US20100131513A1 - Patent mapping - Google Patents
Patent mapping Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20100131513A1 US20100131513A1 US12/605,030 US60503009A US2010131513A1 US 20100131513 A1 US20100131513 A1 US 20100131513A1 US 60503009 A US60503009 A US 60503009A US 2010131513 A1 US2010131513 A1 US 2010131513A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- concept
- database
- user
- concepts
- mapping
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F16/00—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
- G06F16/30—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor of unstructured textual data
- G06F16/33—Querying
- G06F16/3331—Query processing
Definitions
- Tools for identifying patents for a particular purpose such as a prior art search, validity analysis, or a freedom to operate investigation, operate by performing Boolean queries using various search operators. These operators allow for searching by date, terms, document number, and patent classification, among others. These tools further allow for searching individual document portions such as a document title, abstract, or claim set.
- search tools often provide large numbers of results, most of which are irrelevant. These tools fail to present results in a manner allowing for quick relevancy determinations. The presentation also fails to provide enough detail suggesting how to adjust a search for obtaining only relevant results. Further, the search tools provide the documents of the result set in a manner very similar to the traditional paper format of the documents.
- FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system, according to an example embodiment.
- FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a server device, according to an example embodiment.
- FIGS. 3-8 are data model diagrams, according to example embodiments.
- FIGS. 9-15 are user interfaces, according to example embodiments.
- FIGS. 16-22 are example generated charts, according to example embodiments.
- FIG. 23 is a computer system, according to an example embodiment.
- a patent portfolio may comprise one or more patents that may or may not be commonly owned or related.
- the collection of patent portfolios and patents may be stored in one or more databases.
- a patent may belong to more than one portfolio at the same time.
- the underlying patents and patent claims included in each patent portfolio may be categorized by patent concepts (sometimes referred herein as concepts) such as scope concepts (SC) and technology categories (TC).
- technology categories are categories that claims relate to, but are not necessarily limited to.
- a claim to a pulse generator may be put in the technology category “pacemaker”, but not be limited to a pacemaker per se—perhaps the claim merely says that the pulse generator generates a pulse of certain type that is useful for pacing, but pacing does not appear in the claim.
- the claim relates to the technology category “pacemaker,” but it is not limited to being a pacemaker.
- scope concepts are concepts that a claim is limited to. This is contrast to technology categories, where the claim may be mapped to a TC but it not necessarily limited to it.
- a scope concept may defined in a way to give the concept a context that a user can understand without necessarily having to look at the corresponding claim language. For example, if the scope concept is “method or apparatus for cardiac rhythm management”, and it is mapped to claim A, then claim A by definition is limited to this application, such that if a target device does not perform cardiac rhythm management, then it would not infringe claim A.
- scope concepts there are two types of scope concepts: 1) high level scope concepts that are like technical categories in the sense they are broad and general and apply to many claims in a portfolio; and 2) scope concepts that are specific to a limited number of claims—for example all claims in a patent may be limited to a very specific distinguishing feature, and this feature could be the basis for a scope concept.
- high level scope concepts may be defined prior to mapping, and then assigned as applicable. For example, several scope concepts like: atrial pacing, ventricular pacing, defibrillation method or device, etc, may be defined. Then a mapping team may go through all claims in a portfolio and map these scope concepts to claims that are limited to these concepts. After the mapping is complete, an analysis may be done showing how many claims in the portfolio are limited to each of these scope concepts, and the claims may be presented for each SC. This may be useful is disqualify claims that are not of interest to a particular target (e.g., if an analysis is being done to find a claim that covers an alleged infringer). In some example embodiments, specific scope concepts are mapped patent by patent or by patent family.
- scope concepts may enable a person to create one or two scope concepts that can be mapped across all claims in given patent, a family of patents, or across a portion of a patent portfolio.
- a scope concept that may be globally useful across a patent portfolio, it may be useful to be able to examine multiple patent claims at the same time even if they are not all in the same patent or patent family.
- FIG. 1 illustrates an example system to implement the methods described herein. Shown is a user 102 and a user device 104 .
- the user device 104 may be, for example, a personal computer, mobile phone, or personal digital assistant.
- the user device 104 may be a computer system as described in FIG. 17 . Users of the system may include specialized personnel trained to map patent claims as well as personnel trained to analyze the resulting claim map.
- the user device 102 may communicate with a server device 106 over a network 108 (e.g., the Internet) using a variety of communication means including, but not limited to, wired and wireless communication.
- the server device 106 may be a computer system as described in FIG. 17 .
- the user 102 requests patent claims 110 from the server device 106 and transmits concept mappings 112 back to the server device 106 through the user device 104 via the network 108 .
- one or more software applications are executed on the user device which facilitate the interactions and data transmissions between user 102 , user device 104 , and server device 106 .
- Other information needed to complete the methods described herein may be transmitted between the user device 102 and server device 106 according to example embodiments.
- FIG. 2 illustrates an example server device 200 .
- the server device includes one or more modules, databases, and engines.
- the various modules, databases, and engines may interact with each other and may take on the functionality of other modules, databases, and engines.
- Databases generally refer to sets of data stored in tables and may be implemented using a variety of database solutions including Oracle and MySQL.
- Engines generally refer to the generation of a product/image that is presented to a user (e.g., a webpage).
- Modules generally refer to functionality or features of the system that a user may invoke.
- the mapping module may provide the necessary logic to create a mapping between a concept and a patent claim.
- server device 200 includes an account database 202 , a mining module 204 , visualization engine 206 , a web server engine 208 , a ranking module 210 , a patent database 212 , a valuation module 214 , a tracking module 216 , a concept database 218 , a patent claim database 220 , a patent set database 222 , a mapping module 224 , and an ontology database 226 .
- the modules, engines, and databases are implemented in a combination of software and hardware.
- a mapping module can be stored as set of instructions stored on a machine-readable medium. The instructions can be executed on a processor and cause a machine to perform operations related to mapping.
- the visual presentation of data in not limited to engines and may be done by modules as well.
- engines may contain underlying logic dictating on how each engine functions and interacts with the user, software, and hardware of the system.
- the modules, engines, and databases are combined.
- the account database 202 includes data pertaining to the different users of the system.
- different levels of user are defined. For example, an administrator level allows the creation of an ontology (e.g., a collection of patent concepts and keywords) and mapping of patent claims while an analysis level user may only mine the map for patent claims.
- the web server engine 208 may present webpages to the user via the user device. The webpages may include forms and user interfaces for the user to interact with such that the user may manipulate the underlying data stored on the server device on one or more databases.
- databases 212 , 218 , 220 , 222 , and 226 store the underlying data that the server device interacts with and modifies according to user input.
- the patent database 212 may include information related to all the patents stored in the system such as title, filing data, assignee, etc.
- the concept database 218 may store all the concepts that have been defined either by the user or automatically by the system.
- the patent claim database 220 may include information related to patent claims including which patent they belong to as well as concepts that have been mapped to the patent claims.
- the patent set database 222 may store information on sets of patents that have been defined by the user.
- a patent set may be defined by exclusion mining (e.g., the set of patents that have NOT been mapped to a certain concept).
- the ontology database 226 may store information on a user defined set of concepts.
- the mapping module 224 enables a user to map a concept to a patent claim.
- the user may create and define a patent concept which is then stored in the concept database.
- the user may then send an indication, through the user device, that a patent claim in the patent claim database 220 should be mapped to the new concept.
- the indication may take the form of a type of user input such as clicking on an interface using an input device.
- the server device may then store this mapping in the patent claim database. For example, a relationship between the patent claim and concept may be stored in one or more of the databases.
- the mining module 204 allows a user to search through the data stored in the databases to find patent claims of interest. For example, a user may wish to find all the patent claims related to a gear used in a bicycle. Rather than having the user define what the gear is, the user may indicate to the mining module what the gear is not, by indicating what concepts do not apply (exclusion mining).
- the mining module may search the entire universe of claims in the patent claim database, or a portion of the patent claim database, and retrieve the remaining patent claims (those claims that not have the concept) and present them to the user.
- the visualization engine in an example embodiment, generates reports and visual depictions of the data contained in a set of claims.
- the visualization engine may generate a spreadsheet with the concepts in the concept database as rows and the patent claims as the columns.
- Color coding may be used to signify where a patent claim has been mapped to a concept.
- a user of the system may add additional data that influences the spreadsheet created.
- Some example embodiments include the generation of competitor landscape, freedom to operate, product coverage, validity, valuation, white space analysis, and white space claim generation spreadsheets.
- other forms of coding are used such as shading and patterning.
- the tracking module 216 maintains information related to a specific patent, group of patents, or concept.
- the tracking module may store information related to a patent's prosecution and litigation history such as office actions or claim amendments.
- Alerts e.g., electronic mail
- the ranking module 210 and valuation module 214 enable the user to provide additional information related to patents, patent claims, and concepts that may be used to determine a course of action such as abandoning a patent or pursing research in a specific field.
- a user may indicate a specific concept as being key to her business.
- a lawyer or other trained patent professional may provide a ranking for each patent included in her portfolio related to scope, design around protection, and detectability effort.
- the system may take this knowledge and through the visualization engine generate a chart that shows the highest ranked patents that also include her important concept.
- data models are defined to store the information related to the patents being analyzed.
- FIGS. 3-8 illustrate example data models that may be utilized. These may be defined in any suitable programming language such as C, C++, Java, Ruby, etc, that allows the manipulation of data models.
- data models are referred to as classes and both terms will be used in the following descriptions.
- an object may refer to a specific instance of a class or data model.
- FIGS. 3-8 provide the lower level details of the information stored in databases 212 , 218 , 220 , 222 and 226 .
- FIG. 3 illustrates data models related generally to mappable data. Shown are models and relationships for a Patent 302 , Mappable Data 304 , Patent Specification 306 , Global Patent Ranking 308 , Mapping 310 , claim 312 , Concept 314 , Concept Type 316 , Patent Inclusion 318 , Patent Relation 320 , Ontology Relationships 322 , Ontology 324 , Mapping Status 326 , and Ontology Concept 328 .
- Each model may contain one or more elements that are defined either by the system or a user. Further, as illustrated, some models are related to each in other in a one to many relationship. For example, an Ontology object 324 may be related to many Ontology Concept objects 328 .
- Patent model 302 includes types of information related to a patent including, but not limited to, whether or not it is an application, the number of claims, when it was filed, what organization it may belong to, the serial number, and its status. As can be seen, each piece of information may have an associated class such as a Boolean or string. In some cases, the type is actually another class (e.g, global ranking has a class of Global Ranking). Further shown are the elements of a data model that relate to another data model. For example, example Mapping Status 326 , Patent Relation 320 , Patent Inclusion 318 , and claim 312 models all include an element of patent with a class of Patent. This relationship allows the system to examine a Claim class and determine the Patent in which the Claim is included.
- the Mapping 310 data model defines persistent objects that define the relationships between the a concept (e.g., technology categories and scope concept), a claim, and an ontology.
- a Mapping 320 class may include, such as, but not limited to, citations, notes, ontology, concept type and claim.
- many Mapping objects may be related to one Ontology object and one Claim object. Thus, if one were to examine a Mapping object, there would be a relationship defining the ontology to which the object belongs to as well as the claim to which it has been assigned.
- each type of concept may be enumerated as well as be defined by an integer value.
- the concept of scope concept may be given the value of ‘1.’
- the “object” element illustrated has an associated class of Concept 314 .
- the Mapping object may be linked to an example concept that has been defined as “two wheeled transportation.”
- the mapping operation element may define the relationship between the cited claim and the concept.
- a concept may be directly mapped to a claim.
- Other possibilities are discussed further with reference to FIG. 10 .
- a Mapping object may contain the following information with regards to some of the displayed elements.
- a Concept 314 object is created for every user defined concept as well as any concept the system may define automatically.
- Each Concept 314 may contain, but is not limited to elements of, conceptType, description, hidden, intelliMapAllowed, keywordLabel, name, organization, and underReview.
- a Concept 314 object may contain an enumeration of the ConceptType 316 object.
- the conceptType element may have an example value of “scope concept.”
- the description element may describe when a concept should be applied to a claim or other helpful information relating to the concept.
- the intelliMapAllowed Boolean may indicate whether the system may automatically apply the concept to other claims included in the system.
- a concept type might be “keyword.” These keywords may be verbatim phrases or individual words in the claim. Thus, a user may be able to safely have the system search other claims and find the same keyword and automatically create Mapping 310 objects for the keyword and found claims. The intelliMapAllowed may indicate whether the system should search automatically for these keywords.
- the OntologyConcept 328 class only contains two elements, ontology and concept.
- An Ontology Concept 328 may be created to signify the relationship between a Concept 314 object and an Ontology 324 object.
- an Ontology 324 object may include many OntologyConcept objects.
- a Concept 314 object may belong to many OntologyConcept 328 objects.
- PatentInclusion 318 object may include elements of inclusionType, patent, patentSet, ranking, reviewed, and ruleType.
- a PatentInclusion 318 object may be used to signify the relationship between a patent and a patentSet. This relationship is more fully explained with reference to FIG. 4 .
- FIG. 4 illustrates data models related, generally, to mining mapped data. Shown are models and relationships for PatentOpinion 402 , IncludedClaim 404 , ScheduledIntelliMap 406 , PatentSet 408 , ConceptExclusion 410 , PortfolioDomain 412 , PatentSearch 414 , PatentInclusion 416 , LocalPatentRanking 418 , TextInclusion 420 , ConceptInclusion 422 , and Concept 424 classes.
- classes with the same name as in FIG. 3 are defined similarly.
- Concept class 424 may contain the same elements as Concept class 314 . However, as illustrated, additional functions are included that may operate on the class. For example, function “createCopy( )” is illustrated in Concept class 424 .
- the PatentSet 408 class operates as the central class for mining. As illustrated, many of the other classes shown relate to the PatentSet 408 class.
- a PatentSet object may have many PatentInclusion 416 , ConceptExclusion 410 , and IncludedClaim 404 objects.
- a PatentSet object may have many ConceptInclusion 422 objects related to it by virtue of the PatentSearch 414 class.
- a Patent Set may be defined. This may be done by a user adding claims manually or by a more sophisticated method involving a user defining which concepts to exclude or include.
- the various data models support an almost endless amount of customization for users of the system in the creation of patent sets.
- the created patent sets may be saved for future use, as well as themselves becoming the basis for creating a new patent set.
- This may enable a user to efficiently search through any number of patents.
- the system may operate in such a manner that when a request is made to retrieve patents included in a patent set, the system responds by applying the relationships defined by the objects for that patent set. For example, the ConceptExclusion objects.
- This execution method may allow newly mapped patents to be included or excluded from the patent set with no additional input from a user.
- the ability to create patent sets and combine them may greatly speed up the process of finding common concepts across patents.
- FIG. 5 illustrates data models related, generally, to annuity data. Shown are models and relationships for Patent 502 , ClaimMappedUser 504 , AnnuityInformation 506 , PatentRanking 508 , ScoringCriteria 510 , and Scorer objects 512 .
- patents may be given a rating.
- only the broadest independent claim in each patent is given a ranking, as the broadest claim will often have the most value.
- the patent claims may be ranked according to multiple criteria, including, but not limited to scope, detectability, and the ability to design around the patent.
- the ranking information may be stored in a PatentRanking object and retrieved through the Scorer interface.
- Each criteria may be given a weighting depending on the client's needs. For example, a client may decide that scope is twice as important as the other two criteria. Therefore, the formula to rank the patents may be:
- results may be presented to the user in a web browser, in the form of a chart, or using any other suitable display mechanism.
- An AnnuityInformation object may include information related to annuities for an issued patent. Depending on the rating and annuity information of a patent, a user may automatically let patents go abandoned, a user may be alerted, or an annuity may automatically be paid. Other example embodiments will be obvious to one skilled in the art.
- FIG. 6 illustrates data models related generally to patent tracking.
- FIG. 7 illustrates data models related generally to products and features.
- FIG. 8 illustrates data models related generally to technology hierarchies.
- FIG. 9 illustrates an example user interface that may be utilized to facilitate the methods described to map patent claims, according to an example embodiment.
- Displayed is the title 902 of a patent portfolio, controls are also illustrated that allow a user to edit to the portfolio, list the patents in the portfolio, “quick rank,” and generate a panoramic claim map.
- the “Default Ontology” 904 is also shown.
- “Quick Rank” allows a user to map all the patent claims in a patent to concepts at the same time.
- An ontology in an example embodiment, includes the different concepts available to a user to map to one or more of the patent claims.
- search criteria box 906 which allows a user to specify a search query.
- the search expression box 910 may allow a user to specify a regular expression to use as a search query. There is also an option to have keywords highlighted 912 in the search results. In an example embodiment, this may include the searched for keywords or keywords that have previously been mapped to the claims. Also shown are options to narrow the search results by technology categories 914 and scope concepts 916 .
- FIG. 10 illustrates a method to map concepts to patent claims according to an example embodiment.
- a user interface such as the one illustrated in FIG. 9 may be used to facilitate this example method. Further, in an example embodiment, the method may be implemented using the data models and server device described above (e.g., server device 106 with reference to FIG. 1 ).
- a database of patent portfolios and a database of patents are maintained, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios.
- a database management system may be used (DBMS) for storing and retrieving data from a data store which includes the database of patents and database of patent portfolios.
- the DBMS is a relational database management system (RDBMS).
- the data store includes storing data in a Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS).
- RDFS Resource Description Framework Schema
- communication with the data store includes using a language such as Structured Query Language (SQL) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML).
- SQL Structured Query Language
- XML eXtensible Markup Language
- a database of ontologies may also be maintained, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts.
- an ontology may include all the metadata (patent concepts) that one may wish to map to a patent claim.
- the one or more patent concepts may include a technology category.
- the one or more patent claims may also include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited. Keywords may also be used as patent concepts. These may be any term or short phrase that appears in the claim, exactly as it appears in the claim. As these terms are taken from the claims, they may be thought of as limitations in the sense that if the term cannot be read on an accused device, the claim probably does not cover the accused device.
- Example user interfaces showing scope concepts in an ontology can be seen with reference to FIG. 11 .
- a search query associated with a first patent portfolio is retrieved.
- a user of the system may wish to search a previously created portfolio of patents.
- a patent portfolio may include patents that a user wishes to analyze.
- a portfolio might include all of the patents for a company ABC Corp (ABC).
- a portfolio may be stored and defined as a patent set in the patent set database (e.g., patent set database 222 in FIG. 2 ) ABC might have received information on a potential infringing product.
- ABC may wish to map its entire patent portfolio and use the resulting mapped portfolio to quickly find the best claims to assert in an infringement lawsuit.
- These patents may also be added to the portfolio as it is likely ABC's patents and the alleged infringer's patents will have overlapping subject matter.
- the search query may help to narrow down the patent.
- the search query many include a regular expression. For example, if the search query is “*” all the patent claims in the patent portfolio will be displayed. Boolean expressions such as “car && dog” may also be used. In some example embodiments, an option is included to only search independent claims, dependent claims, or to search both.
- the portfolio may further be narrowed by using patent concepts that have been included in the current ontology.
- FIG. 12 shows an example user interface with example options available to search by technology category.
- An example option is presented allowing a user to search technology categories disjunctively or conjunctively.
- each technology category in the ontology is shown to the user with three example options “Direct mapped claims,” “Direct Mapped or ‘Does Not Map,’” and “Direct Mapped or ‘Unresolved.’” These terms will be discussed in greater detail with respect to block 1010 .
- FIG. 13 shows an example user interface with example options available to search by scope concept.
- each scope concept in the ontology is shown to the user with four example options “Direct mapped claims,” “Do not include Direct Mapped or ‘Does Not Map,’” “Direct Mapped or ‘Does Not Map,’” and “Direct Mapped and ‘Unresolved.’” These terms will be discussed in greater detail with respect to block 1010 .
- the first portfolio is searched as a function of the search query.
- search results 918 are generated, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query.
- a query may be formatted as an SQL query or other suitable format to query the underlying databases.
- Generating the search results may include retrieving patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms as well as plural versions of terms in the search query.
- the results of the query may then be presented to the user in an example user interface as shown in FIG. 9 .
- a plurality of patent claims are mapped to a patent concept.
- a database of patent claims may be maintained.
- the database of patent claims may be administered and interacted with using a DBMS as described above.
- each patent claim may have one or more patent concepts that have been mapped to the claim.
