DESCRIPTION
TECHNICAL FIELD
In the field of intellectual property valuation, a method and system are disclosed to estimate strength of patents.
BACKGROUND ART
Over the last few years, intellectual property (IP) has become an important asset for organizations, accounting for a considerable portion of an organization's net worth. In order to fully utilize the IP assets. It is important for an organization to estimate the relative strength of its various IP assets. Strength for a patent, for example, may be with respect to the broadness of the claims, the geographical domain of the patent, licensing potential of the patent etc, A company having a patent portfolio would like to assess the important patents in the portfolio based on the strength of the patents. For example, a company may have a patent portfolio of 100 patents. It is important for the company to be aware of the valuable patents, which have high licensing potential, and also to distinguish these patents from those patents which do not have such potential. Such awareness will enable the company to quickly identify and assert its valuable IP against any potential infringer.
Thus there is a need for a method and a system which enables an organization to organize its IP assets in order of their strengths.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a schematic illustrating a strength evaluation environment in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;
FIG. 2A and 2B are hierarchical diagrams illustrating a technological hierarchy for classifying patents of a patent portfolio in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;
FIG. 3 is a hierarchical diagram illustrating a parameter hierarchy used for evaluating strength of a patent in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 4A and 4B are flow diagrams illustrating a detailed method for evaluating strength of a patent in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; and
FIG. 5 is a hierarchical diagram illustrating a method of assigning subjective strength parameter values to a patent in the technological hierarchy.
DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS
In the following description, for the purposes of explanation, specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. However, it will be apparent that the invention may be practiced without these specific details. Various aspects and features of example embodiments of the invention are described in more detail hereinafter.
An embodiment of the present invention or any of its components may be embodied in the form of a processing machine. Typical examples of a processing machine include a computer, a programmed microprocessor, an integrated circuit, and other devices or arrangements of devices that are capable of implementing the steps of the method of the current invention. The processing machine executes a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements, in order to process input data. The storage elements may also hold data or other information as desired. The storage element may be in the form of an information destination or a physical memory element present in the processing machine. The set of instructions may include various commands that instruct the processing machine to perform specific tasks such as the steps that constitute the method of the present invention. The set of instructions may be in the form of a software program. The software may be in various forms such as system software or application software. Further, the software might be in the form of a collection of separate programs, a program module with a larger program or a portion of a program module. The software might also include modular programming in the form of object-oriented programming. The processing of input data by the processing machine may be in response to user commands, or in response to results of previous processing or in response to a request made by another processing machine.

A person skilled in the art can appreciate that the various processing machines and/or storage elements may not be physically located in the same geographical location. The processing machines and/or storage elements may be located in geographically distinct locations and connected to each other to enable communication. Various communication technologies may be used to enable communication between the processing machines and/or storage elements. Such technologies include session of the processing machines and/or storage elements, in the form of a network. The network can be an intranet, an extranet, the internet or any client server models that enable communication. Such communication technologies may use various protocols such as TCP/IP, UDP, ATM or OSI.
A method and system for evaluating strength of patents in a patent portfolio is disclosed, wherein the patent portfolio comprises a plurality of patents of an organization.
FIG. 1 is a schematic illustrating strength evaluation environment 100 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Strength evaluation environment 100 includes database 102, processing module 104, input module 106, storage module 108, output module 110 and user 112. According to some embodiments of the invention, database 102 stores the patent portfolio, international patent classification (IPC) details of each patent in the patent portfolio, a technological hierarchy for the patent portfolio, a technological classification of the patent portfolio, and a plurality of strength parameters for evaluating strength of a patent in the patent portfolio. The technological classification of the patent portfolio is a classification of each of the patents in the patent portfolio in the technological hierarchy. In an embodiment of the invention, database 102 may also store United States patent and trademark office (USPTO) classification details for each of the patents in the patent portfolio.
The technological hierarchy and the technological classification of the patent portfolio are described in detail in conjunction with FIG. 2a and 2b respectively. The plurality of strength parameters are described in detail in conjunction with FIG. 3.
Input module 106 is a visual editor which enables user 112 to interact with database 102 and processing module 104.

For example, input module 106 enables user 112 to view and edit tlie technological hierarchy for the patent portfolio, the technological classification of the patent portfolio, the plurality of strength parameters and the likes, stored in database 102. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 may be an expert in technology domains of the patent portfolio. According to some embodiments of the invention, a communication network may be required for user 112 for interaction with database 102 and processing module 104. F"or example, database 102 and processing module 104 may be present at a remote location and user 112 may access them through internet. In such scenario, input module 106 may be a web browser.
Processing module 104, in an embodiment, is a code written in JAVA/C++ and installed In a Central Processing Unit (CPU). Wherein, the code may accept the patent portfolio, IPC and USPTO classification details for each of the patents in the patent portfolio and the likes as inputs and provides strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio as output.
Processing module 104 may receive the patent portfolio, IPC and USPTO classification details for each of the patents in the patent portfolio and the technological hierarchy of the patent portfolio stored in database 102 to prepare a technological classification of the patent portfolio. The technological classification may be utilized by processing module 104 to calculate the strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio. Processing module 104 may retrieve the patent portfolio and the IPC and the USPTO classification details for each of the patents in the patent portfolio from internet.
Output module 110 is a visual interface which enables user 112 to view the strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio calculated by processing module 104. According to some embodiments of the invention, output module 110 is same as input module 106. As an example, output module 110 may be a web page.
FIG. 2A and 2B are hierarchical diagrams illustrating a technological hierarchy for classifying patents in a patent portfolio in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The technological hierarchy comprises technology domain 202 at the top of the technological hierarchy and a plurality of levels below technology domain 202.

