Intellectual property rights and operations research DrAshok K Mittal IIT Kanpur
What is Intellectual Property Ownership Nature of property Tangible Transferable Ownership Intellectual property Transferable Intangible
Who owns the rights Moral Rights : Inventor Creator Commercial Rights : Organisation Fund providor Government Individual Rights are Transferable for a consideration except Moral rights
Type of Intellectual Property Copyright Patents Trade Marks/ Service Marks Design Layout Design for Integrated circuits Protection of New Plant varieties Geographical Indications Trade Secrets
Copy Right Literary works Dramatic works Musical works Artistic works Cinematographic Sound recording Computer programmes
Nature of Right Transfer some or part of the rights Transfer to multiple parties Right not to transfer Registration not required Right only on the form and expression and not on contents Rights are protected in all the participating countries as per the law of that country
Nature of Rights Right to reproduce Right to issue copies Right to perform or communicate Right to make film.video etc Right to translate
When Rights accrue: As soon as the property is created Creativity in the work is must In case of dispute proof for the creation is required
What is not covered Idea or concept Fair use Trivial ( Not creative) material
Patents Inventions that are Novel Non-obvious Useful
Generally not Patentable Discoveries Mathematical Models Scientific Theories Schemes Rules Playing games Method of Business Programmes for computers Presentation of Information
USPTO Guidelines A useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter i.e. it must have a practical application
Novelty An invention is Novel if on the date of filing an application for a patent,its subject matter was Not Published in any Indian patent specification Published in any document anywhere in the world Publicaly known or used in India
Obvious Based on sum total of knowledge available on the relevant field whether the Invention in question will be Obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Rights Granted within the geographical territory of the country( ies) where filed Rights are for the period of Grant Rights can be revoked if it can be shown that grant was not correct Patents to be kept alive by paying fees
Operations Research Deals with solving problems for Industry and Society ( Useful) Deals with Problems where solutions are Not Obvious Uses Models Uses Mathematical Algorithms Uses Computer programme
What has changed: Computer programmes were not subject of patents Mathematical Formulae and Algorithms were not considered subject of patents Method of doing Business were not considered subject of Patents.
What has changed A More liberal views on Software/ Computer Programmes by USPTO Patenting of Business Methods by USPTO/ European PTO and some other countries Paper devices to show functionality
USPTO Guidelines A practical application of a computer related invention is a patentable subject matter In 1996, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office adopted its Final Computer Related Examination Guidelines. These guidelines are designed to assist patent examiners in handling hardware and software related inventions. Since hardware and software are almost always interchangeable, it is not surprising that these guidelines reflect both types of computer related inventions.
Software Patents Continue Those having "significant post solution activity", meaning that the software program is used to control something external to the software routine (such as curing rubber), and those having "pre-computer process activity", meaning software programs that manipulate numbers representing concrete, real world values (such as electrocardiograph signals and seismic measurements.
History In the 1980s, the Supreme Court forced the P.T.O. to change its position. The 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr provided the first instance in which the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the P.T.O. to grant a patent on an invention even though computer software was utilized
History In the early 1990s, the Federal Circuit (the highest court for patent matters other than the Supreme Court) tried to clarify when a software related invention was patentable. The court stated that the invention as a whole should be examined. Is the invention in actuality only a mathematical algorithm, such as a computer program designed to convert binary-coded decimal numbers into binary numbers? If so, then the invention is unpatentable. However, if the invention utilizes the computer to manipulate numbers that represent concrete, real world values (such as a program that interprets electrocardiograph signals to predict arrhythmia or a program that analyzes seismic measurements), then the invention is a process relating to those real world concepts and is patentable.
Business Methods The patentability of business methods at the European Patent Office In this document Introduction The exclusion of Article 52(2) and (3) EPC Assessing novelty Determining inventive step Industrial application See also Examples of granted European business method patents There is, at present, no clear definition of what constitutes a "business method" or what makes it different from other types of methods. The traditional view in Europe is that patents protect technical inventions, and "business", being non-technical, therefore should be excluded from patentability. However, with the rise of e-commerce, it has become more difficult to define the boundary between "technical" and "non-technical". This in turn has led to an increase in the number of software patents and business method patents in Europe.
