臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究分析非專利實施體（Non-practicing entity, NPE）之專利價值，並提出NPE 專利之管理意涵與模型，期貢獻當代專利管理之知識。本研究透過13家NPE公司，在美國專利資料庫 （USPTO）辨識1976年至2014年間出版之NPE專利。透過11項專利鑑價指標，同時比較NPE 專利、ITC （International Trade Commission）專利、美國訴訟專利（Litigation patent）和核准美國專利了解NPE 專利之價值, 並以法律、市場和技術三價值面向探討NPE 專利之價值導向。本研究主要產出4個貢獻，1) NPE 專利頗具價值，其價值不亞於ITC專利和訴訟專利。2) NPE 專利的價值性在法律或市場面向，而非技術面向3) NPE 專利對於內外部之知識留有良好的吸納能力(Absorptive capability),為可靠專利（reliable patent）; 然而, NPE專利缺乏影響要素（Effect element）, 意味著在技術演化過程中，非關鍵專利。4) 提出兩大管理模型, 一為專利知識流動模型（Knowledge flow of a patent model），了解技術價值之品質和投入（Input）、產出（Output）和影響（Effect）三要素息息相關。二為價值專利與產品生命週期圖關係模型 ( Valuable Patents and Product Life Cycle Relation Model)中，演示不同種類之價值專利和各階段之產品生命週期互有關聯，而在不同產品生命週期階段，亦有不同技術、法律和市場價值之份額變化。最後，相關研究討論、限制與亦在本研究終章中提出。

This research aims to evaluate NPE patent and learn implications from NPE patent and other high value patents. Hence, this research adopted 13 NPEs and its shell companies’ name to identify NPE patents in USPTO between 1976 and 2014 June. This research evaluated NPE patents into three valuation dimensions by comparing with other 2 high value patents and 11 patent evaluation indicators. This research offered several contributions: 1) NPE patent is quite or even more valuable as ITC patent and litigation patent. 2) NPE patent is valuable, especially in legal and market value dimensions rather technology value dimensions. 3) NPE patent is reliable due to its integrated external and internal knowledge sources, but it lacks the Effect element on other patents. 4) Providing two management models to obtain patent management implication. One is Knowledge Flow in a Patent model to learn the patent quality in three elements, Input, Output and Effect. The other is Valuable Patents and Product Life Cycle Relation model to learn the valuation variance in different product life cycle stages. Lastly, this research also provides limitation and suggestion for future studies at the end of this research.

誌謝 6
摘要 7
Abstract 8
1 Introduction 12
2 Literature Review 18
2.1 Valuable Patents: Litigation Patent and ITC Patent 18
2.2 Three Essential Valuation Dimensions in a Patent 19
2.3 Other Valuation Dimensions: Strategic Value and Social Value 20
3 Research Method and Framework 23
3.1 NPE Patent Identification 23
3.2 NPE Patent Evaluation: Patent Characteristics as Patent Evaluation Indicators 26
4 Research Result 28
5 Implication for Patent Management 34
5.1 The Model of Knowledge Flow in a Patent 34
5.2 Valuable Patents and Product Life Cycle Relation Model 37
6 Discussion 43
7 Limitation & Recommendations for Future Research 47
7.1 Limitation 47
7.2 Recommendation 47
8 Conclusion 49
Reference 51
Appendix 62

1.Abrams, D. S., Akcigit, U., & Popadak, J. (2013). Patent Value and Citations: Creative Destruction or Strategic Disruption? (Working Paper No. 19647). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19647
2.Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259. http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U
3.Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2003). Valuable Patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435.
4.Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2004). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92(3), 435.
5.Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., & Walker, J. H. (2009). Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most Litigated Patents (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1407796). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1407796
6.Amol Sharma & Don Clark. (2008). Tech Guru Riles the Industry By Seeking Huge Patent Fees. The Wall Street Journal, A1,A21.
7.Andrei Hagiu& David Yoffie. (2011). Intermediaries for the IP market. Harv Bus Rev.