Each level may comprise a plurality of classes. The classes may be positioned hierarchically. Technology domain 202 represents a technological domain to which the patents in the patent portfolio belong. Examples of technology domain 202 include, but are not limited to, semiconductors, computer, and telecommunication. The patent portfolio may comprise patents belonging to one or more technology domain 202. As an example, an organization in the business of semiconductor chips and also into making computing machines may have patents related to both semiconductors as well as computer. Technological hierarchy further comprises one or more levels. Typically a detailed technological hierarchy is prepared which comprises of many levels. A detailed technological hierarchy helps in analyzing the technological domain to a greater depth. As an example, level 1 may comprise a
plurality of classes such as Ci, Ca and Cp. Each of the classes Ci, C2...., and Cn
may be divided into a plurality of classes at level 2. As an example, SCu, SC12 ... and SCmare classes of class Ci. Classes SCu, SC12... and SCm are then said to be associated with class Ci. Similarly SC2i...and SCan are classes of class C2 and are said to be associated with class C2. The classes at level 2 may further comprise a plurality of classes at level 3. SC12,1 is a class of SC12 at level 3. SC12,1 is associated with class SCiaas well as class Ci.
FIG. 2B illustrates an example of the technological hierarchy of the patent portfolio. Computer 210 represents technology domain 202 of the patent portfolio. Examples of computers include but are not limited to desktops and laptops. Computers comprise of two major types of components which are hardware components and software components. Therefore, computer 210 may further be divided into two classes, hardware 212 and software 214 at level 1 of the technological hierarchy. Patents dealing with hardware technology of computers will belong to hardware 212. Examples of hardware components include, but are not limited to chassis, card fixer and memory components. Both hardware 212 and software 214 are said to be associated with computer 210. Hardware 212 may further comprise classes such as memory 216 and visual display 218 at level 2 of the technological hierarchy. Memory 216 and visual display 218 are said to be associated with hardware 212.
Memory 216 may further be classified into RAM 220, ROM 222 and external 224 at level 3 of the technological hierarchy. Visual display 218 may further be classified in

to LCD 221 and CRT 223 at level 3 of the technological hierarchy. Memory 216 and visual display 218 are classes of hardware 212, Similarly, RAM 220, ROM 222 and external 224 are classes of memory 216.
Examples of software component include but are not limited to enterprise software and binary input and output system (BIOS). Further, software 214 may comprise classes such as media player 217 and data retention 219.
It will be apparent to any person skilled in the art that the technological hierarchy, as explained above, is only for illustrative purposes. The invention is not limited by the number of levels of the technological hierarchy chosen and the number of classes chosen at each level. Also the invention is not limited by the nature of classes chosen. In the example above, computer 210 was divided into hardware 212 and software 214. It will be apparent to any person skilled in the art that any other categories other than hardware 212 and software 214 may be chosen. The decision to choose a class usually depends on the nature of patents in the patent portfolio.
After a technological hierarchy is prepared, each patent of the patent portfolio is associated with one or more classes of the technological hierarchy. As an example, a patent which is related to RAM technology will be associated with class RAM 220. Similarly, a patent concerned with computer monitor will be associated with class visual display 218.
A patent associated with a particular class is also said to be associated with all the classes with whom the particular class is associated.
FIG. 3 is a hierarchical diagram illustrating a parameter hierarchy used for evaluating strength of a patent in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The parameter hierarchy comprises a plurality of levels, the plurality of levels including a plurality of categories, sub-categories, strength parameters and the likes. The strength parameters are at the end of a particular branch of the parameter hierarchy.

