A Framework for Valuation and Prioritization of Patents Using a Combined MADM Approach. Case Study: Nanotechnology

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHeidary Dahooie, Jalil
dc.contributor.authorMohammadi, Navid
dc.contributor.authorMohammadi, Mehdi
dc.contributor.authorShahmohammadi, Parisa
dc.contributor.authorTurskis, Zenonas
dc.contributor.authorŠaparauskas, Jonas
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-16T08:54:21Z
dc.date.available2019-09-16T08:54:21Z
dc.description.abstractPatent valuation and prioritization is one of the main activities for the management of intellectual property assets in an organization. So far, numerous attempts have been made to determine the value of patents, some of which have not been efficient due to ignoring some effective dimensions or considering the same importance for all aspects. To overcome this challenge, this research aims to provide a framework for valuing and prioritizing patents using a combination of MADM methods. For this purpose, first, the indicators for patent valuation and prioritization were taken from the literature and aggregated and finalized based on opinions of experts of technology management as well as nanotechnology in the form of a Delphi method. Second, the indicators were weighted, and their importance specified based on expert opinions using the questionnaire tool and stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method. Third, the additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method was used to value and prioritize the patents. For this reason, 12 nanotechnology patents, registered in 2016 at the Iranian Administration of Registration of Documents, were valued and ultimately prioritized. The results from the criteria weights indicate that commercial and market potential and the economic value should be selected as the most critical dimensions. Also, among the indicators, the project investment cost, the costs of production and commercialization and the economic relevance, were selected as the most critical indicators. Among the 12 patents examined, "Gelatin-Chitosan/Carbon Nanotube Composite Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications" was identified as the most valuable patent.en
dc.formattext
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2019-3-007
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-4037-6670 Heidary Dahooie, Jalil
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2412-8140 Mohammadi, Navid
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5835-9388 Turskis, Zenonas
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3685-7754 Šaparauskas, Jonas
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/153576
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonAnderson, A. (1992). The Valuation of Intangible Assets. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.
dc.relation.isbasedonAouadni, S., Rebai, A., & Turskis, Z. (2017). The Meaningful Mixed Data TOPSIS (TOPSIS-MMD) Method and its Application in Supplier Selection. Studies in Informatics and Control, 26(3), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.24846/v26i3y201711.
dc.relation.isbasedonBishop, J. C. (2003). Challenge of Valuing Intellectual Property Assets. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 1(1), 59-65
dc.relation.isbasedonCarte, N. (2005). The maximum achievable profit method of patent valuation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 2(2), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877005000435.
dc.relation.isbasedonChiesa, V., & Gilardoni, E. (2005). The valuation of technology in buy-cooperate-sell decisions. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060510578556.
dc.relation.isbasedonChiu, Y.-J., & Chen, Y.-W. (2007). Using AHP in patent valuation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 1054-1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.009.
dc.relation.isbasedonCollan, M., Fedrizzi, M., & Luukka, P. (2013). A multi-expert system for ranking patents: An approach based on fuzzy pay-off distributions and a TOPSIS–AHP framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(12), 4749-4759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.012.
dc.relation.isbasedonDahooie, J., Vanaki, A., Mohammadi, N., & Firoozfar, H. (2018). Selection of optimal variant route based on dynamic fuzzy GRA. Decision Science Letters, 7(4), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2017.11.004.
dc.relation.isbasedonDaryl, M., & Drews, D. (2006). Intellectual property valuation techniques. The Licensing Journal, 16.
dc.relation.isbasedonDrews, D. (2001). The cost approach to IP valuation: Its uses and limitations. IP Metrics Intellectual Property Valuation. Retrieved from http://ipmetrices.net/Cost20.
dc.relation.isbasedonEcer, F. (2018). An integrated Fuzzy AHP and ARAS model to evaluate mobile banking services. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 670-695. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1255275.
dc.relation.isbasedonErnst, H., Legler, S., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Determinants of patent value: Insights from a simulation analysis. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.009.
dc.relation.isbasedonFabry, B., Ernst, H., Langholz, J., & Köster, M. (2006). Patent portfolio analysis as a useful tool for identifying R&D and business opportunities – an empirical application in the nutrition and health industry. World Patent Information, 28(3), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2005.10.004.
dc.relation.isbasedonFalk, N., & Kenneth, T. (2017). Patent Valuation with Forecasts of Forward Citations. Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 12(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbvela-2016-0002.
dc.relation.isbasedonFallah, M. H., Fishman, E., & Reilly, R. R. (2011). Forward patent citations as predictors for patent valuation. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 4(3), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIPM.2011.041081.
dc.relation.isbasedonFischer, T., & Leidinger, J. (2014). Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value – An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Research Policy, 43(3), 519-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.013.
dc.relation.isbasedonGrimaldi, M., Cricelli, L., Di Giovanni, M., & Rogo, F. (2015). The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.013.
dc.relation.isbasedonHa, S. H., Liu, W., Cho, H., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Technological advances in the fuel cell vehicle: Patent portfolio management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.016.
dc.relation.isbasedonHasan Aghdaie, M., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2013). Decision making in machine tool selection: An integrated approach with SWARA and COPRAS-G methods. Engineering Economics, 24(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.1.2822.
