covid
Buscar en
Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review
Toda la web
Inicio Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review Evaluating patent portfolios by means of multicriteria analysis
Información de la revista
Vol. 14. Núm. 1.
Páginas 9-27 (1 enero 2010)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 14. Núm. 1.
Páginas 9-27 (1 enero 2010)
Open Access
Evaluating patent portfolios by means of multicriteria analysis
Evaluación de carteras de patentes mediante análisis multicriterio
Visitas
1601
Xiaolu Wang
Beihang University
Fernando García
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
Francisco Guijarro
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
Ismael Moya
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
Este artículo ha recibido

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Abstract

Valuation of intangible assets is a complex topic where traditional methodologies are not always successful. Nevertheless, intangible assets, like patents, have become of great importance to companies, as their value is considered to be relevant economic and strategic information, so it is necessary to evaluate firms’ patent portfolios. The present research introduces an extended goal programming model to calculate the relative importance of the patents of companies in a patent pool. This information may be useful for patent valuation as well as for management purposes. The proposed multicriteria methodology has been applied to the 19 companies in the MPEG2 patent pool, with a total of 770 valid patents, using 7 criteria to obtain a composite measure of the relative position of the firms in the patent pool.

Key words:
Patent assessment
Multicriteria analysis
Goal Programming
Firm ranking
Strategic management
Resumen

La valoración de activos intangibles constituye un área compleja donde los métodos tradicionales no siempre obtienen buenos resultados. Sin embargo, los activos intangibles, entre ellos las patentes, han ganado importancia en las empresas, de forma que el cálculo de su valor se ha convertido en una cuestión estratégica en muchos casos. Este hecho requiere que las empresas valoren la cartera de patentes en su conjunto. La presente investigación presenta un modelo extendido de programación por metas y su aplicación para el cálculo de la importancia relativa de las patentes. Este modelo puede resultar importante tanto para la valoración de las patentes como para la gestión empresarial. La metodología multicriterio propuesta ha sido aplicado a 19 empresas en el sector de las patentes del formato MPEG2, con un total de 770 patentes válidas, y utilizando 7 criterios con el objetivo de obtener una medida compuesta de la posición relativa de las empresas en el conjunto de patentes.

