The Ranking of the Patent Values with Multi Criteria Decision-Making Methods: An Application in Automotive Sector

Year 2019, Volume: 9 Issue: 17, 27 - 52, 28.06.2019

Nurullah Yavuz , Birdoğan Baki

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to rank values of the patents of a company operating in the automotive industry. For this purpose, firstly the criteria affecting the patent value were determined and the weights values of these criteria were determined with the Entropy method. Then, alternatives were ranked separately based on their value using TOPSIS and VIKOR methods and obtained results were compared. According to the findings, it is seen that the criterion having the highest weight is the patent family size (0,248) and the criterion having the lowest weight is the potential market share (0,029). In addition, according to the Spearman's correlation analysis performed to determine whether there is a relationship between the results calculated by both methods in this study, it was determined that there is a high degree correlation between these rankings in the positive direction.

Keywords

Patent Valuation, Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Entropy, TOPSIS, VIKOR

Patent Değerlerinin Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Sıralanması: Otomotiv Sektöründe Bir Uygulama

Abstract

Bu
çalışmanın amacı, otomotiv sektöründe faaliyet gösteren bir firmanın sahip
olduğu patentlerin değerlerine göre sıralanması olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu
amaçla, öncelikle patent değerini etkileyen kriterler belirlenmiş ve Entropi
yöntemiyle bu kriterlerin ağırlık değerleri tespit edilmiştir. Daha sonra,
TOPSIS ve VIKOR yöntemiyle alternatiflerin değerlerine göre sıralanması
gerçekleştirilmiş ve hesaplanan sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Elde edilen
bulgulara göre, en yüksek ağırlığa sahip olan kriterin patent aile boyu
(0,248), en düşük ağırlığa sahip olan kriterin ise potansiyel pazar payı
(0,029) olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, bu çalışmada her iki yöntemle hesaplanan
sonuçlar arasında bir ilişki olup olmadığının belirlenmesi için yapılan
Spearman korelasyon analizine göre, sıralamalar arasında pozitif yönde yüksek
derecede bir ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Patent Değerleme, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV), Entropi, TOPSIS, VIKOR

