The Patent Portfolios Value Evaluation Based on the TOPSIS-Entropy Method

How to evaluate the value of patent portfolios in a competitive market has attracted increasing attention. At present, most existing methods have to determine the weightings of multiple indicators based on expert judgements in the process of patent value evaluation. In this paper, we propose a new approach to value firms' patent portfolios by combining Entropy and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), which can be called the TOPSIS-Entropy method. The weights of multiple indicators can be determined by using Entropy, while the ranking of patent portfolios value is calculated by TOPSIS. A case of applying the TOPSIS-Entropy method is given in the paper. The TOPSIS-Entropy method is proved reasonable and suitable for patent portfolios value evaluation.

[1]  Calvin S. Weng,et al.  A New Comprehensive Patent Analysis Approach for New Product Design in Mechanical Engineering , 2011 .

[2]  Rong Ran,et al.  Combining grey relational analysis and TOPSIS concepts for evaluating the technical innovation capability of high technology enterprises with fuzzy information , 2015, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst..

[3]  Z. Shao,et al.  A Comprehensive Evaluation of Urban Sustainable Development in China Based on the TOPSIS-Entropy Method , 2016 .

[4]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[5]  Ping-Chuan Chen,et al.  A three-stage decision-making model for selecting electric vehicle battery technology , 2015 .

[6]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment , 2006, Expert Syst. Appl..

[7]  Yoshiyuki Yabuuchi,et al.  Fuzzy regression model of R&D project evaluation , 2008, Appl. Soft Comput..

[8]  Chen-Tung Chen,et al.  Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment , 2000, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[9]  G. Mancia,et al.  Effects of prostaglandin E1α cyclodestrin treatment on endothelial dysfunction in patients with systemic sclerosis , 2007 .

[10]  M. V. Wouwe,et al.  A sensitivity analysis for the N-fold compound option , 2002 .

[11]  Sung Do Cho,et al.  Assessment of technological level of stem cell research using principal component analysis , 2016, SpringerPlus.

[12]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Estimating Distributed Lags in Short Panels with an Application to the Specification of Depreciation Patterns and Capital Stock Constructs , 1982 .

[13]  Jia-Yen Huang,et al.  Patent portfolio analysis of the cloud computing industry , 2016 .

[14]  Wojciech Chrobak.  Wycena wartości niematerialnych i prawnych , 2016 .

[15]  Rias Johann Van Wyk,et al.  Technology assessment for portfolio managers , 2010 .

[16]  Zong Sheng Chen,et al.  Research about Suppliers Selection upon Entropy Weight and TOPSIS in the Perspective of Supply Chain , 2014 .

[17]  D. Baecker.  Die Form des Unternehmens , 1999 .

[18]  Stephen Machin,et al.  Technology and Changes in Skill Structure: Evidence from Seven OECD Countries , 1998 .

[19]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[20]  Yongtae Park,et al.  A patent portfolio-based approach for assessing potential R&D partners: An application of the Shapley value , 2016 .

[21]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[22]  S. Myers.  Determinants of corporate borrowing , 1977 .

[23]  J. Davidson Frame,et al.  Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data , 1994 .

[24]  J. Lerner.  The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis , 1994 .

[25]  Azmi Mohd Shariff,et al.  Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)-entropy Methodology for Inherent Safety Design Decision Making Tool☆ , 2016 .

[26]  Chung-Jen Chen,et al.  Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and firm value , 2006, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[27]  James Bessen.  The Value of U.S. Patents by Owner and Patent Characteristics , 2006 .

[28]  The Economic Value of Patent Portfolios , 2013 .

[29]  Gento Mogi,et al.  The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: The AHP approach , 2008 .

[30]  Klaus Brockhoff,et al.  Instruments for patent data analyses in business firms , 1992 .

[31]  Mikael Collan,et al.  Consensus Modeling in Multiple Criteria Multi-expert Real Options-Based Valuation of Patents , 2014, IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Systems.

[32]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 1999 .

[33]  Pin-Yu Chu,et al.  A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection☆ , 2008 .

[34]  Vijay P. Singh,et al.  Evaluation of riverwater quality by entropy , 2008 .

[35]  Francesco Schettino,et al.  Inventive Productivity and Patent Quality: Evidence from Italian Inventors , 2013 .

[36]  Peiyue Li,et al.  On the sensitivity of entropy weight to sample statistics in assessing water quality: statistical analysis based on large stochastic samples , 2015, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[37]  Sungjoo Lee,et al.  The idiosyncrasy and dynamism of technological innovation across industries: patent citation analysis , 2005 .

[38]  Juite Wang,et al.  A performance-oriented risk management framework for innovative R&D projects , 2010 .

[39]  Jiang-Liang Hou,et al.  A multiple regression model for patent appraisal , 2006, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[40]  Yuh-Wen Chen,et al.  Using AHP in patent valuation , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

[41]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making , 1981 .

[42]  Michele Grimaldi,et al.  The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning , 2015 .

[43]  R. Polk Wagner,et al.  Patent Portfolios , 2005 .

[44]  S. G. Deshmukh,et al.  Evaluating performance of national R&D organizations using integrated DEA‐AHP technique , 2008 .

[45]  William Ho,et al.  Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[46]  Holger Ernst,et al.  Patent information for strategic technology management , 2003 .

[47]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[48]  Elettra Agliardi,et al.  An application of fuzzy methods to evaluate a patent under the chance of litigation , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[49]  T. Saaty.  The Seven Pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2001 .

[50]  Vesa Kanniainen,et al.  Do patents slow down technological progress?: Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction , 2000 .

[51]  Holger Ernst,et al.  Patent portfolios for strategic R & D planning , 1998 .

[52]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 2004 .

[53]  Wen-Yau Liang,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process in project evaluation , 2003 .

[54]  Torben Schubert,et al.  Assessing the value of patent portfolios: an international country comparison , 2011, Scientometrics.

[55]  Serge Quazzotti,et al.  Intellectual property valuation: how to approach the selection of an appropriate valuation method , 2010 .

[56]  R. Geske.  THE VALUATION OF COMPOUND OPTIONS , 1979 .

[57]  Chun-Yao Tseng,et al.  Valuation of patent – a real options perspective , 2006 .

[58]  Mikael Collan,et al.  A multi-expert system for ranking patents: An approach based on fuzzy pay-off distributions and a TOPSIS-AHP framework , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[59]  Dundar F. Kocaoglu,et al.  Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to build a strategic framework for technology roadmapping , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

[60]  Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie,et al.  Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value , 2006 .

[61]  James J. Anton,et al.  Little patents and big secrets: managing intellectual property , 2004 .