8.Anne Layne Farrar & Klaus M. Schmidt. (2009). Licensing Complementary Patents: “Patent Trolls,” Market Structure, and “Excessive” Royalties. 25 Berkeley Tech. L.J.1128.
9.Bekkers, R., Bongard, R., & Nuvolari, A. (2011). An empirical study on the determinants of essential patent claims in compatibility standards. Research Policy, 40(7), 1001–1015. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.004
10.Bessen, J., Ford, J., & Meurer, M. (2012). The private and social costs of patent trolls. Regulation, 34(4), 26.
11.Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton Univ Pr.
12.Bhagat James, A., & others. (1994). The costs of inefficient bargaining and financial distress* 1:: Evidence from corporate lawsuits. Journal of Financial Economics, 35(2), 221–247.
13.Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.003
14.Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655–672.
15.Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2013). The Case Against Patents. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 3–22.
16.Catherine Tucker. (2013). Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1976593 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1976593.
17.Chan, Jeremiah; Fawcett, Matthew. (2005). Footsteps of the Patent Troll; 10 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 1.
18.Cheng, Y. C., Lan, Y., Liu, W., & Liu, S. J. (2012). To Sue or not to Sue: Co-opetition in the Patent Market. In Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET)(pp. 1025-1033). IEEE.
19.Chien, C. (2009). Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents. North Carolina Law Review, 87, 09-13.
20.Chien, C. (2012). Race to the Bottom. Intellectual Asset Management Magazine, 51, 10.
21.Chien, C. (2013). Patent Trolls by the Numbers. Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper, (08-13).
22.Chien, Colleen V. (2008). Patently Protectionist? An Empirical Analysis of Patent Cases at the International Trade Commission. William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 50, p. 63.
23.Chien, C. V. (2008). Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents. NCL Rev., 87, 1571.
24.Chien, C. V. (2010). From Arms Race to Marketplace: The New Complex Patent Ecosystem and its Implications for the Patent System. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1703557.
25.Chien, C. V. (2011). Predicting Patent Litigation. Texas Law Review, 90(2), 283–329.
26.Chien, C. V. (2011). Protecting Domestic Industries at the ITC. Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. LJ, 28, 169.
27.Christian Helmers, Luke McDonagh, & Brian Love. (2013). Is There a Patent Troll Problem in the UK? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, Forthcoming.
28.Clark, J., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2011). An Emerging Geography of Intangible Assets: Financialization in Carbon Emissions Credit and Intellectual Property Markets. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/41813.
29.Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1349–1367.
30.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. http://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
31.Cosandier, C., Delcamp, H., Leiponen, A., & Méniere, Y. (2014). Defensive and offensive acquisition services in the market for patents. Online: Http://www. Gtcenter. org/Downloads/WIPL/Cosandier2037. Pdf (Visited on July. Retrieved from http://www.gtcenter.org/Downloads/WIPL/Cosandier2037.pdf
32.Cotropia, C. A., Kesan, J. P., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) Under the Microscope: An Empirical Investigation of Patent Holders as Litigants. Illinois Program in Law, Behavior and Social Science Paper No. LBSS14-20, 14-17.
33.Coursey & Caroline Coker. (2010). Battling the Patent Troll: Tips for Defending Patient Infringement Claims by Non-Manufacturing Patentees. 33 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 237.
34.Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 182–195.
35.Daniel P. McCurdy. (2009). Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the US Patent System.
36.Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 20–32.
37.Detkin, P. N. (2006). Leveling the Patent Playing Field. J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 6, i.
38.DiStefano, Ryan P. (2012). Do Patent Trolls Exist? Examining the Economic Impact of Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Infringement Litigation on Innovation.
39.Duff, G. A., Taylor, J. G., Prescott, J. F., & Swift, M. A. (2008). Patent trolls (and other bad news) lurking in your mailbox: handling cease-and-desist letters in the USA. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 3(7), 442-450.
