Patent Factor Index (PFI) Report
Patent quality is the basis for most substantive decisions based on patent value. This might be to assess the commercial or enforcement qualities of a single patent in a licensing negotiation or to analyze large-scale patent collections to maximize portfolio asset value. The PFI Report is generated using advanced linguistics, a powerful cognitive search engine, and a statistical process to qualitatively analyze both US patent application publications and granted US patents.
The PFI provides information on patent strength and quality and greater insight into the quality of your patent versus a representative peer group.
Our proprietary cognitive retrieval technology extracts key concepts out of your patent and uses a conceptual mapping approach to identify documents that are of closest semantic relevance to your patent. It finds those related documents quickly and accurately.
Our semantic model is expressly designed to work with patent documents, which means that it excels at extracting information out of complex documents with heavy technical or legal language.
Using IP.com’s Patent Factor Index (PFI) Reports, decision-makers and intellectual property managers can obtain the information needed to effectively identify high and low quality intellectual assets and make informed decisions regarding patent asset management.
Patent Factor Index at a Glance
The PFI Report is created from a dynamic peer group of related patents. IP.com’s proprietary, cognitive retrieval engine uses the text found in the abstract and claims of the defined Patent of Interest (POI) to perform a concept search, which identifies the 100 most comparable patents to the POI. These patents comprise the peer group.
Concept based semantic retrieval is more effective than keyword searching to identify the documents that form the peer group. Keyword searching is incapable of identifying non- obvious art residing in different industries or defined by different jargon. In fact, keyword patent searching carries the inherent danger of not finding all of the relevant art even within a specific technology segment, because shrewd patent writers purposely use a lexicon that frustrates the most diligent patent searcher.
This is a higher grade of analytics than other statistical patent scoring systems, which compare the POI to the patents within a certain classification. Using patent classifications (such as the Cooperative Patent Classification system) to define the peer group is limiting. A strategy that uses classifications prevents the analysis from evaluating non-obvious technology areas that may contain highly relevant art, which an organization could use to challenge the validity of the POI.
The peer group used to generate the PFI Report is dynamic. As the number of granted patents grows in any given technology area, the scope of each patent necessarily becomes narrower.
Over time, the incremental value of each additional patent may become increasingly small; however, the pioneering patents that created the peer group can become increasingly valuable.
In order to provide an overview of a POI compared to the peer group, the PFI Report groups the fourteen individual PFIs into four vitality groups. Each vitality group illustrates a different view of the peer group and the patents or entities in a given space. The vitality groups simplify decision making to meet the specific needs of an organization.
This group illustrates the technology opportunity afforded through the patent, without the use of backward or forward citations as an indicator. This group generally indicates the novelty of the patent, the market share of the owner, and the level of market concentration.
This group illustrates the technology strength and financial commitment to the technology space by the filing entity (i.e. assignee). Patents with low scores in this group require a more thorough review for elimination (internal) or invalidity (external), given the lack of significance. Conversely, patents with high scores are likely cornerstones of “patent bundles,” requiring vigorous defense.
This group illustrates the patent’s ability to influence other technologies, create value in multiple industries, and have global appeal. Patents with high index scores are significant to the art and are likely to command a premium in the market. Conversely, patents with low scores are of lower quality and require evaluation for possible elimination.
This group illustrates the assignee’s standing and commitment to the technology space in comparison to the peer group. Practically speaking, many of the indices in this group favor larger entities. Larger entities can use this group to monitor competitive developments in the peer group (i.e. gaining/losing market power). Individual inventors and small-to-medium sized entities can use information from this group to learn about the number of potential licensing partners that are active in the technology space.
The Patent Factor Indices, Vitality Groups, and additional information found in the Patent Factor Index Report provide a consistent and repeatable method for managing intangible assets — intellectual property. When true value, risk levels, and potential return on investment are in question, the PFI Report can provides answers.
Technology Vitality Index Report
The Technology Vitality Index Report is for R&D teams deciding to pursue an invention or move onto other opportunities. The report is derived from a description of a technology, not a patent number, and provides a rapid micro-landscape of the competitive environment. Purchase this report prior to filing for a patent application to shed light, at a very early stage, on the quality of the invention that has been submitted.
Should You Pursue Your Invention?
Is the technology differentiated? Is it novel in comparison to the other technologies that have been published? Does it have utility? The TVI answers the question: “will anyone care if this invention is pursued?” About 70% of ideas/inventions are not unique and do not have utility. This report quickly identifies high-value inventions and is useful in determining whether or not the invention should be pursued, or whether you should move on to other opportunities.
TVIs should be used to evaluate technologies prior to publication. The report can be used as an early indicator of patent value and quickly evaluate a subset of the prior art. Low index scores correlate to low patent quality/value, whereas high index scores correlate to high patent quality/value.
The semantic distance of the technology of interest compared to its closest peer in the space. High scores indicate a highly novel technology and may be worth investment or further due diligence.
Reflects the size of this applicant’s Patent Group relative to the size of other applicants’ Patent Groups. Higher values indicate a better position.
The share of the technology of interest the company represents in the market. Higher values indicate greater dominance in this technology area.
Indicates the number of big companies vs. small companies in the peer group. Big companies are defined as those with more patents issued in the last three years, showing their inventive heft. High values indicate a market concentrated with large institutions.