(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/15 17:31
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:羅以誠
研究生(外文):Luo, Yi-Cheng
論文名稱:台灣新型專利申請策略類型:以集群分析作為分類方法
論文名稱(外文):Utility Model Application Strategy in Taiwan: Identification of Categories Using Cluster Analysis
指導教授:薛招治薛招治引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsueh, Chao-Chih
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東科技大學
系所名稱:科技管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:80
中文關鍵詞:新型專利形式審查技術報告書
外文關鍵詞:utility modelformal examinationtechnology evaluation report
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:163
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究之目的在於了解申請人如何使用新型專利保護其發明創作。新型專利係擁有短生命周期、複製程度高的技術,而新型專利制度的精神在於透過省略實體審查的方式,僅針對形式要件進行檢查,以其於申請案的早期階段即賦予專利權。
德國為率先將新型專利審查制度由實體審查替換成形式審查的國家,在亞洲各國,日、韓、中亦於本國的新型專利制度當中引入該審查制度,目的在於保護生命週期較短、容易複製的技術,並縮短審查時間。而早期研究僅針對發明專利的形式審查及實體審查進行探討,並未聚焦在新型專利及形式審查的分析,而在本研究中將致力於調查新型專利申請策略的類型。
本研究母體為取自台灣智財局(TIPO)自1994到2012年間所申請、公開、公告的394,230筆新型專利。兩項變數:新型與發明專利的組成比例、新型技術報告書用於集群分析做為新型專利申請策略類型的衡量指標做成比例。其他三項變數:總專利數、新型專利數、技術報告書數則用於集群命名的參考。
本研究提出以下成果:(1)本研究共計定義出三種新型專利申請策略類型:被動聚焦型、混和型、主動聚焦型。(2)大型企業中,44.14%分類於混合型,另外有40.54%分類於被動聚焦型。中小企業及個人申請人分別有42.45%及40.82%分類於主動聚焦型,另外個別有43.17%及41.50%分類於被動聚焦型。(3)研究發現,大型企業較多分類於混合型,顯示該族群的申請策略主要以發明專利為主;被動聚焦型則以中小企業及個人申請人為主,顯示該兩類專利權人為台灣新型專利及技術報告書的主要申請人。綜觀各項分析,有關「新型專利係針對資源、資金、技術欠缺的對象如中小企業及個人申請人所設計的專利審查制度」的說法,本研究所提出的研究數據可做為佐證做為支持之論點。

The purpose of this paper is to understand how applicants adopted the utility model to protect their innovation. As the technology applied utility model to protect has a short life-cycle and is easy to copy. The utility model registration system (granting rights in early stages by examining only the formality and basic requirements without going through a substantive examination) was introduced to protect the technology, and promote the development and commercialization of innovation for small and medium enterprise (SMEs).
Germany is the first government to use the utility model adopted formal examination and replaced the substantial examination of utility patent. In Asia, Japan, Korea and China also followed the utility model system to protect short life-cycle and easy to copy technology and to decrease the time of examination. However, the previous studies didn’t focus on this topic but only on the utility patent that exanimated including formal and substantial examination. Thus, the purpose of this research is to investigate the taxonomy of utility model application strategies.
The research data included 394,230 utility models and 17,840 technology evaluation reports searched from the patent database during 1994 to 2012 in TIPO (Taiwan Intellectual Property Office). Two variables make up the construct of utility model application strategy, namely the ratio of utility patent and utility model and the ratio of technology evaluation report and utility model. Three others variables validate the naming of cluster, namely number of utility patent, the number of utility model, and the number of technology evaluation report.
Our research results are (1) three utility model application strategies are defined by clustering analysis: passively focused pattern, mixed pattern and actively focused pattern; (2) in large enterprises, 44.14% are verified in mixed pattern, and 40.54% are passively focused pattern; 42.45% SMEs and 40.82% personal applicants are verified in passively focused pattern, others 43.17% of SMEs and 41.50% of personal applicants are verified in actively focus pattern; (3) large enterprises are mainly verified in mixed pattern, in other words, large enterprises basically apply utility patents in their patent application strategies; most applicants of actively focused pattern are SMEs and personal applicants, which means these two patentee types are primary applicants of utility models and technology evaluation reports. These results provide evidence to support the statement that utility model system is designed for applicants who lack with resource, founds and technology for developing patent strategy, like SMEs and personal applicants.