- the relationship between a patent concept and a patent claim may take on many forms. For example, the relationship may be one where the patent concept is directly mapped to a patent claim.
- This may indicate that a user who looked at the claim made the decision that the patent claim was in a particular technology category, for example.
- Another relationship may indicate that a patent concept is not mapped to a patent claim. If a user is sure that a particular claim is not in a technology category, for example, it may be beneficial for that information to be saved so that the mapping process is not unnecessarily duplicative.
- a user may select one or more patent claims to map based on the radio buttons displayed.
- the “Unresolved” radio button may indicate that a user is not sure whether the concept should be mapped to the patent claim. This may be helpful in cases where the user does not have the legal or technical expertise to make a decision one way or another. A more senior user may then review the unresolved patent claims en masse at a later time.
- the last radio button may indicate that a user does not wish to have any relationship defined between the patent claim and a patent concept.
- the “No Operation” radio button is selected by default for all the patent claims returned from the search query.
- a user may further indicate a preference of which category of patent concept to map.
- a user interface is presented to the user corresponding to his or her preference. For example, FIG. 14 , may be presented.
- FIG. 14 illustrates an example search box 1402 and an example search results 1404 section. Across the top is an option to add a new patent concept 1406 (see FIG. 15 for a more detailed look at an example method to add a patent concept). Other options may include returning to the main mapping screen (e.g. FIG. 9 ) or canceling the mapping.
- the search box allows a user to search across an entire ontology for potential patent concepts. Similar to searching for patent claims, a user may enter a regular expression such as ‘*’ to retrieve all the concepts included in the present ontology. For example, the results of the search 1404 displayed in FIG. 14 only returns “multiple blades.” A checkbox is presented allowing a user to select the concept 1408 .
- a user may select more than one of the concepts by selecting the respective checkboxes next to the patent concepts.
- a checkbox at the top of the results may be selected if a user wishes to select all 1410 of the concepts returned from the ontology search.
- An option to “modify and map” 1412 may be selected if the user wishes to modify the concept. This may be useful if a user wishes to broaden the concept so that it may be mapped to more patent claims.
- a narrow technology category may have been defined as “power computer speakers.” Rather than a user defining a new technology category of “passive computer speakers,” the user might decide it makes more logical sense to only have one technology category titled “computer speakers.” In an example embodiment, the user can safely select “modify and map” and change the technology category to “computer speakers.” This may safely be done because all “powered computer speakers” are also “computer speakers.” In an example embodiment, every patent claim, regardless of which portfolio(s) it may be included in, will be updated to reflect the modified concept. Thus, it may not be advisable to narrow a concept without being certain every patent claim in the system adheres to the modified concept. In an example embodiment, a warning may be displayed to the user explaining the effects of modifying a concept.
- an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the plurality of claims in the database of patents may be stored (e.g., updating one or more databases). This may be accomplished, for example, by the user selecting the map button as displayed in FIG. 14 . As discussed above, a user may have selected multiple patent claims resulting from searching and may have further indicated a preference for one or more patents claims to have concepts directly mapped as well as indicated a preference to have one or more patent claims have patent concepts not mapped. Thus, in an example embodiment, the indication of the relationship may include an indication that the plurality of patent claims are not mapped to the patent concept. In an example embodiment, the indication of the relationship includes an indication that the plurality of patent claims are mapped to the patent concept.
- mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. Defining the patent concept may be initiated by a user clicking on the example “add_new” button 1406 as displayed in FIG. 14 .
- An example user interface that may be presented to the user in response to this selection is illustrated in FIG. 15 .
- Two example options may be presented, “Save” and “Cancel.”
- the concept name may be the actual concept and may be, for example, either a technology category or a scope concept.
- a user may indicate which category of patent concept the new concept belongs using a pull down menu. The user may further wish to add the concept to an existing ontology by selecting one or more ontologies as presented in FIG. 15 .
- the system may allow the generation of visual representation of the data included in the databases to further maximize the value of concepts to patent claims.
- the charts may be interactive.
- a method to generate the charts includes formulating a query to send to one or more databases, the query requesting whether or not a set of patent claims have been mapped to a set of patent concepts.
- An additional query may be sent to the databases to determine additional metadata about the patent claims including, but not limited to, the filing data and owner of each patent.
- Ranking data may be received for each patent concept retrieved from the databases.
- the system generates a relationship between a ranking, a patent concept, and a patent claim and displays the relationship to the user in the form of a chart.
- the ranking data may be stored in the database or may be received from a user.
- ranking data may include integer values of disparate range (e.g., 1-10 or 1-100) alphabetical letters (e.g., a grading scale of A-F), or any other means to characterize a claim or concept.
- a competitor landscape chart may be generated.
- An example simple competitor landscape chart is shown in FIG. 16 . Shown is the title, patent number, filing data, total claims, each independent claim, and owner of each patent in a patent set.
- the patent set may reflect the patents owned by the competitors of a company requesting the map.
- the scope concepts that have been mapped to the patent claims in the patent set may be displayed as rows in the chart. If a scope concept has been mapped to a patent claim than the intersecting cell between the patent claim and concept may be filled in, checked, change color, patterned, shaded or otherwise have an indication of the mapping. Additional columns may indicate the competitor that first introduced a concept as well as the date it was introduced.
- each patent that has a concept mapped to at least one of the claims and examining the dates of each of the matching patents.
- the scope concepts may be sorted by frequency. Each competitor may be assigned a color or other designation such that a user may quickly determine which company owns each patent as well as who introduced what concepts first.
- a product coverage chart may be generated.
- An example product coverage chart is shown in FIG. 17 .
- relevant patent information for patents included in the patent set is displayed.
- displayed is a column titled “Has Feature?” This column may have values ranging from one to three signifying the degree to which the product includes the concept. For example, a value of three may mean the product definitely includes the concept and a value of one means the product definitely does not relate to the concept. Based on these values, the chart may dynamically update and determine values for the claim coverage and product coverage rows.
- SC 1 and SC 5 both have a rating of ‘3’ and are present in all of the claims of patent “Title 1 .”
- “Title 1 ” has a claim coverage of ‘3’ and a product coverage value of “potentially applies.” It is only “potentially applies” because it cannot be known for certain whether the patent applies but only that that SC 1 and SC 5 are present in the claims.
- scope concepts always describe limitations, if a claim has two scope concepts mapped, as shown with respect to the claims in patent “Title 2 ,” the lowest ratings score will control the claim coverage.
- SC 6 is described as not being present in the product and the “Title 2 ” claims have been mapped to SC 6 . Therefore, regardless of the fact the SC 3 has also been mapped and the product has this feature, the “Title 2 ” claims cannot apply to the product as they are at least limited to SC 6 .
- This chart may also allow interactivity with a user.
- This interactivity may include the user changing the “Has feature” values and the chart automatically updating the claim coverage and product coverage rows. For example, if the SC 1 rating was changed to ‘1,’ the claim coverage value of the patent “Title 1 ” may change to “1” signifying the patent does not apply to the product.
- any changes that result from input from the user are highlighted on the chart. This may allow a user to quickly see the effects of potential changes to product coverage.
- FIG. 18 illustrates an example freedom to operate chart.
- a freedom to operate chart allows a user to quickly see which patents may be necessary to obtain licenses from or purchase to produce a product, sell a service, etc.
- FIG. 18 is similar to FIG. 17 except for in place of a “Has feature?” column there is a “Need Feature?” column The values in this column may represent whether or not, and to what extent, a user believes a feature is necessary in his or her product.
- a ‘3’ may indicate that the scope concept is necessary, a ‘2’ may indicate the scope concept is wanted, but not needed, and a ‘1’ may indicate the scope concept is not needed.
- FIG. 19 illustrates an example claim/patent valuation chart.
- a claim/patent valuation chart allows a user to see which patents/claims may be necessary to license, etc., to maximize the value of a currently owned patent or patent claim.
- FIG. 19 is similar to FIG. 17 except the values in the ratings column reflect whether or not a scope concept is necessary to maximize a patent's value. The values in this column may represent whether or not, and to what extent, a user believes a feature is necessary in maximize a patent's value.
- a ‘3’ may indicate that the scope concept is necessary, a ‘2’ may indicate the scope concept is wanted, but not needed, and a ‘1’ may indicate the scope concept is not needed.
- FIG. 20 illustrates an example validity chart.
- a validity chart allows a user to see the overlap between a patent and a patent set.
- FIG. 20 is similar to FIG. 17 except the values in the ratings column reflect whether or not a feature is shown in the patent in question (the patent to which the patent set is being compared). The values in this column may represent whether or not, and to what extent, a user believes a feature is present in the patent in question.
- a ‘3’ may indicate that the scope concept is shown, a ‘2’ may indicate the scope concept is possibly shown, and a ‘1’ may indicate the scope concept is not shown.
- the claim status row shown in FIG. 20 reflects the extent to which the patent in question and the patents in the patent set overlap.
- FIG. 21 illustrates an example white space analysis chart.
- a white space analysis chart allows a user to see the frequency in which scope concepts appear in a patent set. In some embodiments there are scope concepts that are in no patent claims. The chart may be color coded to allow a user to quickly ascertain the least frequently used scope concepts.
- FIG. 22 illustrates an example white space claim generation chart. In an example embodiment the generated chart illustrates suggested combinations of unclaimed combinations of existing scope concepts as well as suggested combinations of new scope concepts with existing scope concepts.
- FIG. 23 shows a diagrammatic representation of a machine in the example form of a computer system 2300 within which a set of instructions for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein may be executed.
- the machine operates as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines.
- the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a server-client network environment or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment.
- the machine may be a Personal Computer (PC), a tablet PC, a Set-Top Box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine.
- PC Personal Computer
- PDA Personal Digital Assistant
- STB Set-Top Box
- WPA Personal Digital Assistant
- Example embodiments can also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems which are linked (e.g., either by hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired and wireless connections) through a network both perform tasks.
- program modules may be located in both local and remote memory-storage devices (see below).
- the example computer system 2300 includes a processor 2302 (e.g., a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 2304 and a static memory 2306 , which communicate with each other via a bus 2308 .
- the computer system 2300 may further include a video display unit 2310 (e.g., a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) or a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)).
- a processor 2302 e.g., a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) or both
- main memory 2304 e.g., a main memory 2304 and a static memory 2306 , which communicate with each other via a bus 2308 .
- the computer system 2300 may further include a video display unit 2310 (e.g., a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) or a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)).
- LCD Liquid Crystal Display
- CRT Cathode
- the computer system 2300 may also includes an alphanumeric input device 2312 (e.g., a keyboard), a User Interface (UI) cursor controller (e.g., a mouse), a disc drive unit 2316 , a signal generation device 2318 (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device (e.g., a transmitter) 2320 .
- UI User Interface
- the computer system 2300 may also includes an alphanumeric input device 2312 (e.g., a keyboard), a User Interface (UI) cursor controller (e.g., a mouse), a disc drive unit 2316 , a signal generation device 2318 (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device (e.g., a transmitter) 2320 .
- UI User Interface
- a signal generation device 2318 e.g., a speaker
- a network interface device e.g., a transmitter
- the disc drive unit 2316 includes a machine-readable medium 2328 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions 2317 and data structures (e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions illustrated herein.
- the software may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 2304 and/or within the processor 2302 during execution thereof by the computer system 2300 , the main memory 2304 and the processor 2302 also constituting machine-readable media.
- the instructions 2317 may further be transmitted or received over a network (e.g., the INTERNET) 2326 via the network interface device 2320 utilizing any one of a number of well-known transfer protocols (e.g., HTTP, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)).
- a network e.g., the INTERNET
- HTTP HyperText Transfer Protocol
- SIP Session Initiation Protocol
- machine-readable medium should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more sets of instructions.
- the term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any of the one or more of the methodologies illustrated herein.
- the term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic medium.
Abstract
Description
- This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/107,930 filed Oct. 23, 2008, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and made a part hereof.
- This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/494,278, entitled “Patent Mapping,” by Steven W. Lundberg, Janal M. Kalis, and Pradeep Sinha, filed Jul. 27, 2006, which is incorporated herein by reference; and is further related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/888,632, entitled “Patent Tracking,” by Steven W. Lundberg and Janal M. Kalis, filed Aug. 1, 2007 which is incorporated herein by reference; and is further related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/710,656, entitled “Patent Mapping,” by Steven W. Lundberg, Janal M. Kalis, and Pradeep Sinha, filed Jul. 27, 2004 which is incorporated herein by reference and corresponding PCT application PCT/US2005/026768 filed Jul. 27, 2005.
- Tools for identifying patents for a particular purpose such as a prior art search, validity analysis, or a freedom to operate investigation, operate by performing Boolean queries using various search operators. These operators allow for searching by date, terms, document number, and patent classification, among others. These tools further allow for searching individual document portions such as a document title, abstract, or claim set.
- Other searching tools accept freeform text. Such tools accept a freeform text block and extract information from the text block deemed most likely to return acceptable results. However, such tools are still limited to only performing Boolean queries and displaying a list of results.
- These search tools often provide large numbers of results, most of which are irrelevant. These tools fail to present results in a manner allowing for quick relevancy determinations. The presentation also fails to provide enough detail suggesting how to adjust a search for obtaining only relevant results. Further, the search tools provide the documents of the result set in a manner very similar to the traditional paper format of the documents.
- Some example embodiments are illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which:
-
FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system, according to an example embodiment. -
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a server device, according to an example embodiment. -
FIGS. 3-8 are data model diagrams, according to example embodiments. -
FIGS. 9-15 are user interfaces, according to example embodiments. -
FIGS. 16-22 are example generated charts, according to example embodiments. -
FIG. 23 is a computer system, according to an example embodiment. - The following detailed description of the present subject matter refers to the accompanying drawings which show, by way of illustration, specific aspects and embodiments in which the present subject matter may be practiced. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the present subject matter. Other embodiments may be utilized and structural, logical, and electrical changes may be made without departing from the scope of the present subject matter. References to “an”, “one”, or “various” embodiments in this disclosure are not necessarily to the same embodiment, and such references contemplate more than one embodiment. The following detailed description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope is defined only by the appended claims, along with the full scope of legal equivalents to which such claims are entitled.
- The subject matter herein provides systems, software, methods, and data structures for patent mapping, ranking and rating of patents, searching, and generating visual representations of the patents and patent portfolios to quickly analyze the patents for many reasons including, but not limited to, claim coverage and value. In an example embodiment, a patent portfolio may comprise one or more patents that may or may not be commonly owned or related. The collection of patent portfolios and patents may be stored in one or more databases. A patent may belong to more than one portfolio at the same time. In an example embodiment, the underlying patents and patent claims included in each patent portfolio may be categorized by patent concepts (sometimes referred herein as concepts) such as scope concepts (SC) and technology categories (TC).
- In an example embodiment, technology categories are categories that claims relate to, but are not necessarily limited to. For example, a claim to a pulse generator may be put in the technology category “pacemaker”, but not be limited to a pacemaker per se—perhaps the claim merely says that the pulse generator generates a pulse of certain type that is useful for pacing, but pacing does not appear in the claim. Hence, the claim relates to the technology category “pacemaker,” but it is not limited to being a pacemaker.
- In an example embodiment, scope concepts are concepts that a claim is limited to. This is contrast to technology categories, where the claim may be mapped to a TC but it not necessarily limited to it. A scope concept may defined in a way to give the concept a context that a user can understand without necessarily having to look at the corresponding claim language. For example, if the scope concept is “method or apparatus for cardiac rhythm management”, and it is mapped to claim A, then claim A by definition is limited to this application, such that if a target device does not perform cardiac rhythm management, then it would not infringe claim A.
- In an example embodiment, there are two types of scope concepts: 1) high level scope concepts that are like technical categories in the sense they are broad and general and apply to many claims in a portfolio; and 2) scope concepts that are specific to a limited number of claims—for example all claims in a patent may be limited to a very specific distinguishing feature, and this feature could be the basis for a scope concept.
- In some example embodiments, high level scope concepts may be defined prior to mapping, and then assigned as applicable. For example, several scope concepts like: atrial pacing, ventricular pacing, defibrillation method or device, etc, may be defined. Then a mapping team may go through all claims in a portfolio and map these scope concepts to claims that are limited to these concepts. After the mapping is complete, an analysis may be done showing how many claims in the portfolio are limited to each of these scope concepts, and the claims may be presented for each SC. This may be useful is disqualify claims that are not of interest to a particular target (e.g., if an analysis is being done to find a claim that covers an alleged infringer). In some example embodiments, specific scope concepts are mapped patent by patent or by patent family. These may enable a person to create one or two scope concepts that can be mapped across all claims in given patent, a family of patents, or across a portion of a patent portfolio. In order to effectively formulate a scope concept that may be globally useful across a patent portfolio, it may be useful to be able to examine multiple patent claims at the same time even if they are not all in the same patent or patent family.
-
FIG. 1 illustrates an example system to implement the methods described herein. Shown is auser 102 and auser device 104. Theuser device 104 may be, for example, a personal computer, mobile phone, or personal digital assistant. Theuser device 104 may be a computer system as described inFIG. 17 . Users of the system may include specialized personnel trained to map patent claims as well as personnel trained to analyze the resulting claim map. Theuser device 102 may communicate with aserver device 106 over a network 108 (e.g., the Internet) using a variety of communication means including, but not limited to, wired and wireless communication. Theserver device 106 may be a computer system as described inFIG. 17 . In an example embodiment, theuser 102requests patent claims 110 from theserver device 106 and transmitsconcept mappings 112 back to theserver device 106 through theuser device 104 via thenetwork 108. In various embodiments, one or more software applications are executed on the user device which facilitate the interactions and data transmissions betweenuser 102,user device 104, andserver device 106. Other information needed to complete the methods described herein may be transmitted between theuser device 102 andserver device 106 according to example embodiments. -
FIG. 2 illustrates anexample server device 200. In an example embodiment, the server device includes one or more modules, databases, and engines. The various modules, databases, and engines may interact with each other and may take on the functionality of other modules, databases, and engines. Databases, according to an example embodiment, generally refer to sets of data stored in tables and may be implemented using a variety of database solutions including Oracle and MySQL. Engines, according to an example embodiment, generally refer to the generation of a product/image that is presented to a user (e.g., a webpage). Modules, according to an example embodiment, generally refer to functionality or features of the system that a user may invoke. For example, the mapping module may provide the necessary logic to create a mapping between a concept and a patent claim. According to an example embodiment,server device 200 includes anaccount database 202, amining module 204,visualization engine 206, aweb server engine 208, aranking module 210, apatent database 212, avaluation module 214, atracking module 216, aconcept database 218, apatent claim database 220, a patent setdatabase 222, amapping module 224, and anontology database 226. - In various embodiments, the modules, engines, and databases are implemented in a combination of software and hardware. For example, a mapping module can be stored as set of instructions stored on a machine-readable medium. The instructions can be executed on a processor and cause a machine to perform operations related to mapping. Additionally, the visual presentation of data in not limited to engines and may be done by modules as well. Similarly, engines may contain underlying logic dictating on how each engine functions and interacts with the user, software, and hardware of the system. In various embodiments, the modules, engines, and databases are combined.
- In an example embodiment, the
account database 202 includes data pertaining to the different users of the system. In some embodiments, different levels of user are defined. For example, an administrator level allows the creation of an ontology (e.g., a collection of patent concepts and keywords) and mapping of patent claims while an analysis level user may only mine the map for patent claims. Theweb server engine 208 may present webpages to the user via the user device. The webpages may include forms and user interfaces for the user to interact with such that the user may manipulate the underlying data stored on the server device on one or more databases. - In an example embodiment,
databases patent database 212 may include information related to all the patents stored in the system such as title, filing data, assignee, etc. Theconcept database 218 may store all the concepts that have been defined either by the user or automatically by the system. Thepatent claim database 220 may include information related to patent claims including which patent they belong to as well as concepts that have been mapped to the patent claims. The patent setdatabase 222 may store information on sets of patents that have been defined by the user. In an example embodiment, a patent set may be defined by exclusion mining (e.g., the set of patents that have NOT been mapped to a certain concept). Theontology database 226 may store information on a user defined set of concepts. - The
mapping module 224, in an example embodiment, enables a user to map a concept to a patent claim. For example, the user may create and define a patent concept which is then stored in the concept database. The user may then send an indication, through the user device, that a patent claim in thepatent claim database 220 should be mapped to the new concept. The indication may take the form of a type of user input such as clicking on an interface using an input device. The server device may then store this mapping in the patent claim database. For example, a relationship between the patent claim and concept may be stored in one or more of the databases. - The
mining module 204, in an example embodiment, allows a user to search through the data stored in the databases to find patent claims of interest. For example, a user may wish to find all the patent claims related to a gear used in a bicycle. Rather than having the user define what the gear is, the user may indicate to the mining module what the gear is not, by indicating what concepts do not apply (exclusion mining). The mining module may search the entire universe of claims in the patent claim database, or a portion of the patent claim database, and retrieve the remaining patent claims (those claims that not have the concept) and present them to the user. - The visualization engine, in an example embodiment, generates reports and visual depictions of the data contained in a set of claims. For example, the visualization engine may generate a spreadsheet with the concepts in the concept database as rows and the patent claims as the columns. Color coding may be used to signify where a patent claim has been mapped to a concept. In some example embodiments, a user of the system may add additional data that influences the spreadsheet created. Some example embodiments include the generation of competitor landscape, freedom to operate, product coverage, validity, valuation, white space analysis, and white space claim generation spreadsheets. In various embodiments, other forms of coding are used such as shading and patterning.