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2013). Design of products with both International and Local perspectives based on Yin-Yang balance theory and SWARA method. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 26(2), 153-166.
dc.relation.isbasedonHeidary Dahooie, J., Beheshti Jazan Abadi, E., Vanaki, A. S., & Firoozfar, H. R. (2018). Competency‐based IT personnel selection using a hybrid SWARA and ARAS‐G methodology. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 28(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20713.
dc.relation.isbasedonHeydari, D. J., Mohammadi, N., Vanaki, A. S., & Jamali, M. (2017). Developing proper systems for successful cloud computing implementation using fuzzy ARAS method (case study: University of Tehran faculty of new science and technology). Journal of Information Technology Management, 9(4), 759-786. https://doi.org/10.22059/JITM.2017.235339.2067.
dc.relation.isbasedonHirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2001). Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and US firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-538X(00)00038-X.
dc.relation.isbasedonHong, S. J., Seo, J. W., Kim, Y. S., & Kang, S. H. (2010). Construction technology valuation for patent transaction. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-010-0111-y.
dc.relation.isbasedonHuang, J.-Y. (2016). Patent portfolio analysis of the cloud computing industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 39, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.01.002.
dc.relation.isbasedonHytönen, H., & Jarimo, T. (2010). A Scenario Approach to Patent Valuation. Citeseer. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.6104&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
dc.relation.isbasedonIP4Inno project (2008). Valuation of Intellectual Property, Module 4.A. in the Students Handbook provided by the Hungarian Patent Office. Available from www.ip4inno.eu.
dc.relation.isbasedonKamiyama, S., Sheehan, J. & Martinez, C. (2006). Valuation and Exploitation of Intellectual Property [Working Paper DSTI/DOC(2006)5, OECD Science and Technology Industry 2006/5, June 2006].
dc.relation.isbasedonKeršulienė, V., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(4), 645-666. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.635718.
dc.relation.isbasedonKeršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12.
dc.relation.isbasedonKochupillai, M., & Smith, M. A. (2007). Patent valuation with consideration for emerging technologies. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 12(1), 154-164.
dc.relation.isbasedonKopczewska, K., & Kopyt, M. (2014). Non-linear corrections in market method of patent valuation. Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), 10(3), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.15208/beh.2014.9.
dc.relation.isbasedonKumar, A. (1994). Intellectual Property Rights (No. 1). New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
dc.relation.isbasedonKwon, Y., Ryu, T. K., & Park, J. B. (2013). Improving the Performances of Software for Rating Patent Technology: A Korean Case Study. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 7(3), 343-352.
dc.relation.isbasedonLee, B. K., & Sohn, S. Y. (2016). Patent portfolio-based indicators to evaluate the commercial benefits of national plant genetic resources. Ecological Indicators, 70, 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.002.
dc.relation.isbasedonLee, J., Park, S., & Jang, D. (2015). Technology Valuation Using Patent and R&D Expense Information. In International Conference on Economics and Business Management (EBM-2015) July 29-30, 2015 Phuket (Thailand) (pp. 132-134). https://doi.org/10.17758/ERPUB.ER715261.
dc.relation.isbasedonLittmann-Hilmer, G., & Kuckartz, M. (2009). SME tailor-designed patent portfolio analysis. World Patent Information, 31(4), 273-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2008.12.003.
dc.relation.isbasedonLukach, R., & Lukach, M. (2007). Ranking USPTO Patent Documents by Importance Using Random Surfer Method (PageRank) (January 1, 2007). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.996595.
dc.relation.isbasedonMartinez-Ruiz, A., & Aluja-Banet, T. (2009). Toward the definition of a structural equation model of patent value: PLS path modelling with formative constructs. REVSTAT–Statistical Journal, 7(3), 265-290.
dc.relation.isbasedonMedineckiene, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Björk, F., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assessment/certification. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2014.09.001.
dc.relation.isbasedonNanomagazine. (2012). Leading Patenting Countries in Nanotechnology in 2012. Sweden: StatNano.
dc.relation.isbasedonOh, S., Lei, Z., Mitra, P., & Yen, J. (2012). Evaluating and ranking patents using weighted citations. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 281-284). https://doi.org/10.1145/2232817.2232870.
dc.relation.isbasedonOriani, R., Mattei, T., & Cervellati, E. M. (2009). Valuation within the context of Patent Auctions. Faculty of Economics, Department of Entrepreneurship & Venture Capital. Luiss Guido Carli Free International University of Social Studies. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from https://tesi.luiss.it/39/1/2009-mattei-tommaso-tesi.pdf.