For example, family size 316 and number of geographies 318 are strength parameters which belong to assignee's perspective 310; wherein assignee's perspective 310 is a sub-category of technological value 304, which further is a category of patent strength 302.
According to some embodiments of the invention, patent strength 302 is based on three broad categories; technological value 304, legal scope 306 and commercial value 308. Technological value 304 represents technological domain with which a particular patent deals and enables quantification of novelty of the particular patent. For example technological value 304 assists in determining how advanced a patent is, with respect to technology and novelty as compared to prior arts in a similar technology domain. Opinion and perspective of assignee of patents, examiners (council) of the patents, experts (peers) in the technological domains to which the patents belong and the likes regarding the patent facilitate in estimating technological value 304 of the patent. Therefore, technological value 304 may comprise assignee's perspective 310, council view 312 and peer review 311 as sub¬categories. Assignee's perspective 310 comprises strength parameters like family size 316 and number of geographies 318. Family size 316 for a particular patent is number of family patents granted in the same or different geography of the patent. Number of geographies 318 for the patent is the number of distinguishable geographical regions where the patent is filed. The perspective of assignee regarding the patent is reflected from the size of the family of the patent and number of geographies in which the patent is filed. For example, in case a patent is considered novel and valuable by assignee of the patent, the assignee may increase the family size of the patent and file the patent in as much number of geographies as possible.
Council view 312 comprises strength parameters like number of independent claims 320, number of dependent claims 322 and length of first claim 324. Number of independent claims 320 for the patent is the number of independent claims in the patent. Similarly, number of dependent claims 322 for the patent is the number of dependent claims in the patent. Length of first claim 324 for the patent is the number of words in the first independent claim of the patent.

The opinion of the examiner of the patent is reflected from council view 312 and sub¬categories of council view 312. For example, higher number of independent claims in a patent may reflect higher protection of underlying invention in the patent and high novelty value of the patent and therefore reflects high value of the patent. Novelty value of a patent implies that the patent is new in the respective technological domain or field and thus may have higher value in terms of technological innovation or commercial valuation.
Peer review 311 comprises strength parameters like forward reference 326, backward reference 328 and number of classification 330. Forward reference 326 for the patent is the number of patents citing the patent. For example a large number of forward references in a patent reflect that the patent has been utilized as a prior art for developing the technological domain to which the patent belongs and therefore reflecting high utility and high novelty value of the patent. Backward reference 328 for the patent is the number of cited prior arts in the patent. For example a large number of backward references in a patent reflect that the technological domain to which the patent belongs is saturated and further developments are not likely, therefore reflecting low value and low utility of the patent. Number of classification 330 for the patent is the number of different classes in the technological hierarchy to which the patent belongs. For example, higher number of classes in the technological hierarchy to which the patent belongs, reflect that the patent deals with a wider technology encompassing a plurality of classes in the technological hierarchy, therefore reflecting higher utility and novelty value of the patent.
Legal scope 306 of a patent may reflect the usefulness of the patent with respect to litigation, licensing and the likes. Legal scope 306 comprises favorability 314 and vulnerability 313 as sub-categories. Favorability 314 of a patent may reflect prospects of the patent in winning litigation cases, earning royalties and the likes. For example, a patent which has 14 years remaining before it expires has prospects of earning higher licensing fee over its remaining life span as compared to a patent which has 2 years remaining before it expires. Similarly, in case a patent is easily detectible from the point of view of identifying infringement for the patent, the patent becomes favorable for pursuing litigation.
Q

Therefore, favorability 314 may comprise strength parameters like remaining life 332, length of first claim 324 and infringement detectability 336. Remaining life 332 for the patent is the time left after which the patent will expire. Infringement detectability 336 for the patent is the level of detectability for the patent from the point of view of identifying infringement for the patent. Vulnerability 313 of a patent may reflect on vulnerability of a patent to get invalidated when subjected to litigation. Vulnerability 313 comprises strength parameters like number of inventors 338. Number of inventors 338 for the patent is the number of inventors cited with the grant of the patent. For example in case a patent has 10 inventors, the likelihood of missing one of the inventors in the patent application is higher as compared to when the patent has only 3 inventors. Therefore higher number of inventors in a patent increases the vulnerability of the patent to get invalidated.
Commercial value 308 may be an indicator of expected returns from a patent in monetary terms. For example suppose a consumer product having a large market share is based on a patent A, patent A is likely to produce high monetary returns in the form of licensing and therefore commercial value 308 of patent A is high. Further, suppose a patent A has 2 years remaining before expiry, then it may not be chosen for pursuing an infringement lawsuit because by the time the lawsuit is decided, patent A might expire. Therefore patent A might have low commercial value 308. Commercial value 308 may further comprise sub-categories such as time based 307 and market based 309. Time based 307 comprise strength parameters like time before publication 340 and age of patent 342. Time before publication 340 for the patent is the time elapsed after the filing of the patent and before publication of the patent and may be utilized for calculating royalties in case of an infringement lawsuit. Age of patent 342 for the patent is the time elapsed between priority date of the patent and date of strength analysis of the patent. Market based 309 comprise strength parameters like market size 344. Market size 344 for the patent is the market size of a technology sector to which the patent belongs. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the parameter hierarchy as described is only for illustrative purposes; one might change the levels, categories, subcategories, strength parameters and the likes in the parameter hierarchy as required without deviating from the scope of the invention.