中文摘要 I
Abstract III
謝誌 VI
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature review 6
2.1 Utility model system 9
2.1.1 Utility model in Taiwan 9
2.1.2 Utility model in Germany 12
2.1.3 Utility model in Japan 13
2.1.4 Utility model in Korea 15
2.2 Patent application strategy 18
3. Research methodology 26
3.1. Sample and data collection 26
3.2. Measures 27
3.3 Analytical procedures 29
3.3.1 Application trend of utility model 29
3.3.2 Types of utility model application strategy 29
4. Results 34
4.1 Application trend of utility model 34
4.2 Types of utility model application strategy 35
4.2.1 Clustering result 36
4.2.2Cross-analysis 41
5. Conclusion 45
5.1 Contribution 45
5.1.1 Implement of formal examination in Taiwan 45
5.1.2 Pattern of utility model application strategy 47
5.2 Research limitation 48
Reference 50
Appendix 58
作者簡介 70



Table
Table2.1 Motive of patent application 20
Table 3.1 Definition of measures 28
Table 4.1 Significance certification of variable in clustering analysis 36
Table 4.2 Collinarity diagnosis matrix 36
Table 4.3 Tolerance and VIF analysis 37
Table 4.4 Variable of clustering and descriptive analysis 40
Table 4.6 Patentee-Applicant Pattern cross-table 44
Figure
Fig 2.1 Patent and utility model application of Korean firms 17
Fig. 4.1 Trend of utility models from 1994 to 2012 in Taiwan 35

1. Ahuja, G. (2000). The Duality of Collaboration: Inducements and Opportunities in the Formation of Interfirm Linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317-343.
2. Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation, Research Policy, 30, 611-624.
3. Arundel, A., Patel, P. (2003). Strategic patenting. Background report for the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop. New Trends in IPR Policy.
4. Beneito, P. (2006). The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&;D in terms of patents and utility models. Research Policy, 35(4), 502-517.
5. Billionnet, C., Sherrill, D., Isabella, Annesi-Maesano. (2012). Estimating the Health Effects of Exposure to Multi-Pollutant, Mixture. Annals of Epidemiology, 22(2), 126-141.
6. Blind, K., Cremers, K., Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428-436.
7. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmocha, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35, 655–672.
8. Burk, D. L. (2008). The Role of Patent Law in Knowledge Codification. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1009, Long, supra note 19.
9. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in the Behavioral and Life Sciences. New York: Plenum Press.
10. Chang, Dong-Shang, Wang, Ming-Yeu, Kao, Chih-His. (2009). Developing Technological Patent Maps with Multiple Correspondences: A Study on Thin Film Photovoltaic. Journal of Technology Management, 44(3), 109-138.
11. Cohen, D. L. (1988). Article 69 and European Patent Integration, 92 Nw. U. L. REV. 1082, 1108.
12. Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A.,Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. (2002). R&;D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31, 1349-1367.
13. Cohen, W. M., Klepper, K. (1992). The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in pursuit of technological progress. Small Business Economics, 4, 1-14.
14. Cummings, P. A. (2010). From Germany to Australia: Opportunityfor Asecond Tier Patent System in the United States. 18 MICH. ST. J. INT’L L. 297, 303.
15. David, J., Ketchen Jr., Christopher, L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441-458.
16. Development of SMEs Ordinance (2009). SME Administration in Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan.
17. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures, And Microeconomic Effects Of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120-1171.
18. Dulken, S. (2000). The future of patent information. World Patent Information, 22(4), 273-275.
19. Dushnitsky, G., Shaver, M. J. (2009). Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: the paradox of corporate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), 1045-1064.
20. Edelbrock, C. (1979). Comparing the accuracy of hierarchical clustering algorithms: The problem of classifying everybody. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 267-384.
21. Evenson, R., Westphal, L. (1995). Technological change and technology strategy. Behrman, J., Srinivasan, T.N. (Eds.), Handbook of Development Economics, A. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 3, 2209-2299.
22. Gore, P. A. (2000). Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling - Chapter 11: cluster analysis, 297-321.
23. Gredel, D., Kramer, M., Bend, B. (2011). Patent-based investment funds as innovation intermediaries for SMEs: In-depth analysis of reciprocal interactions, motives and fallacies. Technovation, 32(9-10), 536–549.
24. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate Data analysis (3rd ed). Macmillan, New York.
25. Hall, B., Ziedonis, R. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: firm strategy and patenting in the US semiconductor industry, Rand Journal of Economics, 32, 101-128.
26. Helmers,C., Rogers, M. (2011), Does patenting help high-tech start-ups?. Research Policy, 40 (7), 1016-1027.
27. Henkel, J., Jell, F. (2010). Patent Pending – Why Faster Isn't Always Better. SSRN Working Paper no. 1738912.
28. Hu, Zuo-Chao. (2006). Basic Knowledge of Patent, Intellectual Property Publishing.
29. Hubmann, H. (1998). Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz 6. Aufl. S.169-170.
30. Ihnen, J. L. (2000). A patent strategy for genomic and research tool patents: are there any differences between the USA, Europe and Japan. Drug Discovery Today, 5(12), 554-559.