The 1998 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (1998) altered this situation dramatically. That decision upheld a patent on a software program that was used to make mutual fund asset allocation calculations. In the wake of that decision, companies have been seeking -- and obtaining -- business method patents at a furious pace.
4704724.htm.xml Title routing of network traffic 4744026.htm.xml Title methods and apparatus for efficient resource allocation Abstract a method and apparatus for optimizing resource allocations is disclosed which utilizes the karmarkar algorithm to proceed in the interior of the solution space polytope 4935877.htm.xml Title non-linear genetic algorithms for solving problems
4953106.htm.xml Title technique for drawing directed graphs 5053970.htm.xml Title work scheduling method 5076588.htm.xml Title card game based on decision theory 5136686.htm.xml Title non-linear genetic algorithms for solving problems by finding a fit composition of functions
Business Methods The European Patent Office (EPO) reported in late 2000 that it has about 2,000 pending "business method" applications, which is about twice as much as two years ago. In contrast, the United States Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO) had over 8,000 pending business method applications in 2000 alone.
Business Method Patents Patents on Graphical User Interface Software Patents on Hyperlinking Patents on Business-to-Business Software Patents on Graphical Software Patents on Audio Software and File Formats Patents on Internet Search Engines Patents on Web Standards Internet Purchasing Patents Advertising and Marketing Patents Auctions on the Internet Methods of funding college tuition Miscellaneous Finance Patents Training and Instruction Accounting and Management System
System for determining the queue sequence for serving customers at a plurality of service points A system that determines which customers are to be served at which counter. The system takes user preferences for particular counters into account. Solves the problem of how to provide an apparatus that can pool counters so that one common customer queue can be employed. See T 1002/92 (Petterson) for the Board of Appeals decision resulting in the grant. EP 086 199, filed 20.07.1981, granted 04.08.1987.
A method of holding an auction and uses of the method Blind auction: each participant enters a list with bids for a number of products, which a central computer compares to find the highest bid. Overcomes the drawback of known auctions, in which participants must be physically present, and in which only one item can be auctioned at a time. EP 1 012 764, filed 30.01.1997, granted 16.05.2001. An opposition against this patent (in PDF-format) was filed by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV on 30.01.2002.
Technology Mapping using Patent Literature Dr Ashok K Mittal IIT Kanpur
Technology Mapping To find out all different respective stages of a technology to create an overall picture of that technology s development. To construct a complete sub technology tree of any parent technology. Starting of technology Sub technologies
Technology Velocity Sketch This measures the development pace and maturity / immaturity stage of a technology with any gap in development path. Indicates relevance of sub technology. Indicates commercial interest. Identifies technology gaps.
Application Layer on data Bases Key words Boolean search Conjunction of keywords Phrases Patent Classes Frequencies Exclusion Reference
Procedure Relevance and non relevance operation. Primary key word searches. Sub technology recognition. Proximity, conjunction of keywords for different sub technologies. Certain Index rules created on then basis of results. Technology mapping, Technology velocity sketch
Master Key Words Selection Patent data download Random sampling for manual analysis Manual Relevance check No Store Hit count Rules No Index Rules Proximity searches Relevance check on the basis of the keyword hits Conjunction of Key words HummingBird Diff Tech classes Keyword searches Yes Weighted keywords method In Title In full text Dates of patent filing Analysis and output Keyword extraction In Patent class Yes In Patent no. In Abstract In Assignee name Technology Development path Technology Development velocity Maturity and Gap
Development of Technology Mapping tool for sketch the complete path of specific technology's development. Development of Technology Velocity sketch for measuring the technology s maturity and development pace.