strength parameters may be further classified in to subjective strength parameters and objective strength parameters. Subjective strength parameters are strength parameters whose value Is determined subjectively based on analysis of the technological classification of the patent portfolio. Objective strength parameters are strength parameters whose value is determined based on a plurality of attributes of each of the patents in the patent portfolio. The plurality of attributes of a patent include but are not limited to priority date of the patent, age of the patent, number of claims in the patent and the likes. For example, favorability 314 comprises remaining life 332, length of first claim 324 and infringement detectabillty 336 out of which, remaining life 332 and length of first claim 324 are objective strength parameters, while infringement detectabillty 336 is a subjective strength parameter.
Number of classification 330, infringement detectabillty 336 and market size 344 are subjective strength parameters while family size 316, number of geographies 318, number of independent claims 320, number of dependent claims 322, length of first claim 324, forward reference 326, backward reference 328, remaining life 332, time before publication 340 and age of patent 342 are objective strength parameters.
In an embodiment of the invention, average claim length, length of shortest independent claim, number of distinct words per claim, average age of cited prior art, written specification length, frequency of specific word usage, patent licenses, length of pendency in United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), number of drawings used, USPTO classification and the likes are objective strength parameters which may be used for evaluating strength of the patent. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that one or more of the objective parameters may be used to evaluate the strength of the patent.
In an embodiment of the invention, degree of technological advancement of the patent, published case opinions for the patent, reported litigation results for the patent and the likes are subjective strength parameters which may be used for evaluating strength of the patent.
FIG. 4A and 4B are flow diagrams illustrating a detailed method for evaluating strength of a patent in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.

At step 402, the technological hierarchy for classifying each of the patents in the patent portfolio is stored in database 102. In an embodiment of the invention, the technological hierarchy of the patent portfolio is prepared and stored in database 102 by user 112 by analyzing each of the patents in the patent portfolio. In another embodiment of the invention, processing module 104 may extract standard technological hierarchies of a particular technological domain to which each of the patents in the patent portfolio belong from the internet and store the extracted technological hierarchy for the patent portfolio in database 102
Thereafter, the technological classification of the patent portfolio is prepared by processing module 104 and stored in database 102; at step 404. For example, suppose a company has 100 patents which have to be classified in a technological hierarchy. Processing module 104 retrieves the IPC classification details for each of the patents from internet. Further, processing module 104 retrieves the technological hierarchy stored in database 102 and extracts l^eywords for each of the classes of the technological hierarchy from the internet. For example, keywords for computer 210 may include without limitation laptop, notebook and desktop. Processing module 104 compares the keywords extracted from the internet for each of the classes and keywords for each of the patents based on the IPC classification of each of the patents. In case the keywords for a particular patent based on the IPC classification match the keywords extracted for each of the classes of a particular branch in the technological hierarchy, the particular patent is placed at the end of the particular branch in the technological hierarchy. Similarly, all the patents of the company are placed in the technological hierarchy to prepare a technological classification of the patents. For example, keywords for each of computer 210, hardware 212, memory 216 and RAM 220 extracted from the internet are compared with keywords based on the IPC classifications for each of the patents; a particular patent whose keywords based on the IPC classifications match with the keywords for each of computer 210, hardware 212, memory 216 and F?AM 220; is placed at the end of a branch in the technological hierarchy, wherein the branch starts with computer 210 and comprises hardware 212, memory 216 and R/MVI 220.
In an embodiment of the invention, each of the patents in the patent portfolio is classified in the technological hierarchy by user 112 to prepare the technological

classification of tlie patent portfolio. User 112 then transfers the technological classification of the patent portfolio to processing module 104 through input module 106. In another embodiment of the invention the technological classification of the patent portfolio is received by processing module 104 from database 102.
At step 406 a set of subjective strength parameters stored in database 102 are received by processing module 104 for evaluating strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 selects the set of subjective strength parameters from a plurality of strength parameters stored in database 102 for evaluating strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio.
Once the set of subjective strength parameters to be used for evaluating strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio is identified; a subjective strength parameter is selected from the set of subjective strength parameters, at step 408. Thereafter, at step 410, a level in the technological hierarchy is identified by processing module 104 at which the subjective strength parameter is associated. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 identifies the level in the technological hierarchy at which the subjective strength parameter is associated.
At step 412, a subjective strength parameter value for the subjective strength parameter is assigned at the identified level in the technological hierarchy by processing module 104. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 may edit the subjective strength parameter value for the subjective strength parameter at the identified level in the technological hierarchy assigned by processing module 104. In another embodiment of the invention, user 112 may assign the subjective strength parameter value for the subjective strength parameter at the identified level in the technological hierarchy.
Thereafter the subjective strength parameter value for the subjective strength parameter is assigned to each of the classes of the identified level and each of the classes of levels below the identified level.

