matters on a desktop. When an update occurs for one of these, then the matter becomes highlighted. When the user clicks on the highlighted matter, a window is launched to display an updated graphic for a patent and/or patent application related to the matter (e.g., patent in litigation, reexamination, reissue, etc.) and/or a graphic of the event related to the litigation (e.g., hearing scheduled, opinion, brief filed, etc.).
As described herein, various exemplary methods, systems, devices, etc., can acquire information from multiple databases and collate in a format (e.g., patent, stock, litigation databases).
An exemplary graphic user interface displays financial and intellectual property facts in the same graphic user interface. Such an interface may be automated (see, e.g., various menus and timeline controls).
An exemplary method calculates a number of unique words in a claim. Such a method may then calculate a metric for use in portraying scope of a claim. For example, an exemplary metric is one divided by the number of unique words where the metric can be used as a radius of a circle to portray scope of a claim. Such a method may be repeated for different times during prosecution of a claim to show how scope changes. Such a method may be repeated for different claims to allow a comparison of scope between claims.
An exemplary method calculates a number of total words and a number of unique words in a claim. Such numbers may be used as metrics to assess claim scope. An exemplary method includes presenting graphically, for a claim, the number of unique words versus the number of total words. An exemplary method includes presenting graphically, for a plurality of claims, the number of unique words. An exemplary method includes presenting graphically, for a plurality of claims, the number of unique words versus the number of total words. Various exemplary methods can present graphical information with respect to time, for example, with respect to prosecution (e.g., amendments).
An exemplary method includes presenting graphically how claim scope changed during prosecution, for example, using Venn diagrams to graphically depict whether scope grew or shrunk. Such a method may include correlating or associating graphically the claim scope change with a comparison of scopes of other patents in the class and/or held by competitors.
An exemplary method includes presenting graphically prosecution events for a patent application in conjunction with a measure of word count or some other proxy for determining claim scope.
An exemplary method includes presenting graphically assignment information and a stock price chart for at least one assignee.
An exemplary method includes determining a parameter associated with words in a claim of a patent or a patent application and using the parameter as a dimension of a 2-D shape.
An exemplary method includes presenting graphically global coverage as related to patent application filings (or PCT option to file). Such a method optionally includes presenting in combination with at least some global market data for technology associated with the patent application filings. Such a method optionally includes presenting graphically a global coverage map and showing a company's entire patent portfolio distribution across the globe. Such a method optionally includes presenting, in combination, a global coverage map of a competitor's patent portfolio.
An exemplary method allows for a comparison (drill down through a UI from the global coverage maps) between two or more competitors IP coverage in one or more particular regions of the world in terms of relative scopes and/or fingerprints of these patent assets.
An exemplary method includes presenting a stock chart for an assignee of a patent application in combination with indicia of patent litigation. Such a method optionally includes indicia that indicate, for historical events, a financially favorable or a financially unfavorable outcome.
An exemplary method includes presenting a plurality of stock charts for an assignee of a patent application where the plurality of stock charts are associated with different stock exchanges (i.e., DAX and NYSE). Such a method may present information along a single timeline. Such a method may include presenting a chart in combination with one or more patent related litigation events where the one or more litigation events may correspond to events in different countries. An exemplary user interface allows a user to click on or roll over events to see more information about event and micro stock chart (tick chart, or day chart, or three day chart).
An exemplary method includes presenting graphically, a metric based on word count for an assignee of a patent application and for at least one other assignee of a patent within the same class. Such a method optionally includes at least one other assignee that is a competitor.
An exemplary method includes characterizing a claim based on the number of unique words in the claim and the number of total words in the claim. Such a method may include filtering characterized claims. Filtering optionally includes one or more of assignee, law firm, attorney/agent, examiner, class, year of filing, year of issue, country of applicant, country of assignee, location of application, location of assignee, location of law firm, location of inventor, inventor, litigation in a district court, litigation at an appellate court, damage award in a litigation, licensing information, total number of claims, PCT filing, word type, word suffix, etc.
An exemplary method includes generating a scatter plot and presenting a scatter plot for understanding patents and coverage.
An exemplary method produces a scatter plot that shows two or more different tech areas for a large multinational corporation that has patents, and the concentration of those patents. An exemplary method overlays another company's coverage on the scatter plot. An exemplary method includes evaluating proximity or “nearness” according to one or more different criteria: filing date, expiration date, technology, class/subclass, semantic similarity, assignee, inventorship, geography (country of filing), etc.