- The
tracking module 216, according to an example embodiment, maintains information related to a specific patent, group of patents, or concept. For example, the tracking module may store information related to a patent's prosecution and litigation history such as office actions or claim amendments. Alerts (e.g., electronic mail) may be sent to a user indicating a change in a patent or patent application. - The
ranking module 210 andvaluation module 214, according to example embodiments, enable the user to provide additional information related to patents, patent claims, and concepts that may be used to determine a course of action such as abandoning a patent or pursing research in a specific field. For example, a user may indicate a specific concept as being key to her business. Further, a lawyer or other trained patent professional may provide a ranking for each patent included in her portfolio related to scope, design around protection, and detectability effort. The system may take this knowledge and through the visualization engine generate a chart that shows the highest ranked patents that also include her important concept. - In an example embodiment, data models are defined to store the information related to the patents being analyzed.
FIGS. 3-8 illustrate example data models that may be utilized. These may be defined in any suitable programming language such as C, C++, Java, Ruby, etc, that allows the manipulation of data models. In some embodiments, data models are referred to as classes and both terms will be used in the following descriptions. Further, an object may refer to a specific instance of a class or data model. As one skilled in the art will recognize, there may be more than one way to define the models and the relationships between the models. The illustrated models are to be taken only as one way of implementing the systems and methods described in this application.FIGS. 3-8 , in some example embodiments, provide the lower level details of the information stored indatabases -
FIG. 3 , according to an example embodiment, illustrates data models related generally to mappable data. Shown are models and relationships for aPatent 302,Mappable Data 304,Patent Specification 306,Global Patent Ranking 308,Mapping 310,claim 312,Concept 314,Concept Type 316,Patent Inclusion 318,Patent Relation 320,Ontology Relationships 322,Ontology 324,Mapping Status 326, andOntology Concept 328. Each model may contain one or more elements that are defined either by the system or a user. Further, as illustrated, some models are related to each in other in a one to many relationship. For example, anOntology object 324 may be related to many Ontology Concept objects 328. - In an example embodiment,
Patent model 302 includes types of information related to a patent including, but not limited to, whether or not it is an application, the number of claims, when it was filed, what organization it may belong to, the serial number, and its status. As can be seen, each piece of information may have an associated class such as a Boolean or string. In some cases, the type is actually another class (e.g, global ranking has a class of Global Ranking). Further shown are the elements of a data model that relate to another data model. For example,example Mapping Status 326,Patent Relation 320,Patent Inclusion 318, and claim 312 models all include an element of patent with a class of Patent. This relationship allows the system to examine a Claim class and determine the Patent in which the Claim is included. - In some embodiments, the
Mapping 310 data model defines persistent objects that define the relationships between the a concept (e.g., technology categories and scope concept), a claim, and an ontology. As shown, there are many elements that aMapping 320 class may include, such as, but not limited to, citations, notes, ontology, concept type and claim. Further, in an example embodiment, many Mapping objects may be related to one Ontology object and one Claim object. Thus, if one were to examine a Mapping object, there would be a relationship defining the ontology to which the object belongs to as well as the claim to which it has been assigned. In addition, there may be an integer signifying the type of concept to which the Mapping object belongs. As datamodel Concept Type 316 suggests each type of concept may be enumerated as well as be defined by an integer value. For example, the concept of scope concept may be given the value of ‘1.’ Also, the “object” element illustrated has an associated class ofConcept 314. Accordingly, the Mapping object may be linked to an example concept that has been defined as “two wheeled transportation.” The mapping operation element may define the relationship between the cited claim and the concept. For example, a concept may be directly mapped to a claim. Other possibilities are discussed further with reference toFIG. 10 . Accordingly, a Mapping object may contain the following information with regards to some of the displayed elements. -
- claim: Claim A
- conceptType: 1
- object: Two wheeled transportation
- ontology: Bikes
- mapping operation: Directly Mapped
In an example embodiment, a Mapping object is created each time the system receives an indication a concept is to be mapped to a claim. In an embodiment, an indication may be stored that a concept is not mapped to a claim.
- In an example embodiment, a
Concept 314 object is created for every user defined concept as well as any concept the system may define automatically. EachConcept 314 may contain, but is not limited to elements of, conceptType, description, hidden, intelliMapAllowed, keywordLabel, name, organization, and underReview. As discussed above, aConcept 314 object may contain an enumeration of theConceptType 316 object. For example, the conceptType element may have an example value of “scope concept.” The description element may describe when a concept should be applied to a claim or other helpful information relating to the concept. The intelliMapAllowed Boolean may indicate whether the system may automatically apply the concept to other claims included in the system. For example, a concept type might be “keyword.” These keywords may be verbatim phrases or individual words in the claim. Thus, a user may be able to safely have the system search other claims and find the same keyword and automatically createMapping 310 objects for the keyword and found claims. The intelliMapAllowed may indicate whether the system should search automatically for these keywords. - In an example embodiment, the
OntologyConcept 328 class only contains two elements, ontology and concept. AnOntology Concept 328 may be created to signify the relationship between aConcept 314 object and anOntology 324 object. As shown, anOntology 324 object may include many OntologyConcept objects. Also, as shown, aConcept 314 object may belong tomany OntologyConcept 328 objects. - Also shown in
FIG. 3 , is thePatentInclusion 318 object. A PatentInclusion Object may include elements of inclusionType, patent, patentSet, ranking, reviewed, and ruleType. APatentInclusion 318 object may be used to signify the relationship between a patent and a patentSet. This relationship is more fully explained with reference toFIG. 4 . -
FIG. 4 , according to an example embodiment, illustrates data models related, generally, to mining mapped data. Shown are models and relationships forPatentOpinion 402,IncludedClaim 404,ScheduledIntelliMap 406,PatentSet 408,ConceptExclusion 410,PortfolioDomain 412,PatentSearch 414,PatentInclusion 416,LocalPatentRanking 418,TextInclusion 420,ConceptInclusion 422, andConcept 424 classes. In some embodiments, classes with the same name as inFIG. 3 are defined similarly. For example,Concept class 424 may contain the same elements asConcept class 314. However, as illustrated, additional functions are included that may operate on the class. For example, function “createCopy( )” is illustrated inConcept class 424. - In an example embodiment, the
PatentSet 408 class operates as the central class for mining. As illustrated, many of the other classes shown relate to thePatentSet 408 class. A PatentSet object may havemany PatentInclusion 416,ConceptExclusion 410, andIncludedClaim 404 objects. Also, in an example embodiment, a PatentSet object may havemany ConceptInclusion 422 objects related to it by virtue of thePatentSearch 414 class. Through user interfaces presented to a user and user input, a Patent Set may be defined. This may be done by a user adding claims manually or by a more sophisticated method involving a user defining which concepts to exclude or include. The various data models support an almost endless amount of customization for users of the system in the creation of patent sets. - In an example embodiment, the created patent sets may be saved for future use, as well as themselves becoming the basis for creating a new patent set. This may enable a user to efficiently search through any number of patents. The system may operate in such a manner that when a request is made to retrieve patents included in a patent set, the system responds by applying the relationships defined by the objects for that patent set. For example, the ConceptExclusion objects. This execution method may allow newly mapped patents to be included or excluded from the patent set with no additional input from a user. Thus, if a user wishes to find the intersection between a patent set related to vehicles and a patent set related to audio, the most current mapped patents available will be presented. As will be discussed in greater detail with respect to portfolio mapping, the ability to create patent sets and combine them may greatly speed up the process of finding common concepts across patents.
-
FIG. 5 , according to an example embodiment, illustrates data models related, generally, to annuity data. Shown are models and relationships forPatent 502,ClaimMappedUser 504,AnnuityInformation 506,PatentRanking 508,ScoringCriteria 510, and Scorer objects 512. In an example embodiment to further enable a person to quickly analyze a large group of patent claims, patents may be given a rating. In an example embodiment, only the broadest independent claim in each patent is given a ranking, as the broadest claim will often have the most value. The patent claims may be ranked according to multiple criteria, including, but not limited to scope, detectability, and the ability to design around the patent. In an example embodiment, the ranking information may be stored in a PatentRanking object and retrieved through the Scorer interface. Each criteria may be given a weighting depending on the client's needs. For example, a client may decide that scope is twice as important as the other two criteria. Therefore, the formula to rank the patents may be: -
0.5(scope)+0.25(detectability)+0.25(design around)=rating. - Once all of the patents have been ranked, the results may be presented to the user in a web browser, in the form of a chart, or using any other suitable display mechanism.
- An AnnuityInformation object may include information related to annuities for an issued patent. Depending on the rating and annuity information of a patent, a user may automatically let patents go abandoned, a user may be alerted, or an annuity may automatically be paid. Other example embodiments will be obvious to one skilled in the art.
-
FIG. 6 , according to an example embodiment, illustrates data models related generally to patent tracking.FIG. 7 , according to an example embodiment, illustrates data models related generally to products and features.FIG. 8 , according to an example embodiment, illustrates data models related generally to technology hierarchies. -
FIG. 9 illustrates an example user interface that may be utilized to facilitate the methods described to map patent claims, according to an example embodiment. Displayed is thetitle 902 of a patent portfolio, controls are also illustrated that allow a user to edit to the portfolio, list the patents in the portfolio, “quick rank,” and generate a panoramic claim map. Also shown is the “Default Ontology” 904 being used. In an example embodiment, “Quick Rank” allows a user to map all the patent claims in a patent to concepts at the same time. An ontology, in an example embodiment, includes the different concepts available to a user to map to one or more of the patent claims. Further, there is an examplesearch criteria box 906 which allows a user to specify a search query. Included are options to narrow the search by type ofclaim 908 including searching independent claims, dependent claims, or both. Thesearch expression box 910 may allow a user to specify a regular expression to use as a search query. There is also an option to have keywords highlighted 912 in the search results. In an example embodiment, this may include the searched for keywords or keywords that have previously been mapped to the claims. Also shown are options to narrow the search results bytechnology categories 914 andscope concepts 916. -
FIG. 10 illustrates a method to map concepts to patent claims according to an example embodiment. A user interface such as the one illustrated inFIG. 9 may be used to facilitate this example method. Further, in an example embodiment, the method may be implemented using the data models and server device described above (e.g.,server device 106 with reference toFIG. 1 ). Atblock 1002, a database of patent portfolios and a database of patents are maintained, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios. A database management system may be used (DBMS) for storing and retrieving data from a data store which includes the database of patents and database of patent portfolios. In some embodiments, the DBMS is a relational database management system (RDBMS). In some other embodiments, the data store includes storing data in a Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS). In some embodiments, communication with the data store includes using a language such as Structured Query Language (SQL) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML). - In an example embodiment, a database of ontologies may also be maintained, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts. As discussed above, an ontology may include all the metadata (patent concepts) that one may wish to map to a patent claim. For instance, the one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent claims may also include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited. Keywords may also be used as patent concepts. These may be any term or short phrase that appears in the claim, exactly as it appears in the claim. As these terms are taken from the claims, they may be thought of as limitations in the sense that if the term cannot be read on an accused device, the claim probably does not cover the accused device. Example user interfaces showing scope concepts in an ontology can be seen with reference to
FIG. 11 . - In an example embodiment, at
block 1004, a search query associated with a first patent portfolio is retrieved. A user of the system may wish to search a previously created portfolio of patents. A patent portfolio may include patents that a user wishes to analyze. For example, a portfolio might include all of the patents for a company ABC Corp (ABC). A portfolio may be stored and defined as a patent set in the patent set database (e.g., patent setdatabase 222 inFIG. 2 ) ABC might have received information on a potential infringing product. In order to find the patent claims relevant to the product, ABC may wish to map its entire patent portfolio and use the resulting mapped portfolio to quickly find the best claims to assert in an infringement lawsuit. However, it may also be useful to map the patents of the alleged infringer. These patents may also be added to the portfolio as it is likely ABC's patents and the alleged infringer's patents will have overlapping subject matter. - The search query may help to narrow down the patent. In an example embodiment, the search query many include a regular expression. For example, if the search query is “*” all the patent claims in the patent portfolio will be displayed. Boolean expressions such as “car && dog” may also be used. In some example embodiments, an option is included to only search independent claims, dependent claims, or to search both. In some example embodiments, the portfolio may further be narrowed by using patent concepts that have been included in the current ontology.
-
FIG. 12 shows an example user interface with example options available to search by technology category. An example option is presented allowing a user to search technology categories disjunctively or conjunctively. In an example embodiment, each technology category in the ontology is shown to the user with three example options “Direct mapped claims,” “Direct Mapped or ‘Does Not Map,’” and “Direct Mapped or ‘Unresolved.’” These terms will be discussed in greater detail with respect to block 1010. -
FIG. 13 shows an example user interface with example options available to search by scope concept. In an example embodiment, each scope concept in the ontology is shown to the user with four example options “Direct mapped claims,” “Do not include Direct Mapped or ‘Does Not Map,’” “Direct Mapped or ‘Does Not Map,’” and “Direct Mapped and ‘Unresolved.’” These terms will be discussed in greater detail with respect to block 1010. - Referring back to
FIG. 10 , in an example embodiment atblock 1006, the first portfolio is searched as a function of the search query. Atblock 1008, in an example embodiment, search results 918 are generated, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query. Using the search query provided, a query may be formatted as an SQL query or other suitable format to query the underlying databases. Generating the search results may include retrieving patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms as well as plural versions of terms in the search query. The results of the query may then be presented to the user in an example user interface as shown inFIG. 9 . Only one patent claim is illustrated, however, more patent claims may have resulted from the search and may be shown simultaneous as to have the ability to manipulate multiple patent claims. Column headings may include fourradio buttons 920 signifying the options available for mapping, the matter number, the claim number, the claim text, and other technology categories or scope concepts currently mapped to the claim. Because the generated search results are searching an entire portfolio of patents it may be possible that not all of the claims of a given patent will match to the search query. A trio ofnumbers 922 may also be displayed for each claim in relationship to the technology category heading and the scope concept heading. These represent the nature of the relationship between the claim and the technology category or scope concept. For example, as illustrated,claim 1 has two technology categories directly mapped: “space vehicle” and “Electric Device or Method.” It also has one scope concept directly mapped. - Referring back to
FIG. 10 , atblock 1010, in an example embodiment, a plurality of patent claims are mapped to a patent concept. In an example embodiment, in addition to the database of patents and patent portfolios, a database of patent claims may be maintained. The database of patent claims may be administered and interacted with using a DBMS as described above. As described more fully with reference toFIG. 3 , each patent claim may have one or more patent concepts that have been mapped to the claim. As discussed above with reference to narrowing down search results, the relationship between a patent concept and a patent claim may take on many forms. For example, the relationship may be one where the patent concept is directly mapped to a patent claim. This may indicate that a user who looked at the claim made the decision that the patent claim was in a particular technology category, for example. Another relationship may indicate that a patent concept is not mapped to a patent claim. If a user is sure that a particular claim is not in a technology category, for example, it may be beneficial for that information to be saved so that the mapping process is not unnecessarily duplicative. - With reference back to
FIG. 9 , a user may select one or more patent claims to map based on the radio buttons displayed. In an example embodiment, there are four radio buttons indicating options for the claim: “Direct Mapped,” “Does Not Map,” “Unresolved,” and “No Operation.” The first two options are described in detail above. The “Unresolved” radio button may indicate that a user is not sure whether the concept should be mapped to the patent claim. This may be helpful in cases where the user does not have the legal or technical expertise to make a decision one way or another. A more senior user may then review the unresolved patent claims en masse at a later time. The last radio button may indicate that a user does not wish to have any relationship defined between the patent claim and a patent concept. In an example embodiment the “No Operation” radio button is selected by default for all the patent claims returned from the search query. - Upon a user indicating a preferred mapping for each patent claim, a user may further indicate a preference of which category of patent concept to map. In an example embodiment, there are two categories: technology categories and scope concepts (e.g.,
elements 924 & 926 inFIG. 9 ). In an example embodiment, a user clicks on the button corresponding to their preference and this preference is sent to the service device which detects the category of concept the user clicked. In response, a user interface is presented to the user corresponding to his or her preference. For example,FIG. 14 , may be presented. -
FIG. 14 illustrates anexample search box 1402 and anexample search results 1404 section. Across the top is an option to add a new patent concept 1406 (seeFIG. 15 for a more detailed look at an example method to add a patent concept). Other options may include returning to the main mapping screen (e.g.FIG. 9 ) or canceling the mapping. In an example embodiment, the search box allows a user to search across an entire ontology for potential patent concepts. Similar to searching for patent claims, a user may enter a regular expression such as ‘*’ to retrieve all the concepts included in the present ontology. For example, the results of thesearch 1404 displayed inFIG. 14 only returns “multiple blades.” A checkbox is presented allowing a user to select theconcept 1408. If there is more than one concept displayed a user may select more than one of the concepts by selecting the respective checkboxes next to the patent concepts. A checkbox at the top of the results may be selected if a user wishes to select all 1410 of the concepts returned from the ontology search. - Further example options may be presented to the right of each concept. An option to “modify and map” 1412 may be selected if the user wishes to modify the concept. This may be useful if a user wishes to broaden the concept so that it may be mapped to more patent claims. For example, a narrow technology category may have been defined as “power computer speakers.” Rather than a user defining a new technology category of “passive computer speakers,” the user might decide it makes more logical sense to only have one technology category titled “computer speakers.” In an example embodiment, the user can safely select “modify and map” and change the technology category to “computer speakers.” This may safely be done because all “powered computer speakers” are also “computer speakers.” In an example embodiment, every patent claim, regardless of which portfolio(s) it may be included in, will be updated to reflect the modified concept. Thus, it may not be advisable to narrow a concept without being certain every patent claim in the system adheres to the modified concept. In an example embodiment, a warning may be displayed to the user explaining the effects of modifying a concept.
- In an example embodiment, an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the plurality of claims in the database of patents may be stored (e.g., updating one or more databases). This may be accomplished, for example, by the user selecting the map button as displayed in
FIG. 14 . As discussed above, a user may have selected multiple patent claims resulting from searching and may have further indicated a preference for one or more patents claims to have concepts directly mapped as well as indicated a preference to have one or more patent claims have patent concepts not mapped. Thus, in an example embodiment, the indication of the relationship may include an indication that the plurality of patent claims are not mapped to the patent concept. In an example embodiment, the indication of the relationship includes an indication that the plurality of patent claims are mapped to the patent concept. - It some example embodiments mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. Defining the patent concept may be initiated by a user clicking on the example “add_new” button 1406 as displayed in
FIG. 14 . An example user interface that may be presented to the user in response to this selection is illustrated inFIG. 15 . Two example options may be presented, “Save” and “Cancel.” Also shows are two input text boxes, “Concept Name” and “Description.” The concept name may be the actual concept and may be, for example, either a technology category or a scope concept. A user may indicate which category of patent concept the new concept belongs using a pull down menu. The user may further wish to add the concept to an existing ontology by selecting one or more ontologies as presented inFIG. 15 . - As described, the system may allow the generation of visual representation of the data included in the databases to further maximize the value of concepts to patent claims. In some example embodiments the charts may be interactive. In some example embodiments, a method to generate the charts includes formulating a query to send to one or more databases, the query requesting whether or not a set of patent claims have been mapped to a set of patent concepts. An additional query may be sent to the databases to determine additional metadata about the patent claims including, but not limited to, the filing data and owner of each patent. Ranking data may be received for each patent concept retrieved from the databases. In an example embodiment, the system generates a relationship between a ranking, a patent concept, and a patent claim and displays the relationship to the user in the form of a chart. The ranking data may be stored in the database or may be received from a user. In some embodiments, ranking data may include integer values of disparate range (e.g., 1-10 or 1-100) alphabetical letters (e.g., a grading scale of A-F), or any other means to characterize a claim or concept.