The process of identifying a level in the technological hierarchy to which a subjective strength parameter is associated and assigning value to the subjective strength parameter is described in detail in conjunction with FIG. 5.
At step 414, processing module 104 verifies whether all the subjective strength parameters in the set of subjective strength parameters are associated with an identified level in the technological hierarchy and the subjective strength parameter values have been assigned to each of the identified levels in the technological hierarchy. In case, all the subjective strength parameters In the set of subjective strength parameters have not been associated with an identified level in the technological hierarchy, steps 408 to 412 are repeated for the remaining subjective strength parameters.
At step 415, a patent is selected from the patent portfolio by processing module 104 for assigning subjective strength parameter values to the patent.
At step 416, a class in the technological hierarchy to which the selected patent belongs is identified at step 416. Thereafter, the subjective strength parameter values assigned to the identified class are extracted at step 418. Further, at step 420, the extracted subjective strength parameter values are assigned to the selected patent. In case the selected patent belongs to more than one class in the technological hierarchy, the patent is assigned the subjective strength parameter value based on the subjective strength parameter values assigned to the different classes in the technological hierarchy to which the patent belongs. For example, in case patent A belongs to class X and class Y, the subjective strength parameter value for market size 344 assigned to class X is 1 and that assigned to class Y is 9, then patent A is assigned the subjective strength parameter value of 5 which is central tendency (average) of subjective strength parameter values of classes X and Y, for market size 344. Wherein, the central tendency may be measured by calculating mean, median, mode, and the likes of subjective strength parameter values of classes X and Y, for market size 344. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 may assign subjective strength parameter value to patent A, based on the subjective strength parameter values assigned to classes X and Y to which patent A belongs.
14

At step 421, processing module 104 verifies that ail the patents in the patent portfolio have been assigned values for all the subjective strength parameters. In case all the patents in the patent portfolio have not been assigned values for all the subjective strength parameters, steps 415 to 420 are repeated for the remaining patents in the patent portfolio.
In case all the patents in the patent portfolio have been assigned values for all the subjective strength parameters, a set of objective strength parameters stored in database 102 are received by processing module 104 for evaluating strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio, at step 422. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 selects the set of objective strength parameters from a plurality of strength parameters stored in database 102 for evaluating strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio. Thereafter, at step 424, objective strength parameter values of the set of objective strength parameters for each of the patents in the patent portfolio are determined. For example, the objective strength parameter value of number of independent claims 320 for each of the patents in the patent portfolio is determined by counting the number of independent claims in each of the patents in the patent portfolio. Thereafter, value of number of independent claims 320 for each of the patents in the patent portfolio is normalized. In an embodiment of the invention, the normalization of values of objective strength parameters is done by taking summation of all the values of a particular objective strength parameter for each of the patents in the patent portfolio and dividing individual values by the summation.
For example, in order to normalize the value of number of independent claims 320 for each of the patents in a patent portfolio comprising 3 patents, PI, P2 and P3, sum of the individual values of the three patents is taken.
Value of number of independent claims 320 for PI = 3
Value of number of independent claims 320 for P2 = 2
Value of number of independent claims 320 for P3 = 5
Sum of individual values = 10

Normalized value of number of independent claims 320 for P1 = (Value of number of independent claims 320 for PI/ Sum of individual values) = 0.3
Normalized value of number of independent claims 320 for P2 = (Value of number of independent claims 320 for P2/ Sum of individual values) = 0.2
Normalized value of number of independent claims 320 for P3 = (Value of number of independent claims 320 for P3/ Sum of individual values) = 0.5
Similarly, normalized values of objective strength parameters and subjective strength parameters for each of the patents are calculated.
At step 426, percentage importance of each of the subjective strength parameters and the objective strength parameters towards the strength of each of the patent in the patent portfolio is calculated. The percentage importance is calculated by using multi-criteria decision analysis methodology such as analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
For example, to calculate percentage importance of technological value 304, legal scope 306, and commercial value 308, AHP is used. User 112 provides importance of technological value 304, legal scope 306, and commercial value 308 with respect to each other.
Percentage (%) importance of technological value 304 = % importance of legal scope 306;
% importance of technological value 304 = 3 * (% importance of commercial value 308); and
% importance of legal scope 306 = 3 * (% importance of commercial value 308);
wherein, (% importance of technological value 304) + (% importance of commercial value 308) + (% importance of legal scope 306) = 100%
Therefore, % importance of technological value 304 = 42.86%
% importance of legal scope 306 = 42.86%

And, % importance of commercial value 308 = 14.29%
Wherein, AHP is a structured teclnnique for helping user 112 in decision making and is based on mathematics and psychology. AHP helps in structuring a problem in a comprehensive and rational framework. AHP may help user 112 in ranking the subjective and the objective strength parameters to calculate respective percentage importance of the subjective and the objective strength parameters. In an embodiment of the invention, the percentage importance may be calculated by using regression analysis. Regression analysis is used to understand statistical dependence of one variable on other variables by identifying relationships between the variables. Examples of the relationships between the variables include but not limited to linear relationship, quadratic relationship and exponential relationship.
Further, respective weights of each of the subjective strength parameters and objective strength parameters are determined based on the respective percentage importance of the subjective strength parameters and the objective strength parameters, at step 428. According to some embodiments of the invention, percentage importance calculated for a category in the parameter hierarchy by using AHP is equal to weight of the category.
According to some embodiments of the invention, equation 1 is utilized for calculating absolute weights of the subjective strength parameters and objective strength parameters.