Technology mapping methodology Model preparation a. Filtering patent key term in the frequency of the predictor variables = Coefficient of the equation = Constant of relevancy Probability of 1 1 1 th th i k i f i I i f i e i I i f i e = = = + + = + = β α θ β α β α θ
Contd b. Data preparation: key term vector D ki = { f1, f 2,... f I } { p p } D = 1, 2,... kj p J D ki = Key term vector of the th k patent D kj = Key term pair proximity vector of the th k patent f i = Frequency of th i key term in the k th patent p j = Inverse sum of proximities of th j key-term pair in th k patent
Contd Inverse docum ent frequency (idf) [section skip p ed in fin a l r e s u lts ] ( ) idf = log10 A a A = T o ta l n o. o f a v a ila b le p a te n ts o f sp e c ific te c h n o lo g y a = No. of patents where term i or key term pair j is present W e ig h t te rm s { fw fw } W = 1, 2,... ki fw I { pw pw } W = 1, 2,... kj pw J W ki = W eighted key term vector for th k patent W kj = w e ig h te d k e y p a ir p r o x im ity v e cto r fo r th k patent fw = f idf i pw = p idf j i j i j
Contd c. Relevancy framework SIM i I η ki η lx i = =1 η ki η lx SIM j J η kj η lx j = =1 η kj η lx SIM i and/or SIM j may be demoter or promoter so SIM = SIM + kx 2 i SIM 2 j
Contd d. Classification framework In classification, a term or term pair Should appear frequently in a certain class. Should appear in few documents. Should not distribute very differently among documents in the whole collection. Should distribute very differently among classes. Should not distribute very differently among documents in a class. To exploit this information we introduce following terms Inter class standard deviation (ICSD) Class standard deviation (CSD)
Contd Model implementation Training set preparation 10% sample taken All classification and key term inputs come from this sample relevant patents documents Total patent documents in training = 434 Total SCM related patent documents found = 124 Total non related patent documents = 310
Contd Level I SCM Classification Level II Planning Execution Inventory Management Miscellaneous Logistics management Sales Strategic Operational Assembly Plant management Manufacturing Control facility Tactical Quality control Transportation management Decision Support system E commerce Information system
Contd Level III Tactical planning Mfg Planning & scheduling Inventory planning SC planning Product development planning Available to promise Strategic planning Operational planning Business Strategy for SC Enterprise & site planning Transportation planning Production scheduling
Contd Enterprise security E- commerce E commerce control system Electronic Fund transfer Network Based Sc Web commerce M commerce Online shopping Assembly Plant management Inventory management Logistics management Assembly System management Assembly Line management Assembly integration Inventory control Inventory optimization Logistics control Logistics Operation management
Contd Inventory IS Information System (IS) Asset tracking system Freight Distribution system SC network IS Decision Support system Manufacturing Control facility miscellaneous Logistic DSS Best To-do match Training system Mfg Control station Monitoring Sc Financial management Sc models
Contd Key term vector preparation for filtering and mining Key term for hit Key term pairs for proximity With Porter stemming algorithm 317 154 Filtering No of total USPTO patent documents = 4342 Patent documents after filtering = 1098 Threshold used =.42
Contd Relevancy Relevant patent documents found = 219 Threshold used =.59 Classification No. of classes in level I = 2 No. of classes in level II = 12 No. of classes in level III = 40
Technology mapping of supply chain management Supply chain management growth pattern 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Patenting frequency 2004 Patenting year
Technology mapping of supply chain management SCM Major assignees Assignee IBM SC planning patent frequency 6 SC planning % share 15% SC execution patent frequency 22 SC execution % share 12% i2 Technologies 16 41% 6 3% Hitachi Ltd 2 5.1% 3 1.6% CIENA Corp. 0 0% 3 1.6% Toshiba 0 0% 2 1.11% Philips electronics 1 2.5% 5 2.7% Ford motor company 0 0% 2 1.11% SAP 1 2.5% 3 1.6%
Contd Technology mapping methodology Model preparation 10%Data Training set preparation Downloaded patent document pool Full data processing Model implementation Non Relevant Relevant Relevancy index Relevancy model part implementation Relevant Non Relevant Class A Class B Class C Classification indexes Classification model part implementation Class A Class B Class C