- In an example embodiment, a competitor landscape chart may be generated. An example simple competitor landscape chart is shown in
FIG. 16 . Shown is the title, patent number, filing data, total claims, each independent claim, and owner of each patent in a patent set. The patent set may reflect the patents owned by the competitors of a company requesting the map. The scope concepts that have been mapped to the patent claims in the patent set may be displayed as rows in the chart. If a scope concept has been mapped to a patent claim than the intersecting cell between the patent claim and concept may be filled in, checked, change color, patterned, shaded or otherwise have an indication of the mapping. Additional columns may indicate the competitor that first introduced a concept as well as the date it was introduced. This may be determined by examining each patent that has a concept mapped to at least one of the claims and examining the dates of each of the matching patents. In addition, the scope concepts may be sorted by frequency. Each competitor may be assigned a color or other designation such that a user may quickly determine which company owns each patent as well as who introduced what concepts first. - In an example embodiment, a product coverage chart may be generated. An example product coverage chart is shown in
FIG. 17 . As withFIG. 16 , relevant patent information for patents included in the patent set is displayed. Also, displayed is a column titled “Has Feature?” This column may have values ranging from one to three signifying the degree to which the product includes the concept. For example, a value of three may mean the product definitely includes the concept and a value of one means the product definitely does not relate to the concept. Based on these values, the chart may dynamically update and determine values for the claim coverage and product coverage rows. For example,SC 1 andSC 5 both have a rating of ‘3’ and are present in all of the claims of patent “Title 1.” Thus, “Title 1” has a claim coverage of ‘3’ and a product coverage value of “potentially applies.” It is only “potentially applies” because it cannot be known for certain whether the patent applies but only that thatSC 1 andSC 5 are present in the claims. However, because scope concepts always describe limitations, if a claim has two scope concepts mapped, as shown with respect to the claims in patent “Title 2,” the lowest ratings score will control the claim coverage. As shown,SC 6 is described as not being present in the product and the “Title 2” claims have been mapped toSC 6. Therefore, regardless of the fact theSC 3 has also been mapped and the product has this feature, the “Title 2” claims cannot apply to the product as they are at least limited toSC 6. - This chart may also allow interactivity with a user. This interactivity may include the user changing the “Has feature” values and the chart automatically updating the claim coverage and product coverage rows. For example, if the
SC 1 rating was changed to ‘1,’ the claim coverage value of the patent “Title 1” may change to “1” signifying the patent does not apply to the product. In some embodiments, any changes that result from input from the user are highlighted on the chart. This may allow a user to quickly see the effects of potential changes to product coverage. -
FIG. 18 illustrates an example freedom to operate chart. In an example embodiment, a freedom to operate chart allows a user to quickly see which patents may be necessary to obtain licenses from or purchase to produce a product, sell a service, etc.FIG. 18 is similar toFIG. 17 except for in place of a “Has feature?” column there is a “Need Feature?” column The values in this column may represent whether or not, and to what extent, a user believes a feature is necessary in his or her product. A ‘3’ may indicate that the scope concept is necessary, a ‘2’ may indicate the scope concept is wanted, but not needed, and a ‘1’ may indicate the scope concept is not needed. In an example embodiment, the “claim status” row shown inFIG. 18 reflects whether a patent in the patent set needs to be licensed or purchased in order for the user to operate freely. As with the product coverage chart, the lowest value in the “need feature” column controls. Thus, patent “Title 1” is not needed even thoughSC 1 is mapped to all the claims and the user has indicated the feature is necessary. Similarly to above, a user may interact with the ratings to see in real-time the impact of removing or adding features in terms of the number of patents needing to be licensed or purchased. -
FIG. 19 illustrates an example claim/patent valuation chart. In an example embodiment, a claim/patent valuation chart allows a user to see which patents/claims may be necessary to license, etc., to maximize the value of a currently owned patent or patent claim.FIG. 19 is similar toFIG. 17 except the values in the ratings column reflect whether or not a scope concept is necessary to maximize a patent's value. The values in this column may represent whether or not, and to what extent, a user believes a feature is necessary in maximize a patent's value. A ‘3’ may indicate that the scope concept is necessary, a ‘2’ may indicate the scope concept is wanted, but not needed, and a ‘1’ may indicate the scope concept is not needed. In an example embodiment, the “claim value” row shown inFIG. 19 reflects whether a patent in the patent set needs to be licensed or purchased in order to maximize the user's patent. As with the product coverage chart, the lowest value in the rating column controls. Thus, patent “Title 1” is not important, even thoughSC 1 is mapped to all the claims and the user has indicated a high value forSC 1. Similarly to the above charts, a user may interact with the chart by changing the ratings to see in real-time the effects on patents in the patent set. -
FIG. 20 illustrates an example validity chart. In an example embodiment, a validity chart allows a user to see the overlap between a patent and a patent set.FIG. 20 is similar toFIG. 17 except the values in the ratings column reflect whether or not a feature is shown in the patent in question (the patent to which the patent set is being compared). The values in this column may represent whether or not, and to what extent, a user believes a feature is present in the patent in question. A ‘3’ may indicate that the scope concept is shown, a ‘2’ may indicate the scope concept is possibly shown, and a ‘1’ may indicate the scope concept is not shown. In an example embodiment, the claim status row shown inFIG. 20 reflects the extent to which the patent in question and the patents in the patent set overlap. Unlike the product coverage chart, if two scope concepts are mapped to a patent, but contain different ratings, the feature rating becomes “some overlap”. Thus, even thoughSC 5 has been rated as not shown and mapped to patent “Title 1,”SC 1 is also mapped to the patent but is shown and therefore there is some overlap between the patent in question and patent “Title 1.” A finding of “complete overlap” may indicate to a user that a patent or claim is completed anticipated. As above, the user may interact with the chart by changing the ratings to see in real-time the effects on patents in the patent set. -
FIG. 21 illustrates an example white space analysis chart. In an example embodiment, a white space analysis chart allows a user to see the frequency in which scope concepts appear in a patent set. In some embodiments there are scope concepts that are in no patent claims. The chart may be color coded to allow a user to quickly ascertain the least frequently used scope concepts.FIG. 22 illustrates an example white space claim generation chart. In an example embodiment the generated chart illustrates suggested combinations of unclaimed combinations of existing scope concepts as well as suggested combinations of new scope concepts with existing scope concepts. -
FIG. 23 shows a diagrammatic representation of a machine in the example form of acomputer system 2300 within which a set of instructions for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein may be executed. In alternative embodiments, the machine operates as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines. In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a server-client network environment or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The machine may be a Personal Computer (PC), a tablet PC, a Set-Top Box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine. Further, while only a single machine is illustrated, the term “machine” shall also be taken to include any collection of machines that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein. Example embodiments can also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems which are linked (e.g., either by hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired and wireless connections) through a network both perform tasks. In a distributed system environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory-storage devices (see below). - The
example computer system 2300 includes a processor 2302 (e.g., a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) or both), amain memory 2304 and astatic memory 2306, which communicate with each other via a bus 2308. Thecomputer system 2300 may further include a video display unit 2310 (e.g., a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) or a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)). Thecomputer system 2300 may also includes an alphanumeric input device 2312 (e.g., a keyboard), a User Interface (UI) cursor controller (e.g., a mouse), adisc drive unit 2316, a signal generation device 2318 (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device (e.g., a transmitter) 2320. - The
disc drive unit 2316 includes a machine-readable medium 2328 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions 2317 and data structures (e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions illustrated herein. The software may also reside, completely or at least partially, within themain memory 2304 and/or within theprocessor 2302 during execution thereof by thecomputer system 2300, themain memory 2304 and theprocessor 2302 also constituting machine-readable media. - The instructions 2317 may further be transmitted or received over a network (e.g., the INTERNET) 2326 via the
network interface device 2320 utilizing any one of a number of well-known transfer protocols (e.g., HTTP, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)). - The term “machine-readable medium” should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more sets of instructions. The term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any of the one or more of the methodologies illustrated herein. The term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic medium.
- The Abstract of the Disclosure is provided to comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.72(b), requiring an abstract that will allow the reader to quickly ascertain the nature of the technical disclosure. It is submitted with the understanding that it will not be used to interpret or limit the scope or meaning of the claims. In addition, in the foregoing Detailed Description, it can be seen that various features are grouped together in a single embodiment for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed embodiments require more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive subject matter lies in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment. Thus the following claims are hereby incorporated into the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment.
Claims (20)
Priority Applications (4)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US12/605,030 US20100131513A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2009-10-23 | Patent mapping |
US15/801,056 US10546273B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2017-11-01 | Patent mapping |
US16/730,678 US11301810B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2019-12-30 | Patent mapping |
US17/589,635 US20220230137A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2022-01-31 | Patent mapping |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10793008P | 2008-10-23 | 2008-10-23 | |
US12/605,030 US20100131513A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2009-10-23 | Patent mapping |
Related Child Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US15/801,056 Continuation US10546273B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2017-11-01 | Patent mapping |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20100131513A1 true US20100131513A1 (en) | 2010-05-27 |
Family
ID=42197291
Family Applications (4)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US12/605,030 Abandoned US20100131513A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2009-10-23 | Patent mapping |
US15/801,056 Active US10546273B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2017-11-01 | Patent mapping |
US16/730,678 Active US11301810B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2019-12-30 | Patent mapping |
US17/589,635 Pending US20220230137A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2022-01-31 | Patent mapping |
Family Applications After (3)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US15/801,056 Active US10546273B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2017-11-01 | Patent mapping |
US16/730,678 Active US11301810B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2019-12-30 | Patent mapping |
US17/589,635 Pending US20220230137A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2022-01-31 | Patent mapping |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (4) | US20100131513A1 (en) |
Cited By (29)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20100287478A1 (en) * | 2009-05-11 | 2010-11-11 | General Electric Company | Semi-automated and inter-active system and method for analyzing patent landscapes |
US20110153509A1 (en) * | 2005-05-27 | 2011-06-23 | Ip Development Venture | Method and apparatus for cross-referencing important ip relationships |
US20110191310A1 (en) * | 2010-02-03 | 2011-08-04 | Wenhui Liao | Method and system for ranking intellectual property documents using claim analysis |
US20110246979A1 (en) * | 2010-03-30 | 2011-10-06 | Jean Deruelle | Mechanism for JRuby and SIP Servlets Integration |
US20110307499A1 (en) * | 2010-06-11 | 2011-12-15 | Lexisnexis | Systems and methods for analyzing patent related documents |
US20120290487A1 (en) * | 2011-04-15 | 2012-11-15 | IP Street | Evaluating intellectual property |
US20120317040A1 (en) * | 2011-06-08 | 2012-12-13 | Entrepreneurial Innovation, LLC. | Patent Value Prediction |
US20130086469A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steven W. Lundberg | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US20130086045A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steven W. Lundberg | Patent mapping |
CN103678880A (en) * | 2013-11-19 | 2014-03-26 | 肖冬梅 | Method and system for visualizing interactive multi-dimensional patent map |
US20140180934A1 (en) * | 2012-12-21 | 2014-06-26 | Lex Machina, Inc. | Systems and Methods for Using Non-Textual Information In Analyzing Patent Matters |
US20140317097A1 (en) * | 2012-12-18 | 2014-10-23 | Lexisnexis, A Division Of Reed Elsevier Inc. | Systems and methods for image searching of patent-related documents |
US9201956B2 (en) | 2005-07-27 | 2015-12-01 | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Patent mapping |
US9904726B2 (en) | 2011-05-04 | 2018-02-27 | Black Hills IP Holdings, LLC. | Apparatus and method for automated and assisted patent claim mapping and expense planning |
US9959582B2 (en) | 2006-04-12 | 2018-05-01 | ClearstoneIP | Intellectual property information retrieval |
WO2020012116A1 (en) | 2018-07-09 | 2020-01-16 | Arkyan | Method, device and information medium for estimating the chances and/or probable date of granting a patent application |
US10546273B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2020-01-28 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US10579662B2 (en) | 2013-04-23 | 2020-03-03 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent claim scope evaluator |
US10891701B2 (en) | 2011-04-15 | 2021-01-12 | Rowan TELS Corp. | Method and system for evaluating intellectual property |
US20210064621A1 (en) * | 2019-09-04 | 2021-03-04 | Wertintelligence | Optimizing method of search formula for patent document and device therefor |
US11080807B2 (en) | 2004-08-10 | 2021-08-03 | Lucid Patent Llc | Patent mapping |
US11232137B2 (en) | 2012-12-18 | 2022-01-25 | RELX Inc. | Methods for evaluating term support in patent-related documents |
EP3955125A4 (en) * | 2019-04-08 | 2022-04-27 | AI Samurai Inc. | Document information evaluation device, document information evaluation method, and document information evaluation program |
WO2022125282A1 (en) * | 2020-12-08 | 2022-06-16 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Linguistic analysis of seed documents and peer groups |
US20220245378A1 (en) * | 2021-02-03 | 2022-08-04 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Document analysis using model intersections |
US11461862B2 (en) | 2012-08-20 | 2022-10-04 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Analytics generation for patent portfolio management |
US20230086930A1 (en) * | 2021-09-17 | 2023-03-23 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Intellectual-property analysis platform |
US11893537B2 (en) | 2020-12-08 | 2024-02-06 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Linguistic analysis of seed documents and peer groups |
US11928427B2 (en) | 2020-12-08 | 2024-03-12 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Linguistic analysis of seed documents and peer groups |
Families Citing this family (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
FI20185865A1 (en) * | 2018-10-13 | 2020-04-14 | Iprally Tech Oy | Method of training a natural language search system, search system and corresponding use |
US11809694B2 (en) | 2020-09-30 | 2023-11-07 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Intellectual-property landscaping platform with interactive graphical element |
US20220101462A1 (en) * | 2020-09-30 | 2022-03-31 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Intellectual-Property Landscaping Platform |
Citations (67)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5623681A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1997-04-22 | Waverley Holdings, Inc. | Method and apparatus for synchronizing, displaying and manipulating text and image documents |
US5623679A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1997-04-22 | Waverley Holdings, Inc. | System and method for creating and manipulating notes each containing multiple sub-notes, and linking the sub-notes to portions of data objects |
US5754840A (en) * | 1996-01-23 | 1998-05-19 | Smartpatents, Inc. | System, method, and computer program product for developing and maintaining documents which includes analyzing a patent application with regards to the specification and claims |
US5799325A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1998-08-25 | Smartpatents, Inc. | System, method, and computer program product for generating equivalent text files |
US5991756A (en) * | 1997-11-03 | 1999-11-23 | Yahoo, Inc. | Information retrieval from hierarchical compound documents |
US6038561A (en) * | 1996-10-15 | 2000-03-14 | Manning & Napier Information Services | Management and analysis of document information text |
US6216128B1 (en) * | 1997-10-09 | 2001-04-10 | Telcordia Technologies, Inc. | System and method for private information retrieval from a single electronic storage device using commodities |
US6339767B1 (en) * | 1997-06-02 | 2002-01-15 | Aurigin Systems, Inc. | Using hyperbolic trees to visualize data generated by patent-centric and group-oriented data processing |
US20020022974A1 (en) * | 2000-04-14 | 2002-02-21 | Urban Lindh | Display of patent information |
US20020042784A1 (en) * | 2000-10-06 | 2002-04-11 | Kerven David S. | System and method for automatically searching and analyzing intellectual property-related materials |
US20020059076A1 (en) * | 2000-06-02 | 2002-05-16 | Grainger Jeffry J. | Computer-implemented method for securing intellectual property |
US20020065675A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-05-30 | Grainger Jeffry J. | Computer implemented method of managing information disclosure statements |
US20020082778A1 (en) * | 2000-01-12 | 2002-06-27 | Barnett Phillip W. | Multi-term frequency analysis |
US20020091541A1 (en) * | 2000-06-16 | 2002-07-11 | Seekip.Com | Method and apparatus for intellectual property management on the internet |
US20020103654A1 (en) * | 2000-12-05 | 2002-08-01 | Poltorak Alexander I. | Method and system for searching and submitting online via an aggregation portal |
US20020111824A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-08-15 | First To File, Inc. | Method of defining workflow rules for managing intellectual property |
US20020116363A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-08-22 | First To File, Inc. | Method of deleting unnecessary information from a database |
US20020161733A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-10-31 | First To File, Inc. | Method of creating electronic prosecution experience for patent applicant |
US20030004843A1 (en) * | 2001-06-29 | 2003-01-02 | Frain Timothy John | Patent portfolio management method |
US6526440B1 (en) * | 2001-01-30 | 2003-02-25 | Google, Inc. | Ranking search results by reranking the results based on local inter-connectivity |
US20030167181A1 (en) * | 2002-03-01 | 2003-09-04 | Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. | Systems and methods for managing information disclosure statement (IDS) references |
US20030191654A1 (en) * | 2002-04-05 | 2003-10-09 | Panchal Kiran D. | Patent product map |
US20040103112A1 (en) * | 1999-10-08 | 2004-05-27 | Colson Thomas J. | Computer based method and apparatus for mining and displaying patent data |
