Patent citation analysis with Google

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Wiley-Blackwell in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 23/09/2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23608 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996–2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research

The production and diffusion of policy knowledge

"The published works of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) represent the most immediate and tangible measure of the new policy-related knowledge attributable to the institute, its staff, and research partners. This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number, nature, form, and use of IFPRI's published products since 1979 and compares and contrasts that with the publication performance of several similar agencies, including the economics and social sciences programs of the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) respectively, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), the Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies (BIDS), and the now defunct Stanford University Food Research Institute (SFRI). Overall, IFPRI's circulated output is extensive, published not only in a broad portfolio of leading scholarly journals, but also in a wide range of books, technical reports, and extension documents. The amount of published output has tended to increase throughout IFPRI's history, and it continues to do so. Going beyond counting and classifying IFPRI's published record, we report the results of a bibliometric assessment of IFPRI and the comparison institutes for the period 1981–96 using the publication and citation performance details recorded in the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index data bases. Citations to published literature are not indicative of an impact on policy or the economy generally but on further research and analysis. An analysis of coauthorship patterns provides an indication of impact too (more directly through the conduct of joint research), as well as indications of the way the research is carried out. Our analysis reveals the role IFPRI plays as a knowledge intermediary between the scholarly community and policy clienteles, but that a high proportion of its research collaborations leading to formal publications (and especially publications in the leading journals covered in ISI's data bases) involve researchers in advanced agencies. This partly reflects the limited capacity to perform food policy research in many developing countries — itself a reflection of local priorities for education and limited, long-term international support to increase scientific capacity in developing countries — and also underscores the role IFPRI could, and arguably should, play in redressing this state of affairs." Authors' AbstractInternational Food Policy Research Institute History ,Research institutes Evaluation ,Communication in learning and scholarship ,Bibliometrics ,Information science Statistical methods ,Knowledge management ,International Food Policy Research Institute Communications systems Evaluation ,Food policy Research ,

Loser Pays in Patent Examination

Many scholars and practitioners believe there are too many “weak” patents—those that should not have issued but somehow get approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). To the extent they exist, such patents unnecessarily tax real innovation and generate welfare losses for society. Some commentators have focused on the PTO’s failure to exclude weak patents, or the damage caused by these patents in litigation, often by patent trolls. But this scholarly discussion misses the point. The present Article argues that weak patents largely stem from a pricing problem: namely, a patent applicant pays higher patent fees when she succeeds (i.e., receives PTO approval) than when she fails (i.e., is rejected by the PTO). The Article explains why such pricing is precisely backwards, penalizing good patent applications instead of bad ones. It then proposes a novel remedy: import “loser pays” concepts from litigation into patent examination. By forcing unsuccessful patent applicants to pay more, a loser-pays system disincentivizes weak applications and improves application quality. The Article also describes how a loser-pays system could lower patent examiners’ burden and discourage continuation applications, both of which slow down patent examination. In doing so, the Article sketches out a new patent system that is at once more efficient and more effective in weeding out weak patents

The Research Patent

The patent system gives courts the discretion to tailor patentability standards flexibly across technologies to provide optimal incentives for innovation. For chemical inventions, the courts deem them unpatentable if the chemical lacks a practical, non-research-based use at the time patent protection is sought. The fear is that an early-stage patent on a research input would confer too much control over yet-unknown uses for the chemical, thereby potentially hindering downstream innovation. Yet, denying patents on research inputs can frustrate patent law\u27s broad goal of protecting and promoting scientific and technological advances. This Article addresses this problem by proposing a new form of intellectual property--a research patent. This regime would allow inventors to obtain patents on research inputs and extract their full value through licensing and enforcement. Research patents would impose minimal administrative costs on the patent system and ultimately promote the disclosure, development, and use of early-stage inventions. At a broader level, the proposed regime raises the theoretical question of how allowing patent protection on early-stage inventions like research inputs serves patent law\u27s instrumental justification of promoting scientific progress. It also raises significant normative and policy questions about technology-specific patentability standards and their role in furthering the goals of the patent system

Patent Landscape of Influenza A Virus Prophylactic Vaccines and Related Technologies

