Evaluación de carteras de patentes mediante análisis multicriterio

Evaluating patent portfolios by means of multicriteria analysis

Autores/as

  • Fernando García
  • Xiaolu Wang Beihang University
  • Francisco Guijarro
  • Ismael Moya
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(11)70020-6
Palabras clave: 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.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Fernando García

 

 

Xiaolu Wang, Beihang University

 

 

Francisco Guijarro

 

 

Ismael Moya

 

 

Citas

[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 worlds 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)

Publicado
01-01-2011
Cómo citar
García, F., Wang, X., Guijarro, F., & Moya, I. (2011). Evaluación de carteras de patentes mediante análisis multicriterio: Evaluating patent portfolios by means of multicriteria analysis. Revista De Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, 14(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(11)70020-6
Número
Sección
Artículos