US20040133555A1 (en) * | 1998-12-04 | 2004-07-08 | Toong Hoo-Min | Systems and methods for organizing data |
US20040181427A1 (en) * | 1999-02-05 | 2004-09-16 | Stobbs Gregory A. | Computer-implemented patent portfolio analysis method and apparatus |
US20040186705A1 (en) * | 2003-03-18 | 2004-09-23 | Morgan Alexander P. | Concept word management |
US20050060306A1 (en) * | 2001-03-30 | 2005-03-17 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Apparatus, method, and program for retrieving structured documents |
US20050060303A1 (en) * | 2003-09-12 | 2005-03-17 | Qing-Ming Wu | Patent family analysis system and method |
US20050114763A1 (en) * | 2001-03-30 | 2005-05-26 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Apparatus, method, and program for retrieving structured documents |
US20050144177A1 (en) * | 2003-11-26 | 2005-06-30 | Hodes Alan S. | Patent analysis and formulation using ontologies |
US20050210042A1 (en) * | 2004-03-22 | 2005-09-22 | Goedken James F | Methods and apparatus to search and analyze prior art |
US20050210008A1 (en) * | 2004-03-18 | 2005-09-22 | Bao Tran | Systems and methods for analyzing documents over a network |
US20050246194A1 (en) * | 2004-04-06 | 2005-11-03 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for information disclosure statement management |
US20060026174A1 (en) * | 2004-07-27 | 2006-02-02 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20060036452A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | System and method for patent portfolio evaluation |
US20060036529A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | System and method for patent evaluation and visualization of the results thereof |
US20060036632A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | System and method for patent evaluation using artificial intelligence |
US20060036453A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | Bias compensated method and system for patent evaluation |
US20060036451A1 (en) * | 2004-08-10 | 2006-02-16 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20060106847A1 (en) * | 2004-05-04 | 2006-05-18 | Boston Consulting Group, Inc. | Method and apparatus for selecting, analyzing, and visualizing related database records as a network |
US20060173920A1 (en) * | 2001-07-11 | 2006-08-03 | Adler Mark S | Method for analyzing innovations |
US20060190449A1 (en) * | 2005-02-18 | 2006-08-24 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for prior art cross citation |
US20060225000A1 (en) * | 2005-04-01 | 2006-10-05 | Paul Albrecht | Graphical application interface using browser |
US7231384B2 (en) * | 2002-10-25 | 2007-06-12 | Sap Aktiengesellschaft | Navigation tool for exploring a knowledge base |
US20070136116A1 (en) * | 1999-03-02 | 2007-06-14 | Rose Blush Software Llc | Patent-related tools and methodology for use in research and development projects |
US20070198578A1 (en) * | 2005-07-27 | 2007-08-23 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20070208669A1 (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 2007-09-06 | Rivette Kevin G | System, method, and computer program product for managing and analyzing intellectual property (IP) related transactions |
US20070288256A1 (en) * | 2006-06-07 | 2007-12-13 | Speier Gary J | Patent claim reference generation |
US20080005103A1 (en) * | 2006-06-08 | 2008-01-03 | Invequity, Llc | Intellectual property search, marketing and licensing connection system and method |
US20080140644A1 (en) * | 2006-11-08 | 2008-06-12 | Seeqpod, Inc. | Matching and recommending relevant videos and media to individual search engine results |
US20090083049A1 (en) * | 2007-09-24 | 2009-03-26 | Sciarrino David M | Claim chart creation system |
US20090228777A1 (en) * | 2007-08-17 | 2009-09-10 | Accupatent, Inc. | System and Method for Search |
US20090282054A1 (en) * | 2006-09-29 | 2009-11-12 | Casey Michael R | IDS Reference Tracking System |
US7716226B2 (en) * | 2005-09-27 | 2010-05-11 | Patentratings, Llc | Method and system for probabilistically quantifying and visualizing relevance between two or more citationally or contextually related data objects |
US20100180223A1 (en) * | 2008-11-10 | 2010-07-15 | Speier Gary J | Patent analytics system |
US7801909B2 (en) * | 2002-10-17 | 2010-09-21 | Poltorak Alexander I | Apparatus and method for identifying and/or for analyzing potential patent infringement |
US20110047166A1 (en) * | 2009-08-20 | 2011-02-24 | Innography, Inc. | System and methods of relating trademarks and patent documents |
US20110093449A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2011-04-21 | Sharon Belenzon | Search engine and methodology, particularly applicable to patent literature |
US20110153509A1 (en) * | 2005-05-27 | 2011-06-23 | Ip Development Venture | Method and apparatus for cross-referencing important ip relationships |
US20110231449A1 (en) * | 2010-03-17 | 2011-09-22 | Ashley William B | System, Method, and Apparatus for Managing Patent Reference Reporting |
US8078545B1 (en) * | 2001-09-24 | 2011-12-13 | Aloft Media, Llc | System, method and computer program product for collecting strategic patent data associated with an identifier |
US20120096027A1 (en) * | 2000-09-15 | 2012-04-19 | Ocean Tomo Llc | Digital Patent Marking Method |
US20120102427A1 (en) * | 2010-10-21 | 2012-04-26 | Marc Aaron Fenster | Systems and methods for automated claim chart generation |
US20120117082A1 (en) * | 2010-11-05 | 2012-05-10 | Koperda Frank R | Method and system for document classification or search using discrete words |
US20120278244A1 (en) * | 2011-04-15 | 2012-11-01 | IP Street | Evaluating Intellectual Property |
US20120284199A1 (en) * | 2011-05-04 | 2012-11-08 | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Apparatus and method for automated and assisted patent claim mapping and expense planning |
US20130144895A1 (en) * | 2006-08-07 | 2013-06-06 | International Characters, Inc. | Method and Apparatus for Parallel XML Processing |
Family Cites Families (418)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
GB2156112A (en) | 1984-03-20 | 1985-10-02 | Brian Ledwith | Data processing system and method |
JPS61220027A (en) | 1985-03-27 | 1986-09-30 | Hitachi Ltd | Information memory system |
US5553226A (en) | 1985-03-27 | 1996-09-03 | Hitachi, Ltd. | System for displaying concept networks |
US5696916A (en) | 1985-03-27 | 1997-12-09 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Information storage and retrieval system and display method therefor |
US5404506A (en) | 1985-03-27 | 1995-04-04 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Knowledge based information retrieval system |
US6182062B1 (en) | 1986-03-26 | 2001-01-30 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Knowledge based information retrieval system |
US4807154A (en) | 1987-01-29 | 1989-02-21 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for developing automatic replies in an interactive electronic calendaring system |
US5557515A (en) | 1989-08-11 | 1996-09-17 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Inc. | Computerized system and method for work management |
JP2943447B2 (en) | 1991-01-30 | 1999-08-30 | 三菱電機株式会社 | Text information extraction device, text similarity matching device, text search system, text information extraction method, text similarity matching method, and question analysis device |
JPH05303531A (en) | 1991-01-31 | 1993-11-16 | Fields Software Group Inc | Electronic system and method for processing format |
US5592664A (en) | 1991-07-29 | 1997-01-07 | Borland International Inc. | Database server system with methods for alerting clients of occurrence of database server events of interest to the clients |
GB2260007A (en) | 1991-09-20 | 1993-03-31 | Hitachi Ltd | Information storage/retrieval system and display method |
US5329447A (en) | 1992-03-12 | 1994-07-12 | Leedom Jr Charles M | High integrity computer implemented docketing system |
JPH06176081A (en) | 1992-12-02 | 1994-06-24 | Hitachi Ltd | Hierarchical structure browsing method and device |
US5991751A (en) | 1997-06-02 | 1999-11-23 | Smartpatents, Inc. | System, method, and computer program product for patent-centric and group-oriented data processing |
US5999907A (en) | 1993-12-06 | 1999-12-07 | Donner; Irah H. | Intellectual property audit system |
US5548506A (en) | 1994-03-17 | 1996-08-20 | Srinivasan; Seshan R. | Automated, electronic network based, project management server system, for managing multiple work-groups |
US5745745A (en) | 1994-06-29 | 1998-04-28 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Text search method and apparatus for structured documents |
US5548753A (en) | 1994-09-14 | 1996-08-20 | Johnson Service Company | Automatic electronic mail notification of database events |
US5664063A (en) | 1994-12-01 | 1997-09-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatic user notification of certain meeting attributes of a posted calendar event |
US5530852A (en) | 1994-12-20 | 1996-06-25 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method for extracting profiles and topics from a first file written in a first markup language and generating files in different markup languages containing the profiles and topics for use in accessing data described by the profiles and topics |
US5664714A (en) | 1995-01-18 | 1997-09-09 | Navarro; Jose | Vehicular entertainment component stand |
US5768580A (en) | 1995-05-31 | 1998-06-16 | Oracle Corporation | Methods and apparatus for dynamic classification of discourse |
US5694523A (en) | 1995-05-31 | 1997-12-02 | Oracle Corporation | Content processing system for discourse |
US5907837A (en) | 1995-07-17 | 1999-05-25 | Microsoft Corporation | Information retrieval system in an on-line network including separate content and layout of published titles |
US6006221A (en) | 1995-08-16 | 1999-12-21 | Syracuse University | Multilingual document retrieval system and method using semantic vector matching |
US5699528A (en) | 1995-10-31 | 1997-12-16 | Mastercard International, Inc. | System and method for bill delivery and payment over a communications network |
US5774833A (en) | 1995-12-08 | 1998-06-30 | Motorola, Inc. | Method for syntactic and semantic analysis of patent text and drawings |
US5659729A (en) | 1996-02-01 | 1997-08-19 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method and system for implementing hypertext scroll attributes |
US6076088A (en) | 1996-02-09 | 2000-06-13 | Paik; Woojin | Information extraction system and method using concept relation concept (CRC) triples |
US5758328A (en) | 1996-02-22 | 1998-05-26 | Giovannoli; Joseph | Computerized quotation system and method |
US5926811A (en) | 1996-03-15 | 1999-07-20 | Lexis-Nexis | Statistical thesaurus, method of forming same, and use thereof in query expansion in automated text searching |
US5787411A (en) | 1996-03-20 | 1998-07-28 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and apparatus for database filter generation by display selection |
US5970463A (en) | 1996-05-01 | 1999-10-19 | Practice Patterns Science, Inc. | Medical claims integration and data analysis system |
US5794236A (en) | 1996-05-29 | 1998-08-11 | Lexis-Nexis | Computer-based system for classifying documents into a hierarchy and linking the classifications to the hierarchy |
US5721910A (en) | 1996-06-04 | 1998-02-24 | Exxon Research And Engineering Company | Relational database system containing a multidimensional hierachical model of interrelated subject categories with recognition capabilities |
US5850520A (en) | 1996-07-01 | 1998-12-15 | Electronic Data Systems Corporation | Method and system for electronic publication distribution including return receipt |
US5870745A (en) | 1996-09-26 | 1999-02-09 | Mciworldcom, Inc. | Automated system and method for processing and tracking requests and responses required for repetitive tasks |
US6049801A (en) | 1996-10-07 | 2000-04-11 | Whitmyer, Jr.; Wesley W. | Web site providing professional services |
US5895468A (en) | 1996-10-07 | 1999-04-20 | Whitmyer, Jr.; Wesley W. | System automating delivery of professional services |
US6415319B1 (en) | 1997-02-07 | 2002-07-02 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Intelligent network browser using incremental conceptual indexer |
US5940821A (en) | 1997-05-21 | 1999-08-17 | Oracle Corporation | Information presentation in a knowledge base search and retrieval system |
US5903881A (en) | 1997-06-05 | 1999-05-11 | Intuit, Inc. | Personal online banking with integrated online statement and checkbook user interface |
US7680733B1 (en) | 1997-07-22 | 2010-03-16 | Patent And Trademark Fee Management, Llc | Computerized patent and trademark fee payment method and system |
US6363361B1 (en) | 1997-07-22 | 2002-03-26 | Patent & Trademark Fee Management, Llc | Computerized patent and trademark fee payment method and system for law firms |
JPH11134399A (en) | 1997-10-24 | 1999-05-21 | Nec Informatec Systems Ltd | System for preparing description for patent application and method therefor and recording medium recorded with program for preparing description for patent application |
US5953726A (en) | 1997-11-24 | 1999-09-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for maintaining multiple inheritance concept hierarchies |
US6055538A (en) | 1997-12-22 | 2000-04-25 | Hewlett Packard Company | Methods and system for using web browser to search large collections of documents |
US6460043B1 (en) | 1998-02-04 | 2002-10-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and apparatus for operating on data with a conceptual data manipulation language |
US6766315B1 (en) | 1998-05-01 | 2004-07-20 | Bratsos Timothy G | Method and apparatus for simultaneously accessing a plurality of dispersed databases |
US6094652A (en) | 1998-06-10 | 2000-07-25 | Oracle Corporation | Hierarchical query feedback in an information retrieval system |
US6401118B1 (en) | 1998-06-30 | 2002-06-04 | Online Monitoring Services | Method and computer program product for an online monitoring search engine |
US7383294B1 (en) | 1998-06-30 | 2008-06-03 | Emc Corporation | System for determining the mapping of logical objects in a data storage system |
US7840440B2 (en) | 1998-08-06 | 2010-11-23 | Cybersettle Holdings, Inc. | Computerized transaction bargaining system and method |
US6363378B1 (en) | 1998-10-13 | 2002-03-26 | Oracle Corporation | Ranking of query feedback terms in an information retrieval system |
US6415283B1 (en) | 1998-10-13 | 2002-07-02 | Orack Corporation | Methods and apparatus for determining focal points of clusters in a tree structure |
US6453312B1 (en) | 1998-10-14 | 2002-09-17 | Unisys Corporation | System and method for developing a selectably-expandable concept-based search |
US6226792B1 (en) | 1998-10-14 | 2001-05-01 | Unisys Corporation | Object management system supporting the use of application domain knowledge mapped to technology domain knowledge |
US20030069873A1 (en) | 1998-11-18 | 2003-04-10 | Kevin L. Fox | Multiple engine information retrieval and visualization system |
US6327593B1 (en) | 1998-12-23 | 2001-12-04 | Unisys Corporation | Automated system and method for capturing and managing user knowledge within a search system |
WO2000052645A1 (en) | 1999-03-01 | 2000-09-08 | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. | Document image processor, method for extracting document title, and method for imparting document tag information |
US6654731B1 (en) | 1999-03-01 | 2003-11-25 | Oracle Corporation | Automated integration of terminological information into a knowledge base |
US7716060B2 (en) | 1999-03-02 | 2010-05-11 | Germeraad Paul B | Patent-related tools and methodology for use in the merger and acquisition process |
AU4007000A (en) | 1999-03-08 | 2000-09-28 | Procter & Gamble Company, The | Method and apparatus for building a user-defined technical thesaurus using on-line databases |
US6708309B1 (en) | 1999-03-11 | 2004-03-16 | Roxio, Inc. | Method and system for viewing scalable documents |
US6513027B1 (en) | 1999-03-16 | 2003-01-28 | Oracle Corporation | Automated category discovery for a terminological knowledge base |
US6405190B1 (en) | 1999-03-16 | 2002-06-11 | Oracle Corporation | Free format query processing in an information search and retrieval system |
US20020004775A1 (en) | 1999-03-17 | 2002-01-10 | Nir Kossovsky | Online patent and license exchange |
US6847960B1 (en) | 1999-03-29 | 2005-01-25 | Nec Corporation | Document retrieval by information unit |
US6629097B1 (en) | 1999-04-28 | 2003-09-30 | Douglas K. Keith | Displaying implicit associations among items in loosely-structured data sets |
US6269361B1 (en) | 1999-05-28 | 2001-07-31 | Goto.Com | System and method for influencing a position on a search result list generated by a computer network search engine |
US7676375B1 (en) | 1999-06-04 | 2010-03-09 | Stockpricepredictor.Com, Llc | System and method for valuing patents |
US6711585B1 (en) | 1999-06-15 | 2004-03-23 | Kanisa Inc. | System and method for implementing a knowledge management system |
US6981007B1 (en) | 1999-07-09 | 2005-12-27 | Whitmyer Jr Wesley W | Onsite backup for internet-based data processing |
US6560620B1 (en) | 1999-08-03 | 2003-05-06 | Aplix Research, Inc. | Hierarchical document comparison system and method |
EP1236175A4 (en) | 1999-08-06 | 2006-07-12 | Lexis Nexis | System and method for classifying legal concepts using legal topic scheme |
US6556992B1 (en) | 1999-09-14 | 2003-04-29 | Patent Ratings, Llc | Method and system for rating patents and other intangible assets |
US20040010393A1 (en) | 2002-03-25 | 2004-01-15 | Barney Jonathan A. | Method and system for valuing intangible assets |
US20090259506A1 (en) | 1999-09-14 | 2009-10-15 | Barney Jonathan A | Method and system for rating patents and other intangible assets |
US6694315B1 (en) | 1999-09-24 | 2004-02-17 | John B. Grow | Online document assembly and docketing method |
US7016852B1 (en) | 1999-09-30 | 2006-03-21 | Eugene M. Lee | Fee transaction system and method for intellectual property acquisition and/or maintenance |
US7016851B1 (en) | 1999-09-30 | 2006-03-21 | Eugene M. Lee | Systems and methods for preparation of an intellectual property filing in accordance with jurisdiction- and/or agent specific requirements |
US6665656B1 (en) | 1999-10-05 | 2003-12-16 | Motorola, Inc. | Method and apparatus for evaluating documents with correlating information |
US6789092B1 (en) | 1999-11-01 | 2004-09-07 | Oppedahl & Larson, Llp | Status monitoring system |
JP3754253B2 (en) | 1999-11-19 | 2006-03-08 | 株式会社東芝 | Structured document search method, structured document search apparatus, and structured document search system |
US7801830B1 (en) | 1999-12-30 | 2010-09-21 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for marketing, managing, and maintaining intellectual property |
US7634415B2 (en) | 1999-12-30 | 2009-12-15 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Systems and processes for technology asset management |
US7127405B1 (en) | 1999-12-30 | 2006-10-24 | Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corp. | System and method for selecting and protecting intellectual property assets |
EP1115076A1 (en) | 2000-01-06 | 2001-07-11 | Venner, Alan J. | A reminder and actioning system |
US6751621B1 (en) | 2000-01-27 | 2004-06-15 | Manning & Napier Information Services, Llc. | Construction of trainable semantic vectors and clustering, classification, and searching using trainable semantic vectors |
US6640098B1 (en) | 2000-02-14 | 2003-10-28 | Action Engine Corporation | System for obtaining service-related information for local interactive wireless devices |
US8386456B1 (en) | 2000-02-24 | 2013-02-26 | Richard Paiz | Codex search patterns |
WO2001063382A2 (en) | 2000-02-25 | 2001-08-30 | Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. | Conceptual factoring and unification of graphs representing semantic models |
US20010049707A1 (en) | 2000-02-29 | 2001-12-06 | Tran Bao Q. | Systems and methods for generating intellectual property |
EP1275042A2 (en) | 2000-03-06 | 2003-01-15 | Kanisa Inc. | A system and method for providing an intelligent multi-step dialog with a user |
US6542884B1 (en) | 2000-03-14 | 2003-04-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for updating an inheritance tree with minimal increase in memory usage |
US6970842B1 (en) | 2000-03-21 | 2005-11-29 | Halo Management, Llc | Project docket management apparatus and method |
CA2404854A1 (en) | 2000-04-05 | 2001-10-18 | Ruesch International, Inc. | System, method and apparatus for international financial transactions |
US7757168B1 (en) | 2000-04-07 | 2010-07-13 | Xerox Corporation | Meta-document and method of managing |
US6701309B1 (en) | 2000-04-21 | 2004-03-02 | Lycos, Inc. | Method and system for collecting related queries |
US6879990B1 (en) | 2000-04-28 | 2005-04-12 | Institute For Scientific Information, Inc. | System for identifying potential licensees of a source patent portfolio |
US20020163541A1 (en) | 2000-05-04 | 2002-11-07 | Williams G. Thomas | System and method for organizing and presenting information relating to the interpretation of multiple information elements, such as patent claim elements, in at least one reference source and graphical user interface incorporating the same |
US6885999B1 (en) | 2000-05-10 | 2005-04-26 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Digital identifiers and digital identifier control systems for intellectual properties |
US6490581B1 (en) * | 2000-05-24 | 2002-12-03 | At&T Corp. | System and method for providing an object-oriented interface to a relational database |
US6839665B1 (en) | 2000-06-27 | 2005-01-04 | Text Analysis International, Inc. | Automated generation of text analysis systems |
US20020078090A1 (en) | 2000-06-30 | 2002-06-20 | Hwang Chung Hee | Ontological concept-based, user-centric text summarization |
US6678692B1 (en) | 2000-07-10 | 2004-01-13 | Northrop Grumman Corporation | Hierarchy statistical analysis system and method |
GB2364823A (en) | 2000-07-12 | 2002-02-06 | Seiko Epson Corp | TFT memory device having gate insulator with charge-trapping granules |
US6675159B1 (en) | 2000-07-27 | 2004-01-06 | Science Applic Int Corp | Concept-based search and retrieval system |