References

• Alper, D. (2011). Patent Değerlemesi ve Reel Opsiyonlar, Business and Economics Research Journal, 1(3), 153-172.
• Baglieri, D. & Cesaroni, F. (2013). Capturing The Real Value of Patent Analysis for R&D Strategies, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(8), 971-986.
• Chaghooshi, A. J. vd. (2012). Integration of Fuzzy Shannon’s Entropy with Fuzzy TOPSIS for Industrial Robotic System Section, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 5(1), 102-114.
• Chauhan, R. vd. (2017). Hybrid Entropy–TOPSIS Approach for Energy Performance Prioritization in A Rectangular Channel Employing Impinging Air Jets, Energy, 134, 360-368.
• Chiu, Y. J. & Chen, Y. W. (2007). Using AHP in Patent Valuation, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 1054-1062.
• Collan, M. vd. (2013). A Multi-Expert System for Ranking Patents: An Approach Based on Fuzzy Pay-Off Distributions and A TOPSIS–AHP Framework, Expert Systems with Applications, 40(12), 4749-4759.
• Çakır, S. & Perçin, S. (2013). AB Ülkeleri’nde Bütünleşik Entropi Ağırlık-Topsis Yöntemiyle Ar-Ge Performansının Ölçülmesi, Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 77-95.
• Çalışkan, M. G. (2011). Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Patent Süreçleri ve Bu Süreçlerin Patent Sistemine Etkisi, Uzmanlık Tezi, Türk Patent Marka Kurumu Patent Dairesi Başkanlığı. Ercan, S. (2011). Destek Vektör Makineleri Kullanarak Patent Değerleme, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi - Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Ernst, H. vd. (2010). Determinants of Patent Value: Insights From A Simulation Analysis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 1-19.
• Ersoy, A. & Akbaba A.N. B. (2014). Patentlerin Değerlemesi ve Muhasebeleştirilmesi, Maliye Dergisi, 166, 221-242.
• Escoffier, L. (2011). Reinterpreting Patent Valuation and Evaluation: The Tricky World of Nanotechnology, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2(1), 67-78.
• Espina, M. I. (2004). To Renew or Not To Renew...: An Empirical Study of Patent Valuation and Maintenance By The United States Pharmaceutical Industry, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, New York University.
• European Patent Office [EPO] (2011). European Patent Academy Intellectual Property Course Design Manual, http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/781320967c250b 8bc12579fe0040eddf/$FILE/ip_course_design_manual_en.pdf (18.02.2018).
• Fazelpour, F. vd. (2017). Towards Efficient Implementation of Solar Plants: A Priority Analysis Through Multi-Criteria Decision Approach, Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2017 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1-5.
• Feizabadi, A. vd. (2017). MCDM Selection of Pulse Parameters for Best Tribological Performance of Cr–Al2O3 Nano-Composite Co-Deposited From Trivalent Chromium Bath, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 727, 286-296.
• Fischer, T. & Leidinger, J. (2014). Testing Patent Value Indicators on Directly Observed Patent Value- An Empirical Analysis of Ocean Tomo Patent Auctions, Research Policy, 43(3), 519-529.
• Görener, A. (2011). Bütünleşik ANP-VIKOR Yaklaşımı ile ERP Yazılımı Seçimi, Havacılık ve Uzay Teknolojileri Dergisi, 5(1), 97-110.
• Grimaldi, M. vd. (2015). The Patent Portfolio Value Analysis: A New Framework To Leverage Patent Information for Strategic Technology Planning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 286-302. Grimaldi, M. vd. (2017). Valuating and Analyzing The Patent Portfolio: The Patent Portfolio Value Index, European Journal of Innovation Management.
• Gupeng, Z. & Xiangdong, C. (2012). The Value of Invention Patents in China: Country Origin and Technology Field Differences, China Economic Review, 23(2), 357-370.
• Han, E. J. & Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Patent Valuation Based on Text Mining and Survival Analysis, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(5), 821-839.
• Hirschey, M. & Richardson, V. J. (2001). Valuation Effects of Patent Quality: A Comparison for Japanese and US Firms, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9(1), 65-82.
• Ho, C. T. & Wu, Y. S. (2006). Benchmarking Performance Indicators for Banks, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(1/2), 147-159.
• Ildır, F. A. (2017). Kurumlar Vergisi Kanunu İstisnası Kapsamında Patent Değerleme, Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(1), 27-51.
• Jovanovic, J. vd. (2014). Application of MCDM Methods in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, International Journal for Quality Research, 8(4), 517-532.
• Jun, S. vd. (2015). A Technology Valuation Model Using Quantitative Patent Analysis: A Case Study of Technology Transfer in Big Data Marketing, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(5), 963-974.
• Kabore, F. P. (2012). Patent Valuation, International Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, American University.
• Kim, Y. K. & Park, S. T. (2015). Patent Valuation By Crowdsourcing, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(25).
• Kopczewska, K. & Kopyt, M. (2014). Non-Linear Corrections in Market Method of Patent Valuation, Business & Economic Horizons, 10(3).