40.Ernst, H., & Omland, N. (2011). The Patent Asset Index – A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios. World Patent Information, 33(1), 34–41. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2010.08.008
41.Ewing, T. (2012). Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights by Corporations and Investors: IP Privateering and Modern Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Hastings Sci. & Tech. LJ, 4, 1.
42.Federal Trade Commission. (2015). Patent Assertion Entities (PAE) study. https://www.ftc.gov/policy/studies/patent-assertion-entities-pae-study.
43.Feldman, R., & Ewing, T. (2011). The Giants Among Us (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1923449). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1923449
44.Feldman, R., Ewing, T., & Jeruss, S. (2013). The AIA 500 Expanded: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities. Research Paper No. 45.
45.Ferrill, Elizabeth D. (2004). Patent Investment Trusts: Let’s Build a PIT to Catch the Patent Trolls. 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 367.
46.Fischer, T., & Henkel, J. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9), 1519–1533. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.002
47.Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). Transnational patents and international markets. Scientometrics, 82(1), 185–200. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0082-2
48.Gallini, N. T. (1992). Patent policy and costly imitation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 23(1), 52–63.
49.Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69–84.
50.Gilbert, R., & Shapiro, C. (1990). Optimal patent length and breadth. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 106–112.
51.Gotts, I. K., & Sher, S. (2010). The Particular Antitrust Concerns with Patent Acquisitions. Competition Law International.
52.Grupp, H. (1996). Assessing different types of patent data for describing high-technology export performance.
53.Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69(1), 109–114. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(00)00265-2
54.Gustin, S. (2013). Viewpoint: Obama’s “Patent Troll” Reform: Why Everyone Should Care. Time. Retrieved from http://business.time.com/2013/06/08/viewpoint-obamas-patent-troll-reform-why-everyone-should-care/
55.Hagedoorn, J., Kranenburg, H. van, & Osborn, R. N. (2003). Joint patenting amongst companies ‒ exploring the effects of inter-firm R&D partnering and experience. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2-3), 71–84. http://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1078
56.Hagiu, A. (2011). Intellectual Property Intermediaries. Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Case, (711-486).
57.Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market Value and Patent Citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.
58.Harabi, N. (1995). Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis. Research Policy, 24(6), 981–992.
59.Harhoff, D., & Reitzig, M. (2004). Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants–the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 443–480.
60.Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5
61.Harrison, R., & Hatcher, J. (2010). Bilski and the US Software Patent Threat? Computers and Law, 21(3), 16.
62.Helmers, C., & McDonagh, L. (2012). Trolls at the High Court?. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2154958.
63.Hemphill, T. A. (2013). Patent assertion entities: do they impede innovation and technology commercialisation?. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, (ahead-of-print), 1-15.
64.Hicks, J., & Sweeney, J. (2012). Minimizing Legal Exposure: Are you Ready for a Lawsuit by a Patent Troll or Tort Attorney. Nanomanufacturing Summit 2012 &11th Annual NanoBusiness Conference.
65.Hirschey, 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.
66.Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107.
67.Holger Ernst. (1996). Patentinformationen fur die strategische Planung von Forschung und Entwicklung. DUV-  Verlag, Wiesbaden.
68.Hosie, Spencer. (2008). Patent Trolls and the New Tort Reform: A Practitioner’s Perspective. 4 ISJLP 75.
69.Hovenkamp, H. (2011). Notice and Patent Remedies. Texas Law Review See Also, 88, 221.
70.IP Checkups. (2013). NPE Tracker List of NPEs & Subsidiaries. Retrieved October 8, 2015, from http://www.ipcheckups.com/npe-tracker/npe-tracker-list/
71.James E. Bessen & Jennifer Laurissa Ford & Michael J. Meurer. (2012). Regulation, Vol. 34, No. 4, p. 26,.
72.Jerry Sheehan, C. M. (2004). Understanding business patenting and licensing; results of a survey, 89–110.