Equation 1 ensures that the absolute weight of a strength parameter is a function of weights calculated for different categories and sub-categories to which the strength parameter belongs. Where, Wa, i is the absolute weight of a particular strength parameter representing percentage contribution of the particular strength parameter to the patent strength. WLevei i. is weight calculated for a category belonging to level 1, to which the particular strength parameter belongs. WLevei 2 is weight calculated for sub-category belonging to level 2, to which the particular strength parameter

belongs. WLeveiai is weight calculated for the particular strength parameter belonging to level 3 in the paranneter hierarchy.
For example, »,F«niilySiJ.e = WTeclmological Value 304 * WAssignee's Perspective 310 * Wpamily Size 316
According to an embodiment, absolute weights for each strength parameter are desired to be below hundred. In case absolute weights for one or more strength parameters as calculated by equation 1 are more than hundred, absolute weights of all the strength parameters may be divided by 10"^, wherein, m is a real number and is selected appropriately to ensure that value of absolute weight of all the strength parameters is below hundred.
Thereafter, strength of the patent is calculated by calculating patent score based on linear combination of the weights of the strength parameters and the strength parameter values of each of the strength parameters for the patent, at step 430. Equation 2 is utilized for calculating the patent score of the patent.

WhereF(W.,i-V, ) represents a function of W.,andv, .
Equation 2 ensures that the patent score of a patent is a function of weights calculated for different objective and subjective strength parameters and respective values of the objective and the subjective strength parameters for the patent.
Where, n = number of strength parameters used in calculating strength of the patent;
Vj = numerical value (strength parameter value) of a particular strength parameter for the patent.
According to an embodiment of the invention, equation 3 represents the function


(Equation 3)
According to another embodiment of the invention, equation 4 represents the function ofWa.,atid v,
F(W...V.) = W,,.»og:
Vt (Equation 4)
At step 432, relative strength of each of the patents in the patent portfolio is calculated. In an embodiment of the invention, in order to calculate the relative strength of each of the patents, equation 5 is utilized.
■ Calculated Patent Score + k'
Relative Patent Strength = 1000 •
' Highest Patent Score + k'
(Equation 5)
A number k is added to each of the patent scores to ensure that the value of each of the patent scores is above zero. Thereafter, highest patent score is identified and each of the patent scores is divided by the highest patent score to calculate relative strengths of each of the patents.
For example, suppose there are 3 patents in the patent portfolio, P1, P2 and P3.
Patent score of P1 = 100
Patent score of P2 = -20
Patent score of P3 = 25
Now, 21 will be added to each of the patent scores to ensure that all the patent scores are positive.
Therefore, for P1, calculated patent score + 21 = 121
For P2, calculated patent score + 21 = 1
19

For P3, calculated patent score + 21 =46
The highest patent score = 121
Therefore, relative strength of PI = 1000*((calculated patent score for PI + 21)/ (highest patent score + 21)) = 1000*(121/121) = 1000;
relative strength of P2 = 1000*((calculated patent score for P2 + 21)/ (highest patent score + 21)) = 1000*(1/121) = 8.2(3;
relative strength of P3 = 1000*((calculated patent score for P3 + 21)/ (highest patent score + 21)) = 1000*(46/121) = 380.17;
therefore, based on the respective values of relative strengths of PI, P2 and P3; P1 is the strongest patent.
FIG. 5 is a hierarchical diagram illustrating a method of assigning subjective strength parameter values to a patent in the technological hierarchy. A particular level in the technological hierarchy is identified and subjective strength parameter value of a particular subjective strength parameter for the identified level is assigned by processing module 104. In an embodiment of the invention, user 112 identifies a particular level in the technological hierarchy and assigns subjective strength parameter value of a particular subjective strength parameter for the identified level.
In order to assign subjective strength parameter value for infringement detectability 336 to each of the patents in the patent portfolio, user 112 identifies a level in the technological hierarchy and assigns a subjective strength parameter value for infringement detectability 336 to each of the classes belonging to the identified level. For example, user 112 identifies level 1 in the technological hierarchy to associate with infringement detectability 336, Thereafter, user 112 assigns subjective strength parameter values to the classes belonging to level 1. Therefore, subjective strength parameter value for infringement detectability 336 is assigned to hardware 212 and software 214. Suppose user 112 assigns subjective strength parameter value of 3 to hardware 212 and subjective strength parameter value of 5 to software 214, for infringement detectability 336. Further, user 112 provides input to processing module 104 regarding the identified level and assigned subjective strength parameter value
20