Executive Summary: This report focuses on patent landscape analysis of technologies related to prophylactic vaccines targeting pandemic strains of influenza. These technologies include methods of formulating vaccine, methods of producing of viruses or viral subunits, the composition of complete vaccines, and other technologies that have the potential to aid in a global response to this pathogen. The purpose of this patent landscape study was to search, identify, and categorize patent documents that are relevant to the development of vaccines that can efficiently promote the development of protective immunity against pandemic influenza virus strains. The search strategy used keywords which the team felt would be general enough to capture (or “recall”) the majority of patent documents which were directed toward vaccines against influenza A virus. After extensive searching of patent literature databases, approximately 33,500 publications were identified and collapsed to about 3,800 INPADOC families. Relevant documents, almost half of the total, were then identified and sorted into the major categories of vaccine compositions (about 570 families), technologies which support the development of vaccines (about 750 families), and general platform technologies that could be useful but are not specific to the problems presented by pandemic influenza strains (about 560 families). The first two categories, vaccines and supporting technologies, were further divided into particular subcategories to allow an interested reader to rapidly select documents relevant to the particular technology in which he or she is focused. This sorting process increased the precision of the result set. The two major categories (vaccines and supporting technologies) were subjected to a range of analytics in order to extract as much information as possible from the dataset. First, patent landscape maps were generated to assess the accuracy of the sorting procedure and to reveal the relationships between the various technologies that are involved in creating an effective vaccine. Then, filings trends are analyzed for the datasets. The country of origin for the technologies was determined, and the range of distribution to other jurisdictions was assessed. Filings were also analyzed by year, by assignee, and by inventor. Finally, the various patent classification systems were mapped to find which particular classes tend to hold influenza vaccine-related technologies. Besides the keywords developed during the searches and the landscape map generation, the classifications represent an alternate way for further researchers to identify emerging influenza technologies. The analysis included creation of a map of keywords, as shown above, describing the relationship of the various technologies involved in the development of prophylactic influenza A vaccines. The map has regions corresponding to live attenuated virus vaccines, subunit vaccines composed of split viruses or isolated viral polypeptides, and plasmids used in DNA vaccines. Important technologies listed on the map include the use of reverse genetics to create reassortant viruses, the growth of viruses in modified cell lines as opposed to the traditional methods using eggs, the production of recombinant viral antigens in various host cells, and the use of genetically-modified plants to produce virus-like particles. Another major finding was that the number of patent documents related to influenza being published has been steadily increasing in the last decade, as shown in the figure below. Until the mid-1990s, there were only a few influenza patent documents being published each year. The number of publications increased noticeably when TRIPS took effect, resulting in publication of patent applications. However, since 2006 the number of vaccine publications has exploded. In each of 2011 and 2012, about 100 references disclosing influenza vaccine technologies were published. Thus, interest in developing new and more efficacious influenza vaccines has been growing in recent years. This interest is probably being driven by recent influenza outbreaks, such as the H5N1 (bird flu) epidemic that began in the late 1990s and the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. The origins of the vaccine-related inventions were also analyzed. The team determined the country in which the priority application was filed, which was taken as an indication of the country where the invention was made or where the inventors intended to practice the invention. By far, most of the relevant families originated with patent applications filed in the United States. Other prominent priority countries were the China and United Kingdom, followed by Japan, Russia, and South Korea. France was a significant priority country only for supporting technologies, not for vaccines. Top assignees for these families were mostly large pharmaceutical companies, with the majority of patent families coming from Novartis, followed by GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, U.S. Merck (Merck, Sharpe, & Dohme), Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. Governmental and nonprofit institutes in China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States also are contributing heavily to influenza vaccine research. Lastly, the jurisdictions were inventors have sought protection for their vaccine technologies were determined, and the number of patent families filing in a given country is plotted on the world map shown on page seven. The United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and China have the highest level of filings, followed by Germany, Brazil, India, Mexico and New Zealand. However, although there are a significant number of filings in Brazil, the remainder of Central and South America has only sparse filings. Of concern, with the exception of South Africa, few other African nations have a significant number of filings. In summary, the goal of this report is to provide a knowledge resource for making informed policy decisions and for creating strategic plans concerning the assembly of efficacious vaccines against a rapidly-spreading, highly virulent influenza strain. The team has defined the current state of the art of technologies involved in the manufacture of influenza vaccines, and the important assignees, inventors, and countries have been identified. This document should reveal both the strengths and weaknesses of the current level of preparedness for responding to an emerging pandemic influenza strain. The effects of H5N1 and H1N1 epidemics have been felt across the globe in the last decade, and future epidemics are very probable in the near future, so preparations are necessary to meet this global health threat