Palabras clave:
Valoración de patentes
Análisis multicriterio
Programación por Metas
Ranking de empresas
Gestión estratégica
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
References
[Acs and Audretsch, 1989]
Z.J. Acs, D.B. Audretsch.
Patents as a measure of innovative activity.
Kyklos, 4 (1989), pp. 171-180
[Archibugi, 1992]
D. Archibugi.
Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: a review.
Science and Public Policy, 6 (1992), pp. 357-358
[Aspden, 1983]
H. Aspden.
Patent statistics as a measure of technological vitality.
World Patent Information, 5 (1983), pp. 170-173
[Bessen, 2008]
J. Bessen.
The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics.
Research Policy, 37 (2008), pp. 932-945
[Bresman et al., 1999]
H. Bresman, J. Birkenshaw, R. Nobel.
Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (1999), pp. 439-462
[Carpenter et al., 1981]
M.P. Carpenter, F. Narin, P. Woolf.
Citation rates to technologically important patents.
World Patent Information, 3 (1981), pp. 160-163
[Charnes et al., 1955]
A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, R.O. Ferguson.
Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming.
Management Science, 1 (1955), pp. 138-151
[Chiu. and Chen., 2007]
Y.J. Chiu, Y.W. Chen.
Using AHP in patent valuation.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46 (2007), pp. 1054-1062
[Cohen and Levin, 1989]
W.M. Cohen, R.C. Levin.
Empirical studies of innovation and market structure.
pp. 1059-1107
[Diakoulaki et al., 1992]
D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, L. Papayannakis.
A multiple criteria approach for evaluating the performance of industrial firms.
Omega, 20 (1992), pp. 467-474
[Dosi, 1988]
G. Dosi.
Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation.
Journal of Economic Literature, 26 (1988), pp. 1120-1171
[Freeman and Soete, 1997]
C. Freeman, L. Soete.
The Economics of Industrial Innovation..
Pinter, (1997),
[Gambardella et al., 2006]
Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., Verspagen, B. (2006). The value of patents. Working paper.
[Gilbert and Shapiro, 1990]
R. Gilbert, C. Shapiro.
Optimal patent length and breadth.
RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1990), pp. 106-112
[Green and Scotchmer, 1995]
J.R. Green, S. Scotchmer.
On the division of profit in sequential innovation.
RAND Journal of Economics, 26 (1995), pp. 20-33
[Griliches, 1998]
Z. Griliches.
R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence.
The University of Chicago Press, (1998),
[Hagedoorn and Cloodt., 2003]
J. Hagedoorn, M. Cloodt.
Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?.
Research Policy, 32 (2003), pp. 1365-1379
[Harhoff and Reitzig, 2002]
D. Harhoff, M. Reitzig.
Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants - the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22 (2002), pp. 443-480
[Harhoff et al., 2003]
D. Harhoff, F. Scherer, K. Vopel.
Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights.
Research Policy, 32 (2003), pp. 1343-1363
[Ignizio, 1976]
J.P. Ignizio.
Goal programming and extensions.
Lexington Books, (1976),
[Klemperer, 1990]
P. Klemperer.
How broad should the scope of patent protection be?.
RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1990), pp. 113-130
[Lanjouw and Schankerman, 2001]
J. Lanjouw, M. Schankerman.
Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition.
RAND Journal of Economics, 13 (2001), pp. 129-151
[Lanjouw and Schankerman., 2004]
J. Lanjouw, M. Schankerman.
Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators.
The Economic Journal, 114 (2004), pp. 441-465
[Lee, 1972]
S.M. Lee.
Goal programming for decision analysis.
Auerbach Publishers, (1972),
[Lerner, 1994]
J. Lerner.
The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis.
RAND Journal of Economics, 25 (1994), pp. 319-333
[Matutes et al., 1996]
C. Matutes, P. Regibeau, K. Rocket.
Optimal patent design and the diffusion of innovations.
RAND Journal of Economics, 27 (1996), pp. 60-83
[Merges and Nelson, 1990]
R.P. Merges, R.R. Nelson.
On the complex economics of patent scope.
Columbia Law Review, 90 (1990), pp. 839-916
[Narin et al., 1997]
F. Narin, K.S. Hamilton, D. Olivastro.
The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science.
Research Policy, 26 (1997), pp. 317-330
[O’Donoghue et al., 1998]
T. O’Donoghue, S. Scotchmer, J. Thisse.
Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress.
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 7 (1998), pp. 1-32
[Pakes, 1986]
A. Pakes.
Patents as options: some estimates of the value of holding European Patent stocks.
Econometrica, 54 (1986), pp. 755-784
[Patel and Pavitt, 1991]
P. Patel, K. Pavitt.
Large firms in the production of the world's technology: an important case of non-globalization.
Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1991), pp. 1-21
[Pavitt, 1988]
K. Pavitt.
Uses and abuses of patent statistics.
Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, pp. 509-536
[Pitkethly, 1997]
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. Working. paper.
[Putnam, 1996]
J. Putnam.
The Value of International Patent Rights..
Yale University. Press, (1996),
[Reitzig, 2004]
M. Reitzig.
Improving Patent Valuations for Management Purposes- Validating New indicators by Analyzing Application rationales.
Research Policy, 33 (2004), pp. 939-957
[Romero, 1991]
C. Romero.
Handbook of critical issues in goal programming.
Pergamon. Press, (1991),
[Trajtenberg, 1990]
M. Trajtenberg.
A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovation.
RAND Journal of Economics, 2 (1990), pp. 172-187
[Van Pottelsberghe and van Zeebroeck, 2008]
B. Van Pottelsberghe, N. van Zeebroeck.
A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals.
Scientometrics, 75 (2008), pp. 319-338
[Wang, 2007]
S.J. Wang.
Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations.
Scientometrics, 71 (2007), pp. 509-522
[Zeleny, 1982]
M. Zeleny.
Multiple criteria decision making..
McGraw-Hill, (1982),

The authors are grateful both to the editor of the Journal and two anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions.

Copyright © 2011. Asociación Española de Profesores Universitarios de Contabilidad (ASEPUC)
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo