J. Pharm. Pharmacogn. Res., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 852-869, Sep-Oct 2024.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56499/jppres23.1859_12.5.852

Review

Bridging the gap in patent assessment: The Index of Internal Effort framework for pharma innovations

[Bridging the gap in patent assessment: The Index of Internal Effort framework for pharma innovations]

Alisson A. de Oliveira^1*, Celso B. dos Santos², Luiz A. Pilatti³

¹Federal Institute of Education of Paraná (IFPR), Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.

²State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), and Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil.

³Postgraduate Program in Production Engineering (PPGEP), Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil.

*E-mail: alisson.oliveira@ifpr.edu.br, alissonantonio@yahoo.com.br

Abstract

Context: The process of assessing patents is complex, and there is a gap in the literature on patent assessment at the time of filing.

Aims: To assess patent complexity and the human effort involved in research, we test the effectiveness of the Index of Internal Effort (IIE) framework using pharmaceutical patents developed within the Brazilian public sector as a proof of concept.

Methods: Internal data were collected from innovation projects that included the filing of patents as a project outcome. The Spearman correlation test was applied to determine which internal patent variables could be used as metrics in IIE. Then, IIE was used to measure the complexity of the patents and the individual effort of inventors. Results were then compared with other metrics identified in the literature.

Results: The IIE showed a positive and significant correlation with resources invested at the design stage, as well as commercial and social outcomes of the patents.

Conclusions: The results indicate that the generic IIE framework is a new form of metrification that can be applied to pharmaceutical patents that have not been previously discussed in the literature.

Keywords: data science; Fiocruz; intellectual effort; patent; pharmacology; public service.

Resumen

Contexto: El proceso de evaluación de patentes es complejo, y existe un vacío en la literatura sobre la evaluación de patentes en el momento de su presentación.

Objetivos: Evaluar la complejidad de las patentes y el esfuerzo humano implicado en la investigación, la eficacia del marco del Índice de Esfuerzo Interno (IIE), utilizando patentes farmacéuticas desarrolladas dentro del sector público brasileño como prueba de concepto.

Métodos: Se recogieron datos internos de proyectos de innovación que incluían la presentación de patentes como resultado del proyecto. Se aplicó la prueba de correlación de Spearman para determinar qué variables internas de las patentes podían utilizarse como métricas en la IIE. A continuación, se utilizó la IIE para medir la complejidad de las patentes y el esfuerzo individual de los inventores. A continuación, se compararon los resultados con otras métricas identificadas en la bibliografía.

Resultados: La IIE mostró una correlación positiva y significativa con los recursos invertidos en la fase de diseño, así como con los resultados comerciales y sociales de las patentes.

Conclusiones: Los resultados indican que el marco genérico IIE es una nueva forma de metrificación que se puede aplicar a las patentes farmacéuticas que no se han discutido previamente en la literatura.

Palabras Clave: ciencia de datos; esfuerzo intelectual; farmacología; Fiocruz; patente; servicio público.

 

https://jppres.com/jppres/pdf/vol12/jppres23.1859_12.5.852.pdf

Citation Format: de Oliveira AA, Santos CB, Pilatti LA (2024) Bridging the gap in patent assessment: The index of internal effort framework for pharma innovations. J Pharm Pharmacogn Res 12(5): 852–869. https://doi.org/10.56499/jppres23.1859_12.5.852

References

Arias Gonzáles JL (2022) Guía para elaborar la operacionalización de variables. Espacio I+D Innov Desarro 10: 28. https://doi.org/10.31644/IMASD.28.2021.a02

Bessen J (2008) The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res Policy 37(5): 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.005

Brasil (2022) Fala.BR. Retrieved from: https://falabr.cgu.gov.br/publico/Manifestacao/SelecionarTipoManifestacao.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f

Cativelli AS (2020) Metric indicators of patent value: construction of a Value Index using Brazilian green patents. [Original in Portuguese: Indicadores métricos de valor de patentes: construção de um Índice de Valor utilizando as patentes verdes brasileiras]. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC). [Ph. D Thesis]. 284 p. Retrieved from: https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/219292/PCIN0244-T.pdf?sequence=-1&isAllowed=y

Chen YS, Chang KC (2009) Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies. Scientometrics 80: 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2095-2

Chen YS, Chang KC (2010) The relationship between a firm’s patent quality and its market value - The case of US pharmaceutical industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 77(1): 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.003

Chiu YJ, Chen YW (2007) Using AHP in patent valuation. Math Comput Model 46(7-8): 1054–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.009

Dorf RC, Bishop RH (2011) Modern control systems. 12th ed. Prentice Hall, pp. 1104.

Fischer T, Leidinger J (2014) Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value - An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Res Policy 43(3): 519–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.013

Fischer U (2011) Tabellenbuch metall. [Portuguese: Manual de tecnologia metal mecânica]. 2° ed. Blucher.

Gambardella A, Harhoff D, Verspagen B (2008) The value of European patents. Eur Manag Rev 5(2): 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1057/emr.2008.10

Higham K, Rassenfosse G, Jaffe AB (2021) Patent quality: Towards a systematic framework for analysis and measurement. Res Policy 50(4): 104215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104215

Kalip NG, Erzurumlu YÖE, Gün NA (2022) Qualitative and quantitative patent valuation methods: A systematic literature review. World Pat Inf 69: 102111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2022.102111

Liu L, Cao C, Song M (2014) China’s agricultural patents: How has their value changed amid recent patent boom? Technol Forecast Soc Change 88: 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.018

Meneghini R, Gamba EC (2011) Assessment of the scientific-technological production in molecular biology in Brazil (1996-2007): The contribution of genomics programs. An Acad Bras Ciênc 83(2): 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652011005000004

Mensures (2016) Software developed to measure intellectual activities based on the Index of Internal Effort methodology. [Original in Portuguese: Software desenvolvido para mensurar atividades intelectuais baseado na metodologia do Índice Interno de Esforço]. [Patent]. INPI. BR 51 2016 001521-7. RPI 2405. 2016.

NASA (2018) Technology Readiness Level - TRL. NASA. Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_level

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Pinheiro-Machado R, Oliveira PL (2011) The Brazilian investment in science and technology. Braz J Med Biol Res 34(12): 1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2001001200003

Reitzig M (2004) Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Res Policy 33(6-7): 939–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.02.004

Repperger DW, Roberts RG, Koepke CG (2012) Quantitative measurements of system complexity. Google Patents, ago. 8, 2012. US Patent 8,244,503 B1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8244503

Royston JP (1982) An Extension of Shapiro and Wilk’s W Test for Normality to Large Samples. Appl Statist 31(2): 115. https://doi.org/10.2307/2347973

Serger MR, Evangelista TCS, Dantas RF, Santana MVS, Gonçalves LCS, Souza-Neto LR