dc.relation.isbasedonPark, Y., & Park, G. (2004). A new method for technology valuation in monetary value: procedure and application. Technovation, 24(5), 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00099-8.
dc.relation.isbasedonParr, R. L., & Smith, G. V. (1994). Quantitative Methods of Valuing Intellectual Property. In M. Simensky & L. G. Bryer (Eds.), The New Role of IntellectualProperty in Commercial Transactions (pp. 39-68). New York: Wiley.
dc.relation.isbasedonPCT. (2011). Patent Cooperation Treaty. Geneva: WIPO.
dc.relation.isbasedonPitkethly, R. (1999). The valuation of patents: a review of patent valuation methods with consideration of option based methods and the potential for further research. OIPRC Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, WP 05/99. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0599.html.
dc.relation.isbasedonPoole, Jr, C. P., & Owens, F. J. (2003). Introduction to Nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
dc.relation.isbasedonReitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 939-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.02.004.
dc.relation.isbasedonŠaparauskas, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Selection of facade's alternatives of commercial and public buildings based on multiple criteria. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 15(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2011.586532.
dc.relation.isbasedonSivilevičius, H., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2008). Quality attributes and complex assessment methodology of the asphalt mixing plant. Baltic Journal of Road & Bridge Engineering, 3(3), 161-166. https://doi.org/10.3846/1822-427X.2008.3.161-166.
dc.relation.isbasedonSpinello, R. A. (2007). Intellectual property rights. Library Hi Tech, 25(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830710735821.
dc.relation.isbasedonŠtreimikienė, D., Šliogerienė, J., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation technologies in Lithuania. Renewable Energy, 85, 148-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.032.
dc.relation.isbasedonTurskis, Z., Dzitac, S., Stankiuviene, A., & Šukys, R. (2019). A Fuzzy Group Decision-making Model for Determining the Most Influential Persons in the Sustainable Prevention of Accidents in the Construction SMEs. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 14(1), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2019.1.3364.
dc.relation.isbasedonTurskis, Z., Lazauskas, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2012). Fuzzy multiple criteria assessment of construction site alternatives for non-hazardous waste incineration plant in Vilnius city, applying ARAS-F and AHP methods. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20(2), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2011.645827.
dc.relation.isbasedonVan der Vorst, T. (2011). Improving Statistical Patent Valuation Models Using Citation Data. TU/e, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences.
dc.relation.isbasedonWang, X., García, F., Guijarro, F., & Moya, I. (2011). Evaluating patent portfolios by means of multicriteria analysis. Revista de Contabilidad, 14(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(11)70020-6.
dc.relation.isbasedonWIPO. (2008). Chapter 2: Fields of Intellectual Property Protection. In WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use (p. 489). World Intellectual Property Organization.
dc.relation.isbasedonWoltjen, J. (2003). U.S. Patent Application Patent No. 10/615,068.
dc.relation.isbasedonWu, M.-C., & Tseng, C.-Y. (2006). Valuation of patent – a real options perspective. Applied Economics Letters, 13(5), 313-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500393477.
dc.relation.isbasedonYoung-Ki, K., Seung-Jun, L., & Seong-Taek, P. (2016). A Study on Patent Valuation Important Factors: Focus on China Industry. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(24), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i24/96150.
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decisionmaking. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10.
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., Saparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2013). MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 47(2), 5-20.
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M. (2016). Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems—An overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(3), 645-682.
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Bagočius, V. (2015). Multi-criteria selection of a deep-water port in the Eastern Baltic Sea. Applied Soft Computing, 26, 180-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.09.019.
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Volvačiovas, R., & Kildiene, S. (2013). Multi-criteria assessment model of technologies. Studies in Informatics and Control, 22(4), 249-258.
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010). Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1.
dc.relation.isbasedonZeebroeck, N. (2010). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(1), 33-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590903038256.
dc.relation.isbasedonZolfani, S. H., & Saparauskas, J. (2013). New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Engineering Economics, 24(5), 408-414. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.4526.
dc.relation.isbasedonZolfani, S. H., Esfahani, M. H., Bitarafan, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Arefi, S. L. (2013). Developing a new hybrid MCDM method for selection of the optimal alternative of mechanical longitudinal ventilation of tunnel pollutants during automobile accidents. Transport, 28(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2013.782567.
dc.relation.isbasedonZolfani, S. H., Yazdani, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process. Soft Computing, 22(22), 7399-7405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3092-2.
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectpatent valuationen
dc.subjectnanotechnologyen
dc.subjectMulti-Attribute Decision-Makingen
dc.subjectSWARAen
dc.subjectARASen
dc.subject.classificationC44
dc.subject.classificationO34
dc.titleA Framework for Valuation and Prioritization of Patents Using a Combined MADM Approach. Case Study: Nanotechnologyen
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage120
local.citation.spage100
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_3_2019_07
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue3
local.relation.volume22
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_3_2019_07.pdf
Size:
848.03 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 3