for infringement detectability 336, via input module 106. Thereafter, processing module 104 assigns the subjective strength parameter values for infringement detectability 336 to each of the classes, and patents associated with all the levels below level 1 in the technological hierarchy based on input from user 112. Therefore, memory 216, visual display 218, RAM 220, ROM 222, external 224, LCD 221 and CRT 223 are assigned subjective strength parameter value of 3 for infringement detectability 336. Further patents belonging to hardware 212 and each of the classes of hardware 212 are assigned subjective strength parameter value of 3 for infringement detectability 336. Similarly, media player 217 and data retention 219 are assigned subjective strength parameter value of 5 for infringement detectability 336. Thereafter, patents belonging to software 214 and each of the classes of software 214 are assigned subjective strength parameter value of 5 for infringement detectability 336.
In order to assign subjective strength parameter value to a patent in the patent portfolio, for number of classification 330, processing module 104 identifies each of the classes in the technological hierarchy to which the patent belongs based on the technological classification of the patent portfolio prepared by processing module 104. For example, suppose subjective strength parameter value for number of classification 330 has to be determined for a patent A in the patent portfolio. Processing module 104 identifies that patent A belongs to media player 217, LCD 221 and memory 216. Therefore, subjective strength parameter value for number of classification 330 for patent A is 3 Similarly, subjective strength parameter value for number of classification 330 for each of the patents in the patent portfolio is determined by processing module 104.
In order to assign subjective strength parameter value for market size 344 to each of the patents in the patent portfolio, processing module 104 identifies a level in the technological hierarchy and assigns a subjective strength parameter value for market size 344 to each of the classes belonging to the identified level. For example, suppose a level in the technological hierarchy has to be identified to be associated with market size 344 by processing module 104. Processing module 104 identifies number of consumer bought products in a particular level in the technological hierarchy based on data available on the internet for consumer bought products in
21

the technology domain of the patent portfolio. Wherein, the consumer bought products include the products which are independently bought by consumers as separate entities. For example, a consumer may buy ROM with a computer system but will not buy ROM independently as a separate entity. Therefore, ROM will not be considered as a consumer bought product. The level comprising highest number of consumer bought products is selected for associating with market size 344. For example, hardware 212 and software 214 are the two consumer bought products at level 1 in the technological hierarchy. Similarly, memory 216, visual display 218, media player 217 and data retention 219 are the four consumer bought products at level 2 in the technological hierarchy. Further, RAM 220, LCD 2212 and CRT 223 are the three consumer bought products at level 3 in the technological hierarchy. ROM 222 and external 224 are not considered as consumer bought products. Since level 2 has the highest number of consumer bought products, market size 344 is associated with level 2 in the technological hierarchy by processing module 104. Thereafter, processing module 104 assigns a value to market size 344 at level 2 in the technological hierarchy based on sales records of the consumer bought products at level 2 available on the internet. Wherein, sales records may include net worth of total number of units of a particular consumer bought product sold in a particular year. In an embodiment of the invention, the net worth of the particular consumer bought product is calculated by multiplying the number of units of the particular consumer bought product sold in a particular year by market value of each unit of the particular consumer bought product. Further, a scale is defined for assigning values of market size 344 to the different classes at level 2.
For example,
LV = lowest value of net worth of a consumer bought product sold in a year
AV = average value of net worth of a consumer bought product sold in a year
HV = Highest value of net worth of a consumer bought product sold in a year
SD = standard deviation of net worth of a consumer bought product sold in a year
Value of market size 344 for a consumer bought product sold in a year having net worth between (LV - SD) and (LV + SD) = 1
22

Value of market size 344 for a consumer bought product sold in a year having net worth between (AV - SD) and (AV + SD) = 5
Value of market size 344 for a consumer bought product sold in a year having net worth between (HV - SD) and (HV + SD) = 9;
Value of market size 344 for a consumer bought product sold in a year having net worth between (LV - SD) and (LV + SD) and also between (AV - SD) and (AV + SD) = 3;
Value of market size 344 for a consumer bought product sold in a year having net worth between (AV - SD) and (AV + SD) and also between (HV - SD) and (HV + SD)
= 7;
Now suppose,
Net worth of memory 216 sold in 2007 = 19 million;
Net worth of visual display 218 sold in 2007 = 7 million;
Net worth of media player 217 sold in 2007 = 7 million;
Net worth of data retention 219 sold in 2007 = 3 million;
Therefore, LV = 3 million;
AV = (3 + 7 + 7 + 19)/4 = 9 million;
HV= 19 million;
SD = 6 million;
LV - SD = - 3;
LV+ SD = 9;
AV - SD = 3;
AV + SD=12;
HV-SD = 16;
23