• Kumar, P. & Singh, R. K. (2012). A Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Methodology to Evaluate 3PL in A Supply Chain, Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(3), 287-303.
• Lai, Y. H. & Che, H. C. (2009). Modeling Patent Legal Value By Extension Neural Network, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10520-10528.
• Laxman, P. R. & Aggarwal, S. (2003). Patent Valuation Using Real Options, IIMB Management Review, 15(4), 44-51.
• Li, Q. & Zhao, N. (2015). Stochastic Interval-Grey Number VIKOR Method Based on Prospect Theory, Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 5(1), 105-116.
• Li, X. vd. (2011). Application of The Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method in Safety Evaluation of Coal Mines, Procedia Engineering, 26, 2085-2091.
• Li, Ye vd. (2011). Selection of Logistics Center Location Using Axiomatic Fuzzy Set and TOPSIS Methodology in Logistics Management, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7901-7908. Mauck, N. & Pruitt, S. W. (2016). The Valuation of Patents Using Third-Party Data: The Ocean Tomo 300 Patent Index, Applied Economics, 48(42), 3995-3998.
• Meng, R. (2008). A Patent Race in A Real Options Setting: Investment Strategy, Valuation, CAPM Beta, and Return Volatility, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32(10), 3192-3217.
• Ni, J. vd. (2015). Valuation of Pharmaceutical Patents: A Comprehensive Analytical Framework Based on Technological, Commercial, and Legal Factors, Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation, 10(3), 281-285.
• Odasso, C. vd. (2014). Selling Patents At Auction: An Empirical Analysis of Patent Value, Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(2), 417-438.
• Ofluoğlu, A. vd. (2017). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Model for Warehouse Location in Disaster Logistics, Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 4(2), 89-106.
• Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise Solution By MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445- 455. Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514-529.
• Ray, J. A. (2015). Multi-Objective Optimization of Green EDM: An Integrated Theory, Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 96(1), 41-47.
• Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving Patent Valuations for Management Purposes—Validating New Indicators By Analyzing Application Rationales, Research Policy, 33(6), 939-957.
• Sapsalis, E. vd. (2006). Academic Versus Industry Patenting: An In-Depth Analysis of What Determines Patent Value, Research Policy, 35(10), 1631-1645.
• Scot, A. R. (2001). A Computer-Frienly Microeconomic Patent Portfolio Valuation Algorithm, The Licensing Journal, 11(12), 14-18.
• Singh, H. & Kumar, R. (2013). Hybrid Methodology for Measuring The Utilization of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies Using AHP and TOPSIS, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(2), 169-185.
• Sözer, M. (2008). Patent Değerlemesi ve Türkiye’deki Uygulamaları, Uzmanlık Tezi, Türk Patent Marka Kurumu Patent Dairesi Başkanlığı.
• T.C. Bilim, Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı Bilim ve Teknoloji Genel Müdürlüğü (2017), Özel Sektör Ar-Ge Merkezleri İyi Uygulama Örnekleri, Ankara.
• Thoma, G. (2014). Composite Value Index of Patent Indicators: Factor Analysis Combining Bibliographic and Survey Datasets, World Patent Information, 38, 19-26.
• Tsang, S. vd. (2015). A Survival Analysis on Fuel Cell Technology Patent Maintenance and Values Exploration Between 1976 and 2001, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2015.
• Wang, B. & Hsieh, C. H. (2015). Measuring The Value of Patents with Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Insight Into The Practices of The Industrial Technology Research Institute, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 263-275.
• Wang, X. (2011). Patent Valuation with A Fuzzy Binomial Model, Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2011 IEEE International Conference on IEEE, 579-583.
• Wang, X. vd. (2011). Evaluating Patent Portfolios By Means of Multicriteria Analysis, Revista de Contabilidad, 14(1), 9-27.
• Wartburg, I. V. & Teichert, T. (2008). Valuing Patents and Licenses From A Business Strategy Perspective – Extending Valuation Considerations Using The Case of Nanotechnology, World Patent Information, 30(2), 106-114.
• Wu, J. vd. (2011). Determination of Weights for Ultimate Cross Efficiency Using Shannon Entropy, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5162-5165.
• Wu, M. & Liu Z. (2011). The Supplier Selection Application Based on Two Methods: VIKOR Algorithm with Entropy Method and Fuzzy TOPSIS with Vague Sets Method, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 6(2), 109-115.
• Wu, M.C. (2011). Antecedents of Patent Value Using Exchange Option Models: Evidence From A Panel Data Analysis, Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 81-86.
• Wu, M.C. & Tseng, C.Y. (2006). Valuation of Patent – A Real Options Perspective, Applied Economics Letters, 13(5), 313-318.
• Zhang, H. vd. (2011). The Evaluation of Tourism Destination Competitiveness By TOPSIS & Information Entropy–A Case in The Yangtze River Delta of China, Tourism Management, 32(2), 443-451.
• Zhao, X. vd. (2013). Extended VIKOR Method Based on Cross-Entropy for Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 25(4), 1053-1066.