73.Jones, Miranda. (2007). Permanent Injunction, a Remedy by any other Name is Patently Not the Same: How eBay v. MercExchange Affects the Patent Right of Non-Practicing Entities. 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1035.
74.Kim, H., & Song, J. (2012). Social network analysis of patent infringement lawsuits. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
75.Klemperer, P. (1990). How broad should the scope of patent protection be? The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 113–130.
76.Lanjouw, J. (1998). Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies, 65(4), 671–710.
77.Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129. http://doi.org/10.2307/2696401
78.Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership. National Bureau of Economic Research.
79.Lee, P.-C., & Su, H.-N. (2014). How to forecast cross-border patent infringement?—The case of US international trade. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, 125–131.
80.Lerner, J. (1994). The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333. http://doi.org/10.2307/2555833
81.Lerner, J. (1995). Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors. JL & Econ., 38, 463.
82.Li, A. (2013). Accidentally on Target: The MSTG Effects on Non-Practicing Entities’ Litigation and Settlement Strategies. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 28(4). http://doi.org/doi:10.15779/Z38JX2M
83.Li, A. S. (2013). PATENT LAW: Accidentally on Target: The MSTG Effects on Non-Practicing Entities’ Litigation and Settlement Strategies. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 28, 483-1111.
84.Love, B. (2013). An Empirical Study of Patent Litigation Timing: Could a Patent Term Reduction Decimate Trolls without Harming Innovators. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161(5), 1309.
85.Marco, A. C. (2005). The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence. Review of Financial Economics, 14(3-4), 323–351.
86.Markus Reitzig. (2004). Strategic management of intellectual property. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(3, Spring), 35–40.
87.Martin, D. P. (1995). Preclusive Effect of Factual Determinations of the International Trade Commission with Regard to Patent Matters. The University of Chicago Law Review, 62(2), 885–918. http://doi.org/10.2307/1600152
88.Martinez-Ruiz, A., & Aluja, T. (2008). Structural Model of Patent and Market Value: An Application in Energy Patents. DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2008 PhD Conference.
89.McDonough, James F. (2007). The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy. Emory Law and Economics Research Paper No. 07-7.
90.Meeks, M. T., & Eldering, C. A. (2010). Patent Valuation: Aren’t We Forgetting Something? Making the Case for Claims Analysis in Patent Valuation by Proposing a Patent Valuation Method and a Patent-Specific Discount Rate Using the CAPM. Orthwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 9(3 Fall), 194.
91.Mello, J.P. (2006). Technology Licensing and Patent Trolls. 12 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 388.
92.Menell, P. S., Busey, G. B., Cordell, R., Davis, M. G., Powers, M. D., & Sobin, S. (2010). Section 337 Patent Investigation Management Guide (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1603330). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1603330
93.Michael Risch. (2012). Patent Troll Myths. Seton Hall Law Review.
94.Michael Risch. (2013). Framing the patent troll debate. doi:10.1517/13543776.2014.873406.
95.Millien, R., & Laurie, R. (2007). A summary of established & emerging ip business models. Sedona Conference, Sedona, AZ (pp. 1-16.
96.Morgan, Marc. (2008). Stop Looking under the Bridge for Imaginary Creatures: A Comment Examining Who Really Deserves the Title Patent Troll. 17 Fed. Cir. B.J. 165.
97.Mun-Kee CHOI, ETRI. (2008). Bridging the standardization gap in Korea-Case Study : Strategy and Systems. Pdf, ITU. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/26/07/T26070000010025PDFE.pdf
98.Naik, K. (2012). For Sale-Patents-Never Used: Gaps in the Tax Code for Patent Sales. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 11(859).
99.Nelson, A. J. (2009). Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion. Research Policy, 38(6), 994–1005. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.023
100.Niro, Raymond P. (2007). Who Is Really Undermining the Patent System - Patent Trolls or Congress. 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. [i].
101.Opderbeck, David W. (2009). Patent Damages Reform and the Shape of Patent Law. 89 B.U. L. Rev. 127.