US6823331B1 (en) | 2000-08-28 | 2004-11-23 | Entrust Limited | Concept identification system and method for use in reducing and/or representing text content of an electronic document |
US20020029208A1 (en) | 2000-09-06 | 2002-03-07 | Josephson Daryl Craig | Data gathering and distribution apparatus and methods |
US20040260569A1 (en) | 2000-09-07 | 2004-12-23 | Cyber Legal Solutions, Inc. | Expert legal task management |
US7487114B2 (en) | 2000-10-23 | 2009-02-03 | Costar Group, Inc. | System and method for associating aerial images, map features, and information |
JP3266602B1 (en) | 2000-10-30 | 2002-03-18 | 洋一 奥寺 | Address inquiry system, computer program product and method thereof |
US20040073443A1 (en) | 2000-11-10 | 2004-04-15 | Gabrick John J. | System for automating and managing an IP environment |
US6999956B2 (en) | 2000-11-16 | 2006-02-14 | Ward Mullins | Dynamic object-driven database manipulation and mapping system |
US7395261B1 (en) | 2000-11-21 | 2008-07-01 | Amy Hobbs Atzel | System and method for ordering items |
US20020065677A1 (en) | 2000-11-27 | 2002-05-30 | First To File, Inc. | Computer implemented method of managing information disclosure statements |
AU3051902A (en) | 2000-11-27 | 2002-06-03 | First To File Inc | Docketing system |
US20020091542A1 (en) | 2000-11-27 | 2002-07-11 | First To File, Inc | Computer implemented method of paying intellectual property annuity and maintenance fees |
US20020111953A1 (en) | 2000-11-27 | 2002-08-15 | First To File, Inc. | Docketing system |
US20020072920A1 (en) | 2000-12-07 | 2002-06-13 | Jeffry Grainger | Computer implemented method of generating information disclosure statements |
US7188069B2 (en) | 2000-11-30 | 2007-03-06 | Syracuse University | Method for valuing intellectual property |
US6678677B2 (en) | 2000-12-19 | 2004-01-13 | Xerox Corporation | Apparatus and method for information retrieval using self-appending semantic lattice |
US7051022B1 (en) | 2000-12-19 | 2006-05-23 | Oracle International Corporation | Automated extension for generation of cross references in a knowledge base |
US20030220891A1 (en) | 2000-12-22 | 2003-11-27 | Fish Robert D | Matter management computer software |
US6839707B2 (en) | 2001-01-17 | 2005-01-04 | General Electric Company | Web-based system and method for managing legal information |
US6766316B2 (en) | 2001-01-18 | 2004-07-20 | Science Applications International Corporation | Method and system of ranking and clustering for document indexing and retrieval |
US20020107896A1 (en) | 2001-02-02 | 2002-08-08 | Abraham Ronai | Patent application drafting assistance tool |
WO2002065233A2 (en) | 2001-02-09 | 2002-08-22 | Mellon Hr Solutions Llc | Individual valuation in a group |
US20030160812A1 (en) | 2002-02-26 | 2003-08-28 | Gary Dommer | Representation of EPG programming information |
US8874431B2 (en) | 2001-03-16 | 2014-10-28 | Meaningful Machines Llc | Knowledge system method and apparatus |
US7860706B2 (en) | 2001-03-16 | 2010-12-28 | Eli Abir | Knowledge system method and appparatus |
US8484177B2 (en) | 2001-03-21 | 2013-07-09 | Eugene M. Lee | Apparatus for and method of searching and organizing intellectual property information utilizing a field-of-search |
US6694331B2 (en) | 2001-03-21 | 2004-02-17 | Knowledge Management Objects, Llc | Apparatus for and method of searching and organizing intellectual property information utilizing a classification system |
US7353202B2 (en) | 2001-03-22 | 2008-04-01 | Malackowski James E | System for and method of risk minimization and enhanced returns in an intellectual capital based venture investment |
CA2444437A1 (en) | 2001-03-29 | 2002-10-10 | Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. | Internet-based patent and trademark application management system |
US20020184234A1 (en) | 2001-06-01 | 2002-12-05 | Lundberg Steven W. | Internet-based patent and trademark applicaton management system |
US6665670B2 (en) | 2001-03-30 | 2003-12-16 | M.Cam, Inc. | Method and system for graphical representation of multitemporal, multidimensional data relationships |
US6976016B2 (en) | 2001-04-02 | 2005-12-13 | Vima Technologies, Inc. | Maximizing expected generalization for learning complex query concepts |
US20020147738A1 (en) | 2001-04-06 | 2002-10-10 | Reader Scot A. | Method and appratus for finding patent-relevant web documents |
US6839564B2 (en) | 2001-04-25 | 2005-01-04 | Nokia Corporation | Synchronization of database data |
US6970881B1 (en) | 2001-05-07 | 2005-11-29 | Intelligenxia, Inc. | Concept-based method and system for dynamically analyzing unstructured information |
US7653631B1 (en) | 2001-05-10 | 2010-01-26 | Foundationip, Llc | Method for synchronizing information in multiple case management systems |
JP4489994B2 (en) | 2001-05-11 | 2010-06-23 | 富士通株式会社 | Topic extraction apparatus, method, program, and recording medium for recording the program |
US6980984B1 (en) | 2001-05-16 | 2005-12-27 | Kanisa, Inc. | Content provider systems and methods using structured data |
US6968341B2 (en) | 2001-05-25 | 2005-11-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for post-analyzing, and sequentially visualizing plurality of predefined metrics in a stored dynamic data values associated identifiers within determined time range |
US6871324B2 (en) | 2001-05-25 | 2005-03-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for efficiently and dynamically updating monitored metrics in a heterogeneous system |
US7103843B2 (en) | 2001-05-25 | 2006-09-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for visualizing metrics in a data space |
US8326851B2 (en) | 2001-06-29 | 2012-12-04 | Grune Guerry L | Simultaneous intellectual property search and valuation system and methodology (SIPS-VSM) |
US20030066025A1 (en) | 2001-07-13 | 2003-04-03 | Garner Harold R. | Method and system for information retrieval |
KR20030009704A (en) | 2001-07-23 | 2003-02-05 | 한국전자통신연구원 | System for drawing patent map using technical field word, its method |
JP4571404B2 (en) | 2001-07-26 | 2010-10-27 | インターナショナル・ビジネス・マシーンズ・コーポレーション | Data processing method, data processing system, and program |
KR100436356B1 (en) | 2001-08-01 | 2004-06-18 | (주) 위즈도메인 | A method for analyzing and providing inter-citation relationship between patents related to a subject patent |
JP3612562B2 (en) | 2001-08-28 | 2005-01-19 | 独立行政法人情報通信研究機構 | Digital data retrieval information presentation system |
US9541977B1 (en) | 2001-08-28 | 2017-01-10 | Eugene M. Lee | Computer-implemented method and system for automated claim charts with context associations |
US9460414B2 (en) | 2001-08-28 | 2016-10-04 | Eugene M. Lee | Computer assisted and/or implemented process and system for annotating and/or linking documents and data, optionally in an intellectual property management system |
US8041739B2 (en) | 2001-08-31 | 2011-10-18 | Jinan Glasgow | Automated system and method for patent drafting and technology assessment |
US6778995B1 (en) | 2001-08-31 | 2004-08-17 | Attenex Corporation | System and method for efficiently generating cluster groupings in a multi-dimensional concept space |
US7305625B1 (en) | 2001-09-24 | 2007-12-04 | Aloft Media, Llc | Data networking system and method for interfacing a user |
US20030084066A1 (en) | 2001-10-31 | 2003-05-01 | Waterman Scott A. | Device and method for assisting knowledge engineer in associating intelligence with content |
US20040006594A1 (en) | 2001-11-27 | 2004-01-08 | Ftf Technologies Inc. | Data access control techniques using roles and permissions |
US20030115191A1 (en) | 2001-12-17 | 2003-06-19 | Max Copperman | Efficient and cost-effective content provider for customer relationship management (CRM) or other applications |
WO2003065252A1 (en) | 2002-02-01 | 2003-08-07 | John Fairweather | System and method for managing memory |
US20030154085A1 (en) | 2002-02-08 | 2003-08-14 | Onevoice Medical Corporation | Interactive knowledge base system |
US8589413B1 (en) | 2002-03-01 | 2013-11-19 | Ixreveal, Inc. | Concept-based method and system for dynamically analyzing results from search engines |
US20040002892A1 (en) | 2002-03-20 | 2004-01-01 | Martin Gluck | Portal for global portfolio management system method & apparatus |
US20030187874A1 (en) | 2002-03-20 | 2003-10-02 | Andreas Peschel | Computer & Internet software application for global portfolio management system method & apparatus |
US7260773B2 (en) | 2002-03-28 | 2007-08-21 | Uri Zernik | Device system and method for determining document similarities and differences |
US20030187832A1 (en) | 2002-04-02 | 2003-10-02 | Reader Scot A. | Method for locating patent-relevant web pages and search agent for use therein |
DE10215495A1 (en) | 2002-04-09 | 2003-10-30 | Bayer Ag | Computer system and method for research, statistical evaluation and analysis of documents |
US6847966B1 (en) | 2002-04-24 | 2005-01-25 | Engenium Corporation | Method and system for optimally searching a document database using a representative semantic space |
JP2006501536A (en) | 2002-04-29 | 2006-01-12 | コンテントガード ホールディングズ インコーポレイテッド | Copyright management system using legal expression language |
US20030212706A1 (en) | 2002-05-07 | 2003-11-13 | Shih Yu Li | Patent management system |
US7792728B2 (en) | 2002-05-13 | 2010-09-07 | Poltorak Alexander I | Method and apparatus for patent valuation |
US7085771B2 (en) | 2002-05-17 | 2006-08-01 | Verity, Inc | System and method for automatically discovering a hierarchy of concepts from a corpus of documents |
US20040015481A1 (en) | 2002-05-23 | 2004-01-22 | Kenneth Zinda | Patent data mining |
US6996575B2 (en) | 2002-05-31 | 2006-02-07 | Sas Institute Inc. | Computer-implemented system and method for text-based document processing |
US20030229470A1 (en) | 2002-06-10 | 2003-12-11 | Nenad Pejic | System and method for analyzing patent-related information |
AU2003236515A1 (en) | 2002-06-13 | 2003-12-31 | Milliken And Company | Multiple-component magnetic mat |
US7024408B2 (en) | 2002-07-03 | 2006-04-04 | Word Data Corp. | Text-classification code, system and method |
US20040006547A1 (en) | 2002-07-03 | 2004-01-08 | Dehlinger Peter J. | Text-processing database |
US7181451B2 (en) | 2002-07-03 | 2007-02-20 | Word Data Corp. | Processing input text to generate the selectivity value of a word or word group in a library of texts in a field is related to the frequency of occurrence of that word or word group in library |
US20040006459A1 (en) | 2002-07-05 | 2004-01-08 | Dehlinger Peter J. | Text-searching system and method |
US7016895B2 (en) | 2002-07-05 | 2006-03-21 | Word Data Corp. | Text-classification system and method |
US7003516B2 (en) | 2002-07-03 | 2006-02-21 | Word Data Corp. | Text representation and method |
KR100490725B1 (en) | 2002-07-11 | 2005-05-24 | 한국전자통신연구원 | Method for constructing database of technique classification patent map |
US7493253B1 (en) | 2002-07-12 | 2009-02-17 | Language And Computing, Inc. | Conceptual world representation natural language understanding system and method |
US20060224999A1 (en) | 2005-04-01 | 2006-10-05 | Paul Albrecht | Graphical visualization of data product using browser |
US7136807B2 (en) | 2002-08-26 | 2006-11-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Inferencing using disambiguated natural language rules |
US20040044688A1 (en) | 2002-08-30 | 2004-03-04 | Brudz John Jason | Patent asset management systems and methods |
JP3891909B2 (en) | 2002-09-03 | 2007-03-14 | 日本アイ・ビー・エム株式会社 | Information search support system, application server, information search method, and program |
US20040059994A1 (en) | 2002-09-23 | 2004-03-25 | Ronny Fogel | Method of checking patent claims |
US7158983B2 (en) | 2002-09-23 | 2007-01-02 | Battelle Memorial Institute | Text analysis technique |
US6886010B2 (en) | 2002-09-30 | 2005-04-26 | The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy | Method for data and text mining and literature-based discovery |
EP1411448A3 (en) | 2002-10-17 | 2007-12-05 | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. | Data searching apparatus |
US7296015B2 (en) | 2002-10-17 | 2007-11-13 | Poltorak Alexander I | Apparatus and method for identifying and/or for analyzing potential patent infringement |
US7904453B2 (en) | 2002-10-17 | 2011-03-08 | Poltorak Alexander I | Apparatus and method for analyzing patent claim validity |
US20040186738A1 (en) | 2002-10-24 | 2004-09-23 | Richard Reisman | Method and apparatus for an idea adoption marketplace |
AU2002368316A1 (en) | 2002-10-24 | 2004-06-07 | Agency For Science, Technology And Research | Method and system for discovering knowledge from text documents |
US7142713B1 (en) | 2002-10-24 | 2006-11-28 | Foundationip, Llc | Automated docketing system |
JP2006514620A (en) | 2002-11-06 | 2006-05-11 | マウント シナイ スクール オブ メディシン | Treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with Nimesulide |
US6947950B2 (en) | 2002-11-06 | 2005-09-20 | Oracle International Corporation | Techniques for managing multiple hierarchies of data from a single interface |
US7739240B2 (en) | 2002-12-09 | 2010-06-15 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Replication and replica management in a wide area file system |
US20040199400A1 (en) | 2002-12-17 | 2004-10-07 | Lundberg Steven W. | Internet-based patent and trademark application management system |
US20040122841A1 (en) | 2002-12-19 | 2004-06-24 | Ford Motor Company | Method and system for evaluating intellectual property |
US20040167875A1 (en) | 2003-02-20 | 2004-08-26 | Eriks Sneiders | Information processing method and system |
US8694504B2 (en) | 2003-03-05 | 2014-04-08 | Spore, Inc. | Methods and systems for technology analysis and mapping |
US20040181417A1 (en) | 2003-03-14 | 2004-09-16 | Gunther Piller | Managing the definition of a product innovation |
US7406459B2 (en) | 2003-05-01 | 2008-07-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Concept network |
CA2523586A1 (en) | 2003-05-01 | 2004-11-11 | Axonwave Software Inc. | A method and system for concept generation and management |
US20040223648A1 (en) | 2003-05-05 | 2004-11-11 | Keith Hoene | Determining differences between documents |
WO2004104762A2 (en) | 2003-05-16 | 2004-12-02 | Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. | Apparatus, method and computer readable medium for evaluating a network of entities and assets |
US7689483B2 (en) | 2003-05-20 | 2010-03-30 | Amegy Bank of Texas | System to facilitate payments for a customer through a foreign bank, software, business methods, and other related methods |
US20050004806A1 (en) | 2003-06-20 | 2005-01-06 | Dah-Chih Lin | Automatic patent claim reader and computer-aided claim reading method |
JP3966515B2 (en) | 2003-06-27 | 2007-08-29 | 日本アイ・ビー・エム株式会社 | Network system, server, data recording / reproducing apparatus, method and program thereof |
US20050005239A1 (en) | 2003-07-03 | 2005-01-06 | Richards James L. | System and method for automatic insertion of cross references in a document |
US7171618B2 (en) | 2003-07-30 | 2007-01-30 | Xerox Corporation | Multi-versioned documents and method for creation and use thereof |
CA2536265C (en) | 2003-08-21 | 2012-11-13 | Idilia Inc. | System and method for processing a query |
US7774333B2 (en) | 2003-08-21 | 2010-08-10 | Idia Inc. | System and method for associating queries and documents with contextual advertisements |
EP1673702A4 (en) | 2003-09-11 | 2008-11-05 | Ipx Inc | System for software source code comparison |
US7219105B2 (en) | 2003-09-17 | 2007-05-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system and computer program product for profiling entities |
US20070271366A1 (en) | 2003-10-09 | 2007-11-22 | Demers Timothy B | Multimedia player and browser system |
US7555441B2 (en) | 2003-10-10 | 2009-06-30 | Kronos Talent Management Inc. | Conceptualization of job candidate information |
US10198478B2 (en) * | 2003-10-11 | 2019-02-05 | Magic Number, Inc. | Methods and systems for technology analysis and mapping |
US9483551B2 (en) | 2003-10-11 | 2016-11-01 | Spore, Inc. | Methods and systems for technology analysis and mapping |
US9922383B2 (en) * | 2003-11-07 | 2018-03-20 | Spore, Inc. | Patent claims analysis system and method |
US20070136271A1 (en) | 2003-10-23 | 2007-06-14 | Hiroaki Masuyama | Enterprise evaluation device and enterprise evaluation program |
US7185172B1 (en) | 2003-10-31 | 2007-02-27 | Integrated Device Technology, Inc. | CAM-based search engine devices having index translation capability |
WO2005048055A2 (en) | 2003-11-07 | 2005-05-26 | Spore, Inc. | Patent claims analysis system and method |
US20050120011A1 (en) | 2003-11-26 | 2005-06-02 | Word Data Corp. | Code, method, and system for manipulating texts |
US20050234738A1 (en) | 2003-11-26 | 2005-10-20 | Hodes Alan S | Competitive product intelligence system and method, including patent analysis and formulation using one or more ontologies |
KR100452086B1 (en) | 2003-12-22 | 2004-10-13 | 엔에이치엔(주) | Search System For Providing Information of Keyword Input Frequency By Category And Method Thereof |
US20060106793A1 (en) | 2003-12-29 | 2006-05-18 | Ping Liang | Internet and computer information retrieval and mining with intelligent conceptual filtering, visualization and automation |
US7281008B1 (en) | 2003-12-31 | 2007-10-09 | Google Inc. | Systems and methods for constructing a query result set |
US7447678B2 (en) | 2003-12-31 | 2008-11-04 | Google Inc. | Interface for a universal search engine |
US7702516B2 (en) | 2004-01-13 | 2010-04-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Payment control to inventors in patent tracking system |
KR100452085B1 (en) | 2004-01-14 | 2004-10-12 | 엔에이치엔(주) | Search System For Providing Information of Keyword Input Frequency By Category And Method Thereof |
US8868405B2 (en) | 2004-01-27 | 2014-10-21 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L. P. | System and method for comparative analysis of textual documents |
US20050198026A1 (en) | 2004-02-03 | 2005-09-08 | Dehlinger Peter J. | Code, system, and method for generating concepts |
US20050182755A1 (en) | 2004-02-14 | 2005-08-18 | Bao Tran | Systems and methods for analyzing documents over a network |
GB2411331A (en) | 2004-02-19 | 2005-08-24 | Trigenix Ltd | Rendering user interface using actor attributes |
US20050210009A1 (en) | 2004-03-18 | 2005-09-22 | Bao Tran | Systems and methods for intellectual property management |
US20050228684A1 (en) | 2004-04-13 | 2005-10-13 | Pavel Pogodin | Integrated computerized system and method for management of intellectual property |
US20050234881A1 (en) | 2004-04-16 | 2005-10-20 | Anna Burago | Search wizard |
US7962453B2 (en) | 2004-04-26 | 2011-06-14 | Oracle International Corporation | Dynamic redistribution of a distributed memory index when individual nodes have different lookup indexes |
US20070067297A1 (en) | 2004-04-30 | 2007-03-22 | Kublickis Peter J | System and methods for a micropayment-enabled marketplace with permission-based, self-service, precision-targeted delivery of advertising, entertainment and informational content and relationship marketing to anonymous internet users |
US7697791B1 (en) | 2004-05-10 | 2010-04-13 | Google Inc. | Method and system for providing targeted documents based on concepts automatically identified therein |
US7447665B2 (en) | 2004-05-10 | 2008-11-04 | Kinetx, Inc. | System and method of self-learning conceptual mapping to organize and interpret data |
US7996753B1 (en) | 2004-05-10 | 2011-08-09 | Google Inc. | Method and system for automatically creating an image advertisement |
US20050256734A1 (en) | 2004-05-14 | 2005-11-17 | Clikeman Richard R | Method and data structure for augmenting invention and analysis of intellectual property |
WO2005114468A2 (en) | 2004-05-20 | 2005-12-01 | Wizpatent, Pte Ltd. | System and method for text segmentation and display |
US20050261927A1 (en) | 2004-05-24 | 2005-11-24 | Bilak Mark R | System and method for valuing intellectual property |
DE602004022517D1 (en) | 2004-06-15 | 2009-09-24 | Sap Ag | A data processing system and method for monitoring database replication |
EP1782371A4 (en) | 2004-06-22 | 2009-12-02 | Coras Inc | Systems and methods for software based on business concepts |
EP1774432A4 (en) | 2004-07-27 | 2009-04-22 | Schwegman Lundberg Woessner & | Patent mapping |
US8145639B2 (en) | 2004-08-11 | 2012-03-27 | Allan Williams | System and methods for patent evaluation |
US20060074836A1 (en) | 2004-09-03 | 2006-04-06 | Biowisdom Limited | System and method for graphically displaying ontology data |
JP4538284B2 (en) | 2004-09-09 | 2010-09-08 | 株式会社リコー | Information search system, information search terminal, program, and recording medium |
US20060085249A1 (en) | 2004-09-24 | 2006-04-20 | Idt Corporation | Method and apparatus for mining patent data |
US20060074980A1 (en) | 2004-09-29 | 2006-04-06 | Sarkar Pte. Ltd. | System for semantically disambiguating text information |
US7433884B2 (en) | 2004-09-29 | 2008-10-07 | Chi Research, Inc. | Identification of licensing targets using citation neighbor search process |
US20060173903A1 (en) | 2004-09-30 | 2006-08-03 | Zimmerman Mark C | Methods and apparatus to automatically generate claim charts |
US20060085478A1 (en) | 2004-10-18 | 2006-04-20 | Michael Landau | Third-party automated tracking, analysis, and distribution of registry status information |
US7801874B2 (en) | 2004-10-22 | 2010-09-21 | Mahle Powertrain Llc | Reporting tools |
US20080077570A1 (en) | 2004-10-25 | 2008-03-27 | Infovell, Inc. | Full Text Query and Search Systems and Method of Use |
DE102005051429A1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2006-06-14 | Elsevier B.V. | Method and software for analyzing research publications |
JPWO2006048998A1 (en) | 2004-11-05 | 2008-05-22 | 株式会社アイ・ピー・ビー | Keyword extractor |
US20060149720A1 (en) | 2004-12-30 | 2006-07-06 | Dehlinger Peter J | System and method for retrieving information from citation-rich documents |
US7444589B2 (en) | 2004-12-30 | 2008-10-28 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Automated patent office documentation |
US8229905B2 (en) | 2005-01-14 | 2012-07-24 | Ricoh Co., Ltd. | Adaptive document management system using a physical representation of a document |
US20060229983A1 (en) | 2005-03-17 | 2006-10-12 | Steven Lundberg | Method and apparatus for processing annuities |