31. Iwai, T. (2004). 6 Modalities of Future Utility Model System. Retrieved April 7 2013 from World Wide Web: http://www.iip.or.jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2003/e15_06.pdf
32. Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., Flynn, P. J. (1999). Data Clustering: A Review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 31(3), 264-323.
33. Knight, H.J. (2001). Patent Strategy: For Researchers and Research Managers. John Wiley &; Sons.
34. Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
35. Kim, Y. K., Lee, K., Park, D., Lim, C. (2012). Industrial property rights and technological development in the Republic of Korea. Research Policy, 41, 358– 375.
36. Lai, Kuei-Kuei, Lin, Mei-Lin, Chang, Shu-Min, Chang, Shann-Bin. (2006). The Taxonomy of Patent Analysis Literature: Using Bibliometrics Approach. Journal of Technology Management, 11(1), 137-168.
37. Lee, K., Kim, Y. K. (2010). Intellectual Property Rights, Development, and Catch-Up. Hiroyuki Odagiri, Akira Goto, Atsushi Sunami and Richard R. Nelson.
38. Liesegang, R. (1992). German Utility Models After the 1990 Reform Act. Boehmert &; Boehmert, Nordemann and Partner, Munich, Germany.
39. Makarov, M. (2004). The process of reforming the International Patent Classification. World Pat Inform 2004, 26, 137–41.
40. Merges, R. (1997). Patent Law and Policy. Michie, Charlottesville VA.
41. Mokn, P. Y., Huang, H. Q., Kwok, Y. L., Au, J. S. (2012). A robust adaptive clustering analysis method for automatic identification of clusters. Pattern Recognition, 45, 3017-3033.
42. Ordover, J. (1991). A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 212–229.
43. Parchomovsky, G., Wagner, R. P. (2005). Patent portfolio. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(1), 1-77.
44. Peter, A. (2010). From Germany to Australia: Opportunity for A Second Tier Patent System in the United States. Michigan State Journal of International Law.
45. Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2: Fields of Intellectual Property Protection. (2004). WIPO.
46. Porter, M. E. (1980). Corporate Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.
47. Punj, G., Stwart, D.W. (1983). Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Applications. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134-148.
48. Rassenfosse, G. de. (2011). How SMEs exploit their intellectual property assets: evidence from survey data. Small Business Economics, Online First.
49. Sharer, P. L., Mauk, J. E. (2008). Non-Litigation Patent Dispute Strategiesfalse, Computer and Internet Lawyer, 25(2) , 12-18.
50. Shiau, Wen-Lung. (2009). Multivariate analysis, GOTOP Information INC.
51. Sichelman, T. M., Graham, S. J. H. (2010). Patenting by Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Study, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 17, 111-180.
52. Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic Determinants of Decisions Not to Settle Patent Litigation, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 17-38.
53. Sullivan, P., Daniele, J. (1996). Intellectual property folios in business strategy, Technology Licensing. Corporate Strategies for Maximizing Value. Wiley, New York, 27-48.
54. Suthersanen, U. (2001). Incremental Inventions in Europe: A Legal and Economic Appraisal of Second Tier Patents. The Journal of Business Law, 319-343.
55. Suthersanen, U. (2006). Utility models and innovation in developing countries. The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 13.
56. Tang, F. T. (1986). The Policy and Strategy of Enterprise.
57. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15 (6), 285–305.
58. TIPO Patent Law Act, 6, (2010). Taiwan.
59. Thumm, N. (2001). Management of Intellectual Property Rights in European Biotechnology Firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67(2-3), 259-272.
60. Utility model protection, Germany, Deutsches Patent and Markenamt. (2010). Germany Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO).
61. Veer, T., Jell, F. (2012). Contributing to markets for technology? A comparison of patent filing motives of individual inventors, small companies and universities. Technovation, 32(9-10), 513-522.
62. Wang, A. W. (2010). Rise of the patent intermediaries. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25, 159–200.
63. Wu, C., Liu, Y. (2004). Use of the IPC and various retrieval systems to research patent activities of US organizations in the People’s Republic of China. World Patent Information, 26, 225–233.
64. Wu, Wann-Yih. (2011). Business Research Methods. Hwa Tai Publishing.
65. Yu, Chian-Son, Chang, Yu-Cheng. (2005). Characteristics of Firms Adopting and Non-Adopting E-Marketpalces: Using Clustering Analysis to Explore. Electronic Commerce Studies, 3(3), 265-288.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top