In a particular example, given patent A, an exemplary method compiles a set of patents including all patents cited as prior art in patent A and all other patents that cite patent A as prior art. The method then determines the class/subclasses of all of those patents. Next, based on those class/subclasses, the method evaluates all patents falling within those class/subclasses. The method then compares word frequency to that of the global population of patents. Then the method notes those words that occur frequently in the small group of patents but that don't normally occur that frequently in the global population. The method then produces a “signature” of this group of patents. Given a signature, the method uses it as a basis of a further search to find other patents with the same or similar signature, and use that as the landscape.
This technique addresses an issue that can arise in automated patent searching, that different patents might use different language for the same thing. While USPTO classifications can be narrow, by combining both, results are improved. Such an exemplary method (e.g., as a computer-implemented tool) allows a user to easily try different techniques to compare patents and groups of patents. Such an exemplary method combines normal relational database features with word-based searching and analysis.
Various exemplary methods may be optionally embodied, in whole or in part, as instructions on a computer-readable medium.
Claims
1. A method comprising:
- under control of one or more processors configured with computer-executable instructions:
- accessing patent information;
- accessing financial information comprising stock information of a company;
- integrating the patent information and the financial information; and
- displaying the patent information and financial information on a common interface.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the integrating comprises aligning patent events and financial events with respect to a timeline.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
- enabling a user to select among different times;
- updating the patent information and financial information for the selected time; and
- displaying the patent information and the financial information, as updated, on the common interface.
4. A method comprising:
- under control of one or more processors configured with computer-executable instructions:
- accessing information associated with at least one of a patent number or a patent application serial number, the information including patent prosecution information and patent assignee information;
- accessing financial information using the patent assignee information, the financial information comprising stock information of an assignee; and
- presenting the patent prosecution information and the financial information in at least one of a paper document or an electronic document.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising accessing litigation information using the patent assignee information and presenting the litigation information in the paper document or the electronic document.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the paper document comprises a single page.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the electronic document comprises active controls to link to additional information.
8. The method of claim 4, wherein the electronic document comprises a common timeline associated with an active control.
9. A method comprising:
- under control of one or more processors configured with computer-executable instructions:
- determining a number of unique words in a patent claim;
- determining a metric based at least in part on the number of unique words in the patent claim; and
- using the metric as a dimension of a two dimensional shape.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the metric comprises one divided by the number of unique words.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the shape comprises a circle.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the area of the two dimensional shape diminishes with respect to an increase in the number of unique words.
13. The method of claim 9, further comprising repeating the method in response to amendment of the patent claim.
14. The method of claim 9, further comprising filtering the claim using a semantic filter.
15. The method claim 9, further comprising:
- determining a total number of words in the patent claim; and
- plotting a point using the number of unique words and the number of total words.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising plotting a plurality of points for a plurality of claims.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of claims comprise claims from one or more patents.
18. The method of claim 15, further comprising repeating the method in response to amendment of the claim.
19. A method comprising:
- under control of one or more processors configured with computer-executable instructions:
- processing an agency record pertaining to an intellectual property (IP) asset to identify aspects of the record that pertain to scope of the IP asset; and
- generating a graphic to visual convey a scope of the IP asset and whether the scope changed as captured by the agency record.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the IP asset comprises a patent, and the graphic visually conveys how the scope of patent claims changed during prosecution.
21. A method comprising:
- under control of one or more processors configured with computer-executable instructions:
- presenting a graphical map of one or more regions of the world;
- representing on the graphical map market-related information pertaining to a particular technology or product; and
- representing on the graphical map patent-related information pertaining to one or more patents that are associated with the particular technology or product.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the graphical map has multiple regions that are color coded to represent different market-related information.
23. The method of claim 21, further comprising first and second graphical maps juxtaposed to one another, and the market-related information is represented on the first graphical map and the patent-related information is represented on the second map.
Type: Application
Filed: Mar 31, 2010
Publication Date: Jul 29, 2010
Applicant: IP Street, Inc. (Spokane, WA)
Inventors: Lewis C. Lee (Spokane, WA), Daniel L. Hayes (Spokane, WA), Brian J. Pangrle (Spokane, WA)
Application Number: 12/751,833
International Classification: G06Q 10/00 (20060101); G06Q 99/00 (20060101);