US20060212302A1 (en) | 2005-03-21 | 2006-09-21 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for a user interface in an IP management system |
US20060212480A1 (en) | 2005-03-21 | 2006-09-21 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for matter clusters in an IP management system |
US20060212471A1 (en) | 2005-03-21 | 2006-09-21 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for intellectual property information management using configurable activities |
US20060212402A1 (en) | 2005-03-21 | 2006-09-21 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for export control of technical documents |
US7853629B2 (en) | 2005-03-23 | 2010-12-14 | Executive Data Systems, Inc. | Document imaging and management system for paperless workflow |
US20060218491A1 (en) | 2005-03-25 | 2006-09-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | System, method and program product for community review of documents |
US20060258397A1 (en) | 2005-05-10 | 2006-11-16 | Kaplan Mark M | Integrated mobile application server and communication gateway |
JP2008537225A (en) | 2005-04-11 | 2008-09-11 | テキストディガー,インコーポレイテッド | Search system and method for queries |
US7970671B2 (en) | 2005-04-12 | 2011-06-28 | Syncada Llc | Automated transaction processing system and approach with currency conversion |
US20080195601A1 (en) | 2005-04-14 | 2008-08-14 | The Regents Of The University Of California | Method For Information Retrieval |
US8805781B2 (en) | 2005-06-15 | 2014-08-12 | Geronimo Development | Document quotation indexing system and method |
US7472119B2 (en) | 2005-06-30 | 2008-12-30 | Microsoft Corporation | Prioritizing search results by client search satisfaction |
US20070130112A1 (en) | 2005-06-30 | 2007-06-07 | Intelligentek Corp. | Multimedia conceptual search system and associated search method |
US7849049B2 (en) | 2005-07-05 | 2010-12-07 | Clarabridge, Inc. | Schema and ETL tools for structured and unstructured data |
US20070057967A1 (en) | 2005-07-13 | 2007-03-15 | Armstrong Orin R | System and method for the display of versioned documents and amendments |
AU2012200701B2 (en) | 2005-07-27 | 2014-01-30 | Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Patent Mapping |
US8566789B2 (en) | 2005-08-25 | 2013-10-22 | Infosys Limited | Semantic-based query techniques for source code |
US20070073625A1 (en) | 2005-09-27 | 2007-03-29 | Shelton Robert H | System and method of licensing intellectual property assets |
JP5368100B2 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2013-12-18 | アイエックスリビール インコーポレイテッド | System, method, and computer program product for concept-based search and analysis |
US20070219853A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2007-09-20 | Leviathan Entertainment, Llc | Patent Examiner Selection |
US20070220041A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2007-09-20 | Leviathan Entertainment, Llc | Prior Art Notes Associated with Patent Applications |
US20080015968A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2008-01-17 | Leviathan Entertainment, Llc | Fee-Based Priority Queuing for Insurance Claim Processing |
US20070136373A1 (en) | 2005-12-14 | 2007-06-14 | Piasecki David J | Intellectual property portfolio management method and system |
US7657476B2 (en) | 2005-12-28 | 2010-02-02 | Patentratings, Llc | Method and system for valuing intangible assets |
US7702640B1 (en) | 2005-12-29 | 2010-04-20 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Stratified unbalanced trees for indexing of data items within a computer system |
US20070168345A1 (en) | 2006-01-17 | 2007-07-19 | Andrew Gibbs | System and method of identifying subject matter experts |
US7676485B2 (en) | 2006-01-20 | 2010-03-09 | Ixreveal, Inc. | Method and computer program product for converting ontologies into concept semantic networks |
US8204213B2 (en) | 2006-03-29 | 2012-06-19 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for performing a similarity measure of anonymized data |
US8386350B2 (en) | 2006-04-04 | 2013-02-26 | International Buisness Machines Corporation | System and method for extracting value from a portfolio of assets |
KR100785352B1 (en) | 2006-04-21 | 2007-12-18 | 엔에이치엔(주) | Method and system for creating search-result-list |
US8069182B2 (en) | 2006-04-24 | 2011-11-29 | Working Research, Inc. | Relevancy-based domain classification |
JP2007293642A (en) | 2006-04-26 | 2007-11-08 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Electronic document management system |
US20080005144A1 (en) | 2006-05-23 | 2008-01-03 | Seapass Solutions Inc. | Apparatus and method for transferring data between incompatible computer systems |
US20070294610A1 (en) | 2006-06-02 | 2007-12-20 | Ching Phillip W | System and method for identifying similar portions in documents |
US7734545B1 (en) | 2006-06-14 | 2010-06-08 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Method and system for processing recurring payments |
US20080021900A1 (en) | 2006-07-14 | 2008-01-24 | Ficus Enterprises, Llc | Examiner information system |
US20080216013A1 (en) | 2006-08-01 | 2008-09-04 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent tracking |
US20080154767A1 (en) | 2006-08-30 | 2008-06-26 | D Agostino Richard J | Method for assessing the strength of patent portfolios and valuating them for purposes of monetization |
US7664692B2 (en) | 2006-08-31 | 2010-02-16 | Chicago Board of Options Exchange | Method and system for creating and trading derivative investment instruments based on an index of investment management companies |
US8005748B2 (en) | 2006-09-14 | 2011-08-23 | Newman David L | Intellectual property distribution system and method for distributing licenses |
US20080077577A1 (en) | 2006-09-27 | 2008-03-27 | Byrne Joseph J | Research and Monitoring Tool to Determine the Likelihood of the Public Finding Information Using a Keyword Search |
US20080097931A1 (en) | 2006-10-23 | 2008-04-24 | Ipie Mae Corporation | Computer assisted process for providing liquidity to an enterprise by utilizing intellectual property assets |
AU2007314921A1 (en) | 2006-11-02 | 2008-05-08 | Intellectual Property Bank Corp. | Patent evaluating device |
US20080109454A1 (en) | 2006-11-03 | 2008-05-08 | Willse Alan R | Text analysis techniques |
SG177885A1 (en) | 2006-11-29 | 2012-02-28 | Ocean Tomo Llc | A marketplace for trading intangible asset derivatives and a method for trading intangible asset derivatives |
US8065307B2 (en) | 2006-12-20 | 2011-11-22 | Microsoft Corporation | Parsing, analysis and scoring of document content |
CN101211452A (en) | 2006-12-29 | 2008-07-02 | 鸿富锦精密工业(深圳)有限公司 | Patent information service system and method |
US20080183518A1 (en) | 2007-01-30 | 2008-07-31 | Herb Jiang | Method and system for analyzing patent flow |
US20080195604A1 (en) | 2007-02-08 | 2008-08-14 | Christopher Nordby Sears | Synthesis-based approach to draft an invention disclosure using improved prior art search technique |
US8060505B2 (en) | 2007-02-13 | 2011-11-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methodologies and analytics tools for identifying white space opportunities in a given industry |
US8380548B2 (en) | 2007-02-15 | 2013-02-19 | So-ling Carmen Ng | Method for managing intellectual property |
US7610185B1 (en) | 2007-02-26 | 2009-10-27 | Quintura, Inc. | GUI for subject matter navigation using maps and search terms |
US20080243799A1 (en) | 2007-03-30 | 2008-10-02 | Innography, Inc. | System and method of generating a set of search results |
US7765227B1 (en) | 2007-03-30 | 2010-07-27 | A9.Com, Inc. | Selection of search criteria order based on relevance information |
US8176440B2 (en) | 2007-03-30 | 2012-05-08 | Silicon Laboratories, Inc. | System and method of presenting search results |
US7881937B2 (en) | 2007-05-31 | 2011-02-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for analyzing patent claims |
US8160306B1 (en) | 2007-06-06 | 2012-04-17 | Neustel Michael S | Patent analyzing system |
US7801749B2 (en) | 2007-06-07 | 2010-09-21 | Ingenix, Inc. | System and method for grouping claim records associated with a procedure |
US20080312981A1 (en) | 2007-06-13 | 2008-12-18 | Mdb Capital Group, Llc | Automated Identification of Competitors |
US8538794B2 (en) | 2007-06-18 | 2013-09-17 | Reuven A. Marko | Method and apparatus for management of the creation of a patent portfolio |
US8271473B2 (en) | 2007-06-25 | 2012-09-18 | Jobs2Web, Inc. | System and method for career website optimization |
CN101334771A (en) * | 2007-06-28 | 2008-12-31 | 冠亚智财股份有限公司 | Correlation screening system and method for patent constituted element combination |
US20090006328A1 (en) | 2007-06-29 | 2009-01-01 | Nokia Corporation | Identifying commonalities between contacts |
US8230458B2 (en) | 2007-06-29 | 2012-07-24 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method of providing video content commentary |
KR101103766B1 (en) | 2007-07-03 | 2012-01-12 | 성균관대학교산학협력단 | Terminal, method, recording medium for collecting user preference information using tag information |
US20090012827A1 (en) | 2007-07-05 | 2009-01-08 | Adam Avrunin | Methods and Systems for Analyzing Patent Applications to Identify Undervalued Stocks |
US8254692B2 (en) | 2007-07-23 | 2012-08-28 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Document comparison method and apparatus |
US20090043797A1 (en) | 2007-07-27 | 2009-02-12 | Sparkip, Inc. | System And Methods For Clustering Large Database of Documents |
US20090030713A1 (en) | 2007-07-27 | 2009-01-29 | Venkatachalam A R | System and method of reviewing ownership of and encumbrances on intellectual property assets |
KR100901938B1 (en) | 2007-08-14 | 2009-06-10 | 엔에이치엔비즈니스플랫폼 주식회사 | Method and system for revising click through rate |
US20090055721A1 (en) | 2007-08-23 | 2009-02-26 | Kahn Michael R | Patent claim visualization system and method |
EP2193462A2 (en) | 2007-08-28 | 2010-06-09 | Lexisnexis Group | Document search tool |
US8275708B1 (en) | 2007-09-12 | 2012-09-25 | United Services Automobile Associates (USAA) | Systems and methods for automatic payment plan |
US7836048B2 (en) | 2007-11-19 | 2010-11-16 | Red Hat, Inc. | Socially-derived relevance in search engine results |
US8862622B2 (en) | 2007-12-10 | 2014-10-14 | Sprylogics International Corp. | Analysis, inference, and visualization of social networks |
US20090150326A1 (en) | 2007-12-10 | 2009-06-11 | Foundationip, Llc | Smart agent for examination of an application |
US20090158173A1 (en) | 2007-12-17 | 2009-06-18 | Palahnuk Samuel Louis | Communications system with dynamic calendar |
US9146985B2 (en) | 2008-01-07 | 2015-09-29 | Novell, Inc. | Techniques for evaluating patent impacts |
US9384175B2 (en) | 2008-02-19 | 2016-07-05 | Adobe Systems Incorporated | Determination of differences between electronic documents |
US8112174B2 (en) | 2008-02-25 | 2012-02-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Processor, method and computer program product for fast selective invalidation of translation lookaside buffer |
US8218487B2 (en) | 2008-04-09 | 2012-07-10 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | System and method of adaptive frequency hopping with look ahead interference prediction |
WO2009144698A1 (en) | 2008-05-26 | 2009-12-03 | Kenshoo Ltd. | A system for finding website invitation cueing keywords and for attribute-based generation of invitation-cueing instructions |
US8196030B1 (en) | 2008-06-02 | 2012-06-05 | Pricewaterhousecoopers Llp | System and method for comparing and reviewing documents |
US20100023386A1 (en) | 2008-07-23 | 2010-01-28 | Sol Avisar | Social networking platform for intellectual property assets |
US9003474B1 (en) | 2008-08-22 | 2015-04-07 | Taser International, Inc. | Systems and methods for managing disclosure of protectable information |
US20100057533A1 (en) | 2008-09-04 | 2010-03-04 | Universidad Catolica de la SSMA, Concepcion | Multidimensional method and computer system for patent and technology portfolio rating and related database |
CN101676917A (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2010-03-24 | 英赛特半导体有限公司 | Method and system for populating a database with bibliographic data from multiple sources |
US20100082395A1 (en) | 2008-09-29 | 2010-04-01 | Anthony Bernard De Andrade | Systems and methods for analyzing a portfolio of intellectual property assets |
US20100131513A1 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2010-05-27 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20100174698A1 (en) | 2009-01-06 | 2010-07-08 | Global Patent Solutions, Llc | Method for a customized and automated forward and backward patent citation search |
CN101464897A (en) | 2009-01-12 | 2009-06-24 | 阿里巴巴集团控股有限公司 | Word matching and information query method and device |
US8768960B2 (en) | 2009-01-20 | 2014-07-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Enhancing keyword advertising using online encyclopedia semantics |
US20100191622A1 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2010-07-29 | Zvi Reiss | Distributed Transaction layer |
US20100250479A1 (en) | 2009-03-31 | 2010-09-30 | Novell, Inc. | Intellectual property discovery and mapping systems and methods |
CN102439610A (en) | 2009-04-20 | 2012-05-02 | 美国安牌可有限公司 | Systems and methods for managing patent licenses |
US8412659B2 (en) | 2009-05-11 | 2013-04-02 | General Electric Company | Semi-automated and inter-active system and method for analyzing patent landscapes |
US20100306825A1 (en) | 2009-05-27 | 2010-12-02 | Lucid Ventures, Inc. | System and method for facilitating user interaction with a simulated object associated with a physical location |
US8756229B2 (en) | 2009-06-26 | 2014-06-17 | Quantifind, Inc. | System and methods for units-based numeric information retrieval |
US20110029476A1 (en) | 2009-07-29 | 2011-02-03 | Kas Kasravi | Indicating relationships among text documents including a patent based on characteristics of the text documents |
AU2009350904B2 (en) | 2009-08-04 | 2016-07-14 | Google Llc | Query suggestions from documents |
US8713078B2 (en) | 2009-08-13 | 2014-04-29 | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Method for building taxonomy of topics and categorizing videos |
US10013726B1 (en) | 2009-08-26 | 2018-07-03 | Edward Jung | Acquiring intellectual property assets |
US20110246473A1 (en) | 2009-09-16 | 2011-10-06 | John Stec | Computerized method for analyizing innovation interrelationships within and between large patent portfolios |
US8650082B2 (en) | 2009-10-26 | 2014-02-11 | View2Gether Inc. | System and method for providing a user terminal with supplemental information to a search result |
US8954893B2 (en) | 2009-11-06 | 2015-02-10 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Visually representing a hierarchy of category nodes |
US20110112824A1 (en) | 2009-11-06 | 2011-05-12 | Craig Peter Sayers | Determining at least one category path for identifying input text |
US20110153852A1 (en) | 2009-12-17 | 2011-06-23 | American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. | System and method for valuing and rating intellectual property assets |
US8000528B2 (en) | 2009-12-29 | 2011-08-16 | Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. | Method and apparatus for authenticating printed documents using multi-level image comparison based on document characteristics |
US9183288B2 (en) | 2010-01-27 | 2015-11-10 | Kinetx, Inc. | System and method of structuring data for search using latent semantic analysis techniques |
US8209349B2 (en) | 2010-02-01 | 2012-06-26 | Rockmelt, Inc. | Integrated saved search results |
US9110971B2 (en) | 2010-02-03 | 2015-08-18 | Thomson Reuters Global Resources | Method and system for ranking intellectual property documents using claim analysis |
US8447758B1 (en) | 2010-02-03 | 2013-05-21 | Metajure, Inc. | System and method for identifying documents matching a document metaprint |
US8903794B2 (en) | 2010-02-05 | 2014-12-02 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating and presenting lateral concepts |
US9514103B2 (en) | 2010-02-05 | 2016-12-06 | Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated | Effective system and method for visual document comparison using localized two-dimensional visual fingerprints |
WO2011123517A1 (en) | 2010-03-30 | 2011-10-06 | Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. | Remote portal for billing, docketing and document management |
TWI443529B (en) | 2010-04-01 | 2014-07-01 | Inst Information Industry | Methods and systems for automatically constructing domain phrases, and computer program products thereof |
US20110246379A1 (en) | 2010-04-02 | 2011-10-06 | Cpa Global Patent Research Limited | Intellectual property scoring platform |
US10417334B2 (en) | 2010-04-19 | 2019-09-17 | Oath, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a microdocument framework for storage, retrieval, and aggregation |
US9177045B2 (en) | 2010-06-02 | 2015-11-03 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Topical search engines and query context models |
US9836460B2 (en) | 2010-06-11 | 2017-12-05 | Lexisnexis, A Division Of Reed Elsevier Inc. | Systems and methods for analyzing patent-related documents |
US20110320582A1 (en) | 2010-06-23 | 2011-12-29 | Lewis George C | Online presence management system |
US20110320367A1 (en) | 2010-06-25 | 2011-12-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method to Appraise a Patent Asset and a System to Recommend Action to Owner |
US20120078979A1 (en) | 2010-07-26 | 2012-03-29 | Shankar Raj Ghimire | Method for advanced patent search and analysis |
US8386493B2 (en) | 2010-09-23 | 2013-02-26 | Infosys Technologies Limited | System and method for schema matching |
US20120095984A1 (en) | 2010-10-18 | 2012-04-19 | Peter Michael Wren-Hilton | Universal Search Engine Interface and Application |
US20120095993A1 (en) | 2010-10-18 | 2012-04-19 | Jeng-Jye Shau | Ranking by similarity level in meaning for written documents |
US20130282599A1 (en) | 2010-11-02 | 2013-10-24 | Kwanggaeto Co., Ltd. | Method of generating patent evaluation model, method of evaluating patent, method of generating patent dispute prediction model, method of generating patent dispute prediction information, and method and system for generating patent risk hedging information |
US8712894B2 (en) | 2010-11-04 | 2014-04-29 | National Yunlin University Of Science And Technology | Method and system for evaluating/analyzing patent portfolio using patent priority approach |
US20120130773A1 (en) | 2010-11-15 | 2012-05-24 | Maad Abu-Ghazalah | System and method for determining applicants' working process with an administrative agency based on past data collection and analysis of past administrative agents performance |
US20120174017A1 (en) | 2010-12-29 | 2012-07-05 | Verisign, Inc. | Systems, methods and computer software for innovation management |
US9665637B2 (en) | 2011-02-23 | 2017-05-30 | H. Paul Zellweger | Method and apparatus for creating binary attribute data relations |
US20120240026A1 (en) | 2011-03-14 | 2012-09-20 | Anaqua, Inc. | Method and system for related art citation management |
US20120239591A1 (en) | 2011-03-15 | 2012-09-20 | Powell Jr G Edward | Method of calculating the market value of individual patents within a patent landscape |
US8996506B2 (en) | 2011-03-28 | 2015-03-31 | Red Hat Israel, Ltd. | Duplicate search optimization |
US20120259787A1 (en) | 2011-04-11 | 2012-10-11 | Speier Gary J | Patent claim matrix and non-literal infringement |
US20120317041A1 (en) | 2011-06-08 | 2012-12-13 | Entrepreneurial Innovation, LLC. | Patent Value Calculation |
US20130007578A1 (en) | 2011-06-30 | 2013-01-03 | Landon Ip, Inc. | Method and apparatus for displaying component documents of a composite document |
US8856181B2 (en) | 2011-07-08 | 2014-10-07 | First Retail, Inc. | Semantic matching |
US8751488B2 (en) | 2011-08-24 | 2014-06-10 | Waypart, Inc. | Part number search method and system |
US20130086033A1 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US20130086070A1 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steven W. Lundberg | Prior art management |
US20130282571A1 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2013-10-24 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for dynamic contact management |
US20130132302A1 (en) | 2011-11-18 | 2013-05-23 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and interfaces in a patent portfolio management system |
US9418083B2 (en) | 2012-04-20 | 2016-08-16 | Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. | System for computerized evaluation of patent-related information |
US20140324808A1 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2014-10-30 | Sumeet Sandhu | Semantic Segmentation and Tagging and Advanced User Interface to Improve Patent Search and Analysis |
US9965460B1 (en) | 2016-12-29 | 2018-05-08 | Konica Minolta Laboratory U.S.A., Inc. | Keyword extraction for relationship maps |
-
2009
- 2009-10-23 US US12/605,030 patent/US20100131513A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2017
- 2017-11-01 US US15/801,056 patent/US10546273B2/en active Active
-
2019
- 2019-12-30 US US16/730,678 patent/US11301810B2/en active Active
-
2022
- 2022-01-31 US US17/589,635 patent/US20220230137A1/en active Pending
Patent Citations (80)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5623681A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1997-04-22 | Waverley Holdings, Inc. | Method and apparatus for synchronizing, displaying and manipulating text and image documents |
US5623679A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1997-04-22 | Waverley Holdings, Inc. | System and method for creating and manipulating notes each containing multiple sub-notes, and linking the sub-notes to portions of data objects |
US5799325A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1998-08-25 | Smartpatents, Inc. | System, method, and computer program product for generating equivalent text files |
US5809318A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1998-09-15 | Smartpatents, Inc. | Method and apparatus for synchronizing, displaying and manipulating text and image documents |