Noticing Patents

Patents take the form of public letters that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) actively disseminates. Whether these documents sufficiently provide the public with notice of the technologies they describe, as well as the proprietary rights that they assert, has been subject to long-standing debate. Many commentators conclude that patents are often filed too early in the research and development cycle, are deliberately drafted in a vague or obtuse manner, or are simply too numerous. As a result, identifying the relevant patent landscape is not just difficult for technology implementers, but possibly undesirable as a matter of innovation policy. Yet prior scholarship has seldom acknowledged current statutory mechanisms to improve the notice function of patents after they issue. This Article endeavors to fill that gap. Congress has long encouraged intellectual property rights holders to identify their patents on the products they sell. Patent marking has traditionally occurred on physical products or their packaging, although it has been recently extended to Internet-based virtual marking. The marking statute stipulates that patent proprietors that fail to mark face severe remedial restrictions when challenging infringers. Congress has assigned the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) a part in providing patent notice as well. In keeping with federal legislation, the agency maintains two publications, commonly known as the Orange and Purple Books, that act as a patent clearinghouse for approved drugs and licensed biologics. The role of a patent within the marketplace provides perhaps the most valuable form of notice that that instrument may offer. Yet the marking statute and FDA publications suffer from some apparent flaws. In combination they project a failure to identify all patents that are relevant to the product, favor patent trolls, involve dubious practical workings, promote misleading advertising, and impose punitive sanctions in comparison to the notice requirements of peer intellectual property rights. For its part, the FDA has proven an untutored and unreliable patent publicist for the past four decades. This Article offers specific suggestions to improve the notice functions of patents after they issue. It calls for the USPTO to develop and populate its own virtual marking database that correlates individual patents with the marketplace. It also encourages the FDA to take further steps to counter abuses of the Orange and Purple Books and to accelerate their patent notice functions. Finally, this Article takes broader lessons from this effort, offering pathways for policymakers to look beyond the patent instrument as they endeavor to improve the patent system’s notice functions

Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, Vol. 1

Prepared by and for policy-makers, leaders of public sector research establishments, technology transfer professionals, licensing executives, and scientists, this online resource offers up-to-date information and strategies for utilizing the power of both intellectual property and the public domain. Emphasis is placed on advancing innovation in health and agriculture, though many of the principles outlined here are broadly applicable across technology fields. Eschewing ideological debates and general proclamations, the authors always keep their eye on the practical side of IP management. The site is based on a comprehensive Handbook and Executive Guide that provide substantive discussions and analysis of the opportunities awaiting anyone in the field who wants to put intellectual property to work. This multi-volume work contains 153 chapters on a full range of IP topics and over 50 case studies, composed by over 200 authors from North, South, East, and West. If you are a policymaker, a senior administrator, a technology transfer manager, or a scientist, we invite you to use the companion site guide available at http://www.iphandbook.org/index.html The site guide distills the key points of each IP topic covered by the Handbook into simple language and places it in the context of evolving best practices specific to your professional role within the overall picture of IP management

What is Technology

Patent protection is limited to technology, but technology is so difficult to define that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue several times in the last several years. The Supreme Court\u27s recent decisions in Bilski, Prometheus, and Myriad have left patentable subject matter doctrine just as confused as ever, however. What is patentable technology? The answer turns out to have nothing to do with the various pragmatic rationales that courts commonly cite. Rather, the patent system has defined patentable technology according to much simpler criteria - artifice and action. Artifice is the quality of being created by humans, not by nature. Action is the quality of behaving or operating in some active way. Together, artifice plus action explain and, perhaps more importantly, unify the law on patentable subject matter. By focusing on artifice plus action as the primary criteria defining patentable technology, the patent system can provide clearer guidelines than it has been able to achieve thus far