102.Orr, J. R. (2013). PATENT LAW: Patent Aggregation: Models, Harms, and the Limited Role of Antitrust. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 28, 525-1111.
103.Perko, J. S., & Narin, F. (1997). The transfer of public science to patented technology: A case study in agricultural science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(3), 65–72.
104.PlainSite. (2013). PlainSite :: The law in plain sight. Retrieved October 8, 2015, from http://www.plainsite.org/
105.Pohlmann, T., & Opitz, M. (2010). The Patent Troll Business: An Efficient model to enforce IPR?. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/27342.
106.Pohlmann, T., & Opitz, M. (2013). Typology of the patent troll business. R&D Management, 43(2), 103-120.
107.Polonsky, I. (2012). You Can’t Go Home Again: The Righthaven Cases and Copyright Trolling on the Internet. Colum. JL & Arts, 36, 71-101.
108.Rantanen, J. (2006). Slaying the Troll: litigation as an effective strategy against patent threats. Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. LJ, 23, 159.
109.Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 939–957. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.02.004
110.Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., & Schneider, F. (2010). Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 947-967.
111.R. Frietsch, U. Schmoch, B. van Looy, J. P. Walsh, R. Devroede, M. Du Plessis, … T. Schubert. (2010). The value and indicator function of patents. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI).
112.Rüther, F., Gassmann, O., & Bernet, B. (2012). Patent Aggregating Companies - Their Strategies, Activities, and Options for Producing Companies. ISBN 978-3-8349-4454-2 ISBN 978-3-8349-4455-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-8349-4455-9.
113.Sandburg, B. (2001). You may not have a choice. Trolling for Dollars. Tech Search.
114.Schwartz, D. (2012). The Rise of Contingent Fee Representation in Patent Litigation. Available at SSRN 1990651.
115.Schwartz, D. L., & Kesan, J. P. (2014). Analyzing the Role of Non-Practicing Entities in the Patent System (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2117421). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2117421
116.Scotchmer, S. (1996). Protecting early innovators: should second-generation products be patentable? The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(2), 322–331.
117.Scotchmer, S., & Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 131–146.
118.Shanahan, N. A. (2013). Deconstructing the Patent Bubble: An Exploration of Patent Monetization Entities from Sewing Machine Combination to Rockstar Bid Co. Available at SSRN 2359912.
119.Shrestha, S. K. (2010). Trolls or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 110, p. 114,.
120.Silverberg, G., & Verspagen, B. (2007). The size distribution of innovations revisited: an application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance. Journal of Econometrics, 139(2), 318–339.
121.Somaya, D. (2002). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38.
122.Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.281
123.Somaya, D. (2012). Patent Strategy and Management An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1084–1114. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312444447
124.Su, H.-N., Chen, C. M.-L., & Lee, P.-C. (2012). Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010. Scientometrics, 92(1), 181–195. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0716-7
125.The White House. (2013). Taking on Patent Trolls to Protect American Innovation. Retrieved October 8, 2015, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/06/04/taking-patent-trolls-protect-american-innovation
126.Thomas, R. J. (1989). Patent Infringement of Innovations by Foreign Competitors: The Role of the U. S. International Trade Commission. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 63–75. http://doi.org/10.2307/1251380
127.Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141.
128.Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics (RAND Journal of Economics), 21(1), 172–187.
129.Trappey, A. J. C., Trappey, C. V., Wu, C.-Y., & Lin, C.-W. (2012). A patent quality analysis for innovative technology and product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(1), 26–34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.005
130.van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2011). Filing strategies and patent value. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(6), 539–561. http://doi.org/10.1080/10438591003668646
131.von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.001
132.Wang, A. (2010). Rise of the Patent Intermediaries. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25(1), 159. http://doi.org/doi:10.15779/Z386D8Z
133.Wang, W. (2012). PATENT LAW: Non-practicing Complainants at the ITC: Domestic Industry or Not?. Berkeley Tech. lJ, 27, 409-981.