US5991780A (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 1999-11-23 | Aurigin Systems, Inc. | Computer based system, method, and computer program product for selectively displaying patent text and images |
US20070208669A1 (en) * | 1993-11-19 | 2007-09-06 | Rivette Kevin G | System, method, and computer program product for managing and analyzing intellectual property (IP) related transactions |
US5754840A (en) * | 1996-01-23 | 1998-05-19 | Smartpatents, Inc. | System, method, and computer program product for developing and maintaining documents which includes analyzing a patent application with regards to the specification and claims |
US6014663A (en) * | 1996-01-23 | 2000-01-11 | Aurigin Systems, Inc. | System, method, and computer program product for comparing text portions by reference to index information |
US6038561A (en) * | 1996-10-15 | 2000-03-14 | Manning & Napier Information Services | Management and analysis of document information text |
US6339767B1 (en) * | 1997-06-02 | 2002-01-15 | Aurigin Systems, Inc. | Using hyperbolic trees to visualize data generated by patent-centric and group-oriented data processing |
US20020007373A1 (en) * | 1997-06-02 | 2002-01-17 | Blair Tim W. | System, method, and computer program product for knowledge management |
US6499026B1 (en) * | 1997-06-02 | 2002-12-24 | Aurigin Systems, Inc. | Using hyperbolic trees to visualize data generated by patent-centric and group-oriented data processing |
US20030046307A1 (en) * | 1997-06-02 | 2003-03-06 | Rivette Kevin G. | Using hyperbolic trees to visualize data generated by patent-centric and group-oriented data processing |
US7523126B2 (en) * | 1997-06-02 | 2009-04-21 | Rose Blush Software Llc | Using hyperbolic trees to visualize data generated by patent-centric and group-oriented data processing |
US6216128B1 (en) * | 1997-10-09 | 2001-04-10 | Telcordia Technologies, Inc. | System and method for private information retrieval from a single electronic storage device using commodities |
US5991756A (en) * | 1997-11-03 | 1999-11-23 | Yahoo, Inc. | Information retrieval from hierarchical compound documents |
US20040133555A1 (en) * | 1998-12-04 | 2004-07-08 | Toong Hoo-Min | Systems and methods for organizing data |
US20040181427A1 (en) * | 1999-02-05 | 2004-09-16 | Stobbs Gregory A. | Computer-implemented patent portfolio analysis method and apparatus |
US20120109642A1 (en) * | 1999-02-05 | 2012-05-03 | Stobbs Gregory A | Computer-implemented patent portfolio analysis method and apparatus |
US20070136116A1 (en) * | 1999-03-02 | 2007-06-14 | Rose Blush Software Llc | Patent-related tools and methodology for use in research and development projects |
US20040103112A1 (en) * | 1999-10-08 | 2004-05-27 | Colson Thomas J. | Computer based method and apparatus for mining and displaying patent data |
US20020082778A1 (en) * | 2000-01-12 | 2002-06-27 | Barnett Phillip W. | Multi-term frequency analysis |
US20020022974A1 (en) * | 2000-04-14 | 2002-02-21 | Urban Lindh | Display of patent information |
US20020059076A1 (en) * | 2000-06-02 | 2002-05-16 | Grainger Jeffry J. | Computer-implemented method for securing intellectual property |
US20020091541A1 (en) * | 2000-06-16 | 2002-07-11 | Seekip.Com | Method and apparatus for intellectual property management on the internet |
US20120096027A1 (en) * | 2000-09-15 | 2012-04-19 | Ocean Tomo Llc | Digital Patent Marking Method |
US20020042784A1 (en) * | 2000-10-06 | 2002-04-11 | Kerven David S. | System and method for automatically searching and analyzing intellectual property-related materials |
US20020161733A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-10-31 | First To File, Inc. | Method of creating electronic prosecution experience for patent applicant |
US20020116363A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-08-22 | First To File, Inc. | Method of deleting unnecessary information from a database |
US20020111824A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-08-15 | First To File, Inc. | Method of defining workflow rules for managing intellectual property |
US20020065675A1 (en) * | 2000-11-27 | 2002-05-30 | Grainger Jeffry J. | Computer implemented method of managing information disclosure statements |
US20020103654A1 (en) * | 2000-12-05 | 2002-08-01 | Poltorak Alexander I. | Method and system for searching and submitting online via an aggregation portal |
US6526440B1 (en) * | 2001-01-30 | 2003-02-25 | Google, Inc. | Ranking search results by reranking the results based on local inter-connectivity |
US20050060306A1 (en) * | 2001-03-30 | 2005-03-17 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Apparatus, method, and program for retrieving structured documents |
US7293018B2 (en) * | 2001-03-30 | 2007-11-06 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Apparatus, method, and program for retrieving structured documents |
US20050114763A1 (en) * | 2001-03-30 | 2005-05-26 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Apparatus, method, and program for retrieving structured documents |
US20030004843A1 (en) * | 2001-06-29 | 2003-01-02 | Frain Timothy John | Patent portfolio management method |
US20060173920A1 (en) * | 2001-07-11 | 2006-08-03 | Adler Mark S | Method for analyzing innovations |
US8078545B1 (en) * | 2001-09-24 | 2011-12-13 | Aloft Media, Llc | System, method and computer program product for collecting strategic patent data associated with an identifier |
US20030167181A1 (en) * | 2002-03-01 | 2003-09-04 | Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. | Systems and methods for managing information disclosure statement (IDS) references |
US20030191654A1 (en) * | 2002-04-05 | 2003-10-09 | Panchal Kiran D. | Patent product map |
US7801909B2 (en) * | 2002-10-17 | 2010-09-21 | Poltorak Alexander I | Apparatus and method for identifying and/or for analyzing potential patent infringement |
US7231384B2 (en) * | 2002-10-25 | 2007-06-12 | Sap Aktiengesellschaft | Navigation tool for exploring a knowledge base |
US20040186705A1 (en) * | 2003-03-18 | 2004-09-23 | Morgan Alexander P. | Concept word management |
US20050060303A1 (en) * | 2003-09-12 | 2005-03-17 | Qing-Ming Wu | Patent family analysis system and method |
US20050144177A1 (en) * | 2003-11-26 | 2005-06-30 | Hodes Alan S. | Patent analysis and formulation using ontologies |
US20050210008A1 (en) * | 2004-03-18 | 2005-09-22 | Bao Tran | Systems and methods for analyzing documents over a network |
US20070208719A1 (en) * | 2004-03-18 | 2007-09-06 | Bao Tran | Systems and methods for analyzing semantic documents over a network |
US20050210042A1 (en) * | 2004-03-22 | 2005-09-22 | Goedken James F | Methods and apparatus to search and analyze prior art |
US20050246194A1 (en) * | 2004-04-06 | 2005-11-03 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for information disclosure statement management |
US20060106847A1 (en) * | 2004-05-04 | 2006-05-18 | Boston Consulting Group, Inc. | Method and apparatus for selecting, analyzing, and visualizing related database records as a network |
US20060026174A1 (en) * | 2004-07-27 | 2006-02-02 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20060036451A1 (en) * | 2004-08-10 | 2006-02-16 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20060036452A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | System and method for patent portfolio evaluation |
US20060036529A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | System and method for patent evaluation and visualization of the results thereof |
US20060036632A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | System and method for patent evaluation using artificial intelligence |
US20060036453A1 (en) * | 2004-08-11 | 2006-02-16 | Allan Williams | Bias compensated method and system for patent evaluation |
US20060190449A1 (en) * | 2005-02-18 | 2006-08-24 | Lundberg Steven W | System and method for prior art cross citation |
US20060225000A1 (en) * | 2005-04-01 | 2006-10-05 | Paul Albrecht | Graphical application interface using browser |
US20110153509A1 (en) * | 2005-05-27 | 2011-06-23 | Ip Development Venture | Method and apparatus for cross-referencing important ip relationships |
US8161025B2 (en) * | 2005-07-27 | 2012-04-17 | Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Patent mapping |
US20070198578A1 (en) * | 2005-07-27 | 2007-08-23 | Lundberg Steven W | Patent mapping |
US20110072024A1 (en) * | 2005-09-27 | 2011-03-24 | Patentratings, Llc | Method and system for probabilistically quantifying and visualizing relevance between two or more citationally or contextually related data objects |
US8131701B2 (en) * | 2005-09-27 | 2012-03-06 | Patentratings, Llc | Method and system for probabilistically quantifying and visualizing relevance between two or more citationally or contextually related data objects |
US7716226B2 (en) * | 2005-09-27 | 2010-05-11 | Patentratings, Llc | Method and system for probabilistically quantifying and visualizing relevance between two or more citationally or contextually related data objects |
US20070288256A1 (en) * | 2006-06-07 | 2007-12-13 | Speier Gary J | Patent claim reference generation |
US20080005103A1 (en) * | 2006-06-08 | 2008-01-03 | Invequity, Llc | Intellectual property search, marketing and licensing connection system and method |
US20130144895A1 (en) * | 2006-08-07 | 2013-06-06 | International Characters, Inc. | Method and Apparatus for Parallel XML Processing |
US20090282054A1 (en) * | 2006-09-29 | 2009-11-12 | Casey Michael R | IDS Reference Tracking System |
US20080140644A1 (en) * | 2006-11-08 | 2008-06-12 | Seeqpod, Inc. | Matching and recommending relevant videos and media to individual search engine results |
US20090228777A1 (en) * | 2007-08-17 | 2009-09-10 | Accupatent, Inc. | System and Method for Search |
US20090083049A1 (en) * | 2007-09-24 | 2009-03-26 | Sciarrino David M | Claim chart creation system |
US20110093449A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2011-04-21 | Sharon Belenzon | Search engine and methodology, particularly applicable to patent literature |
US20100180223A1 (en) * | 2008-11-10 | 2010-07-15 | Speier Gary J | Patent analytics system |
US20110047166A1 (en) * | 2009-08-20 | 2011-02-24 | Innography, Inc. | System and methods of relating trademarks and patent documents |
US20110231449A1 (en) * | 2010-03-17 | 2011-09-22 | Ashley William B | System, Method, and Apparatus for Managing Patent Reference Reporting |
US20120102427A1 (en) * | 2010-10-21 | 2012-04-26 | Marc Aaron Fenster | Systems and methods for automated claim chart generation |
US20120117082A1 (en) * | 2010-11-05 | 2012-05-10 | Koperda Frank R | Method and system for document classification or search using discrete words |
US20120278244A1 (en) * | 2011-04-15 | 2012-11-01 | IP Street | Evaluating Intellectual Property |
US20120284199A1 (en) * | 2011-05-04 | 2012-11-08 | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Apparatus and method for automated and assisted patent claim mapping and expense planning |
Cited By (68)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11080807B2 (en) | 2004-08-10 | 2021-08-03 | Lucid Patent Llc | Patent mapping |
US11776084B2 (en) | 2004-08-10 | 2023-10-03 | Lucid Patent Llc | Patent mapping |
US11798111B2 (en) | 2005-05-27 | 2023-10-24 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Method and apparatus for cross-referencing important IP relationships |
US20110153509A1 (en) * | 2005-05-27 | 2011-06-23 | Ip Development Venture | Method and apparatus for cross-referencing important ip relationships |
US10810693B2 (en) | 2005-05-27 | 2020-10-20 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Method and apparatus for cross-referencing important IP relationships |
US9201956B2 (en) | 2005-07-27 | 2015-12-01 | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Patent mapping |
US9659071B2 (en) | 2005-07-27 | 2017-05-23 | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. | Patent mapping |
US9959582B2 (en) | 2006-04-12 | 2018-05-01 | ClearstoneIP | Intellectual property information retrieval |
US11301810B2 (en) * | 2008-10-23 | 2022-04-12 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US10546273B2 (en) | 2008-10-23 | 2020-01-28 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US8412659B2 (en) * | 2009-05-11 | 2013-04-02 | General Electric Company | Semi-automated and inter-active system and method for analyzing patent landscapes |
US20100287478A1 (en) * | 2009-05-11 | 2010-11-11 | General Electric Company | Semi-automated and inter-active system and method for analyzing patent landscapes |
US20110191310A1 (en) * | 2010-02-03 | 2011-08-04 | Wenhui Liao | Method and system for ranking intellectual property documents using claim analysis |
US9110971B2 (en) * | 2010-02-03 | 2015-08-18 | Thomson Reuters Global Resources | Method and system for ranking intellectual property documents using claim analysis |
US20110246979A1 (en) * | 2010-03-30 | 2011-10-06 | Jean Deruelle | Mechanism for JRuby and SIP Servlets Integration |
US8769109B2 (en) * | 2010-03-30 | 2014-07-01 | Red Hat, Inc. | JRuby and SIP servlets integration |
US9836460B2 (en) * | 2010-06-11 | 2017-12-05 | Lexisnexis, A Division Of Reed Elsevier Inc. | Systems and methods for analyzing patent-related documents |
US20110307499A1 (en) * | 2010-06-11 | 2011-12-15 | Lexisnexis | Systems and methods for analyzing patent related documents |
US10891701B2 (en) | 2011-04-15 | 2021-01-12 | Rowan TELS Corp. | Method and system for evaluating intellectual property |
US20120290487A1 (en) * | 2011-04-15 | 2012-11-15 | IP Street | Evaluating intellectual property |
US11714839B2 (en) | 2011-05-04 | 2023-08-01 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Apparatus and method for automated and assisted patent claim mapping and expense planning |
US9904726B2 (en) | 2011-05-04 | 2018-02-27 | Black Hills IP Holdings, LLC. | Apparatus and method for automated and assisted patent claim mapping and expense planning |
US10885078B2 (en) | 2011-05-04 | 2021-01-05 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Apparatus and method for automated and assisted patent claim mapping and expense planning |
US20120317040A1 (en) * | 2011-06-08 | 2012-12-13 | Entrepreneurial Innovation, LLC. | Patent Value Prediction |
US10671574B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2020-06-02 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for prior art analytics and mapping |
US11256706B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2022-02-22 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for patent and prior art analysis |
US20170316036A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2017-11-02 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for prior art analytics and mapping |
US11803560B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2023-10-31 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent claim mapping |
US10242066B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2019-03-26 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US20190384770A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2019-12-19 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US11797546B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2023-10-24 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US9652546B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2017-05-16 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for prior art analytics and mapping |
US20130086469A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steven W. Lundberg | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US10614082B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2020-04-07 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US20160154863A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2016-06-02 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for prior art analytics and mapping |
US10803073B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2020-10-13 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US9201966B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2015-12-01 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for prior art analytics and mapping |
US10860657B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2020-12-08 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US11789954B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2023-10-17 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | System and method for patent and prior art analysis |
US11775538B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2023-10-03 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US20130086045A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steven W. Lundberg | Patent mapping |
US11714819B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2023-08-01 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US11048709B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2021-06-29 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US20130085947A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steven W. Lundberg | System and method for patent white space analysis |
US11372864B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2022-06-28 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent mapping |
US9858319B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2018-01-02 | Black Hills IP Holdings, LLC. | Patent mapping |
US11294910B2 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2022-04-05 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent claim mapping |
US20130086047A1 (en) * | 2011-10-03 | 2013-04-04 | Steve W. Lundberg | Patent mapping |
US11360988B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2022-06-14 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Systems, methods and user interfaces in a patent management system |
US11461862B2 (en) | 2012-08-20 | 2022-10-04 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Analytics generation for patent portfolio management |
US10115170B2 (en) * | 2012-12-18 | 2018-10-30 | Lex Machina, Inc. | Systems and methods for image searching of patent-related documents |
US11232137B2 (en) | 2012-12-18 | 2022-01-25 | RELX Inc. | Methods for evaluating term support in patent-related documents |
US20140317097A1 (en) * | 2012-12-18 | 2014-10-23 | Lexisnexis, A Division Of Reed Elsevier Inc. | Systems and methods for image searching of patent-related documents |
US10997678B2 (en) | 2012-12-18 | 2021-05-04 | Lexisnexis, A Division Of Reed Elsevier Inc. | Systems and methods for image searching of patent-related documents |
US20140180934A1 (en) * | 2012-12-21 | 2014-06-26 | Lex Machina, Inc. | Systems and Methods for Using Non-Textual Information In Analyzing Patent Matters |
US11354344B2 (en) | 2013-04-23 | 2022-06-07 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent claim scope evaluator |
US10579662B2 (en) | 2013-04-23 | 2020-03-03 | Black Hills Ip Holdings, Llc | Patent claim scope evaluator |
CN103678880A (en) * | 2013-11-19 | 2014-03-26 | 肖冬梅 | Method and system for visualizing interactive multi-dimensional patent map |
WO2020012116A1 (en) | 2018-07-09 | 2020-01-16 | Arkyan | Method, device and information medium for estimating the chances and/or probable date of granting a patent application |
EP3955125A4 (en) * | 2019-04-08 | 2022-04-27 | AI Samurai Inc. | Document information evaluation device, document information evaluation method, and document information evaluation program |
US20210064621A1 (en) * | 2019-09-04 | 2021-03-04 | Wertintelligence | Optimizing method of search formula for patent document and device therefor |
WO2022125282A1 (en) * | 2020-12-08 | 2022-06-16 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Linguistic analysis of seed documents and peer groups |
US11893537B2 (en) | 2020-12-08 | 2024-02-06 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Linguistic analysis of seed documents and peer groups |
US11928427B2 (en) | 2020-12-08 | 2024-03-12 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Linguistic analysis of seed documents and peer groups |
WO2022169795A1 (en) * | 2021-02-03 | 2022-08-11 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Document analysis using model intersections |
US20220245378A1 (en) * | 2021-02-03 | 2022-08-04 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Document analysis using model intersections |
US11928879B2 (en) * | 2021-02-03 | 2024-03-12 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Document analysis using model intersections |
US20230086930A1 (en) * | 2021-09-17 | 2023-03-23 | Aon Risk Services, Inc. Of Maryland | Intellectual-property analysis platform |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20220230137A1 (en) | 2022-07-21 |
US20200279222A1 (en) | 2020-09-03 |
US20180204180A1 (en) | 2018-07-19 |
US11301810B2 (en) | 2022-04-12 |
US10546273B2 (en) | 2020-01-28 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US11301810B2 (en) | Patent mapping | |
US20210149969A1 (en) | Patent mapping | |
US11714819B2 (en) | Patent mapping | |
Chapman et al. | Dataset search: a survey | |
US9336304B2 (en) | Patent analytics system | |
US8131748B2 (en) | Search query formulation | |
US7840601B2 (en) | Editable table modification | |
Pietriga et al. | Browsing linked data catalogs with LODAtlas | |
US8600982B2 (en) | Providing relevant information based on data space activity items | |
CA2793570A1 (en) | Systems and methods for research database management | |
US20190286669A1 (en) | Search system, apparatuse, and method | |
US20240126768A1 (en) | Patent mapping | |
US20240126769A1 (en) | Patent claim mapping | |
CA2514165A1 (en) | Metadata content management and searching system and method | |
Caglayan et al. | Semantic Enrichment and Reasoning for Mobile Data Collection of Socio-Cultural Data | |
Hampson | An Expert-supported Approach to Data Exploration |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A., MINNESOTA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:LUNDBERG, STEVEN W.;MARLOW, THOMAS G.;SIGNING DATES FROM 20110311 TO 20110324;REEL/FRAME:026085/0929 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- AFTER EXAMINER'S ANSWER OR BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: BLACK HILLS IP HOLDINGS, LLC, MINNESOTA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.;REEL/FRAME:045766/0365 Effective date: 20141016 |