HV + SD = 22;
Therefore, value of market size 344 for memory 216 = 9; value of market size 344 for visual display 218 = 3; value of market size 344 for media player 217 = 3; value of market size 344 for data retention 219 = 1;
Thereafter, subsequent levels comprising a plurality of classes and patents 208 associated with the identified level are assigned the subjective strength parameter value for the identified level.
For example, level 2 in the technological hierarchy is identified for assigning the subjective strength parameter value of market size 344. Therefore, subjective strength parameter values are assigned for market size 344 to subsequent levels in the technological hierarchy comprising the plurality of classes and patents 208. Suppose, subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 assigned for memory 216 is 9, then the subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 for RAM 220, ROM 222 and external 224 is 9. Further, the subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 for patents 226 associated with each of RAM 220, ROM 222 and external 224, is 9. Similarly, suppose subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 assigned for visual display 218 is 3 then the subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 for LCD 221 and CRT 223 is 3. Further, the subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 for patents 226 associated with each of LCD 221 and CRT 223 is 3. In case, a particular patent from patents 226 is associated with each of RAM 220 and CRT 223, then the subjective strength parameter value of market size 344 for the patent is 6, which is assigned by taking average of market size 344 values for RAM 220 and CRT 223. While example embodiments of the invention have been illustrated and described, it will be clear that the invention is not limited to these embodiments only. Numerous modifications, changes, variations, substitutions and equivalents will be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
24

WE CLAIM:
1, Computer implemented method for evaluating strength of a patent in a patent
portfolio, the method comprising:
a) storing a technological hierarchy for classifying the patents, the technological hierarchy comprising one or more levels, each level comprising one or more classes;
b) classifying each patent in the technological hierarchy;
c) obtaining a set of subjective strength parameters;
d) for each subjective parameter,
i) selecting a level in the technological hierarchy; ii) assigning a subjective strength parameter value to each class at the identified level;
e) selecting a patent for strength evaluation;
f) assigning subjective strength parameter values to the patent based on the classification of the patent in the technological hierarchy;
g) obtaining a set of objective strength parameters;
h) determining objective strength parameter values for the patent; i) assigning weights of each of the subjective and the objective
strength parameters; and j) calculating the strength of the patent based on the weights and
values of the objective strength parameters and the subjective
strength parameters.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of assigning subjective strength
parameter values comprises;
i) identifying the one or more classes with which the patent
is associated; ii) extracting the subjective strength parameter values
assigned to the one or more classes from a database; ill) assigning the extracted subjective strength parameter
values to the patent;
25

The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining weight of each of the subjective and objective strength parameters further comprises calculating importance of each of the subjective and the objective strength parameters towards the strength of the patent by using analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
4. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of calculating the strength of the patent based on the weights and the values of the objective and the subjective strength parameters further comprises linear combination of the respective weights and values of the objective strength parameters and the subjective strength parameters.
5. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of calculating the strength of the patent based on the weights and the values of the objective and the subjective strength parameters further comprises calculating relative strength of patents based on the calculated strength of patents.
6. A system for evaluating strength of patents in a patent portfolio, the system comprising:
a) a database, the database configured to:
i) store a patent portfolio, the portfolio comprising a plurality
of patents; ii) store a technological hierarchy for classifying the patents,
the technological hierarchy comprising one or more
levels, each level comprising one or more classes; and iii) store a set of subjective and objective strength
parameters; and
b) a processing module, the processing module configured to:
i) classify each patent in the technological hierarchy;
ii) obtain a set of subjective strength parameters;
iii) for each subjective parameter,
1. select a level in the technological hierarchy;
2. assign a subjective strength parameter value to each class at the identified level;
iv) select a patent for v) strength evaluation;
26

vi) assign subjective strength parameter values to the patent
based on the classification of the patent in the
technological hierarchy; vii) obtain a set of objective strength parameters; viii) determine objective strength parameter values for the
patent; ix) assign weight of each of the subjective and the objective
strength parameters; and x) calculate the strength of the patent based on the weights
and the values of the objective and the subjective
strength parameters.
7. The system of claim 6 further comprises:
a) a storage module, the storage module configured to:
i) store classification of each patent in the technological
hierarchy; ii) store the values and weights of the objective and the
subjective strength parameters; and iii) store the calculated strength of each patent in the patent
portfolio;
b) an input module; and
c) an output module.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein the input module is a visual editor.
9. The system in claim 7, wherein the output module is a visual interface.
10. A computer implemented method for evaluating strength of a patent in a patent portfolio, the method comprising:

a) classifying patents in the patent portfolio in a technological hierarchy, wherein the technological hierarchy comprising one or more levels, each level comprising one or more classes;
b) for each of a plurality of subjective strength parameters, i) selecting a level in the technological hierarchy;
ii) assigning a subjective strength parameter value to each class at the identified level;
27

c) assigning subjective strength parameter values to each patent of
the patent portfolio;
d) determining objective strength parameter values for each patent
of the patent portfolio;
e) assigning weights of each of the subjective and the objective
strength parameters; and
f) calculating the strength of the each patent, wherein strength of a
patent is based on the weights and the values of the objective
strength parameters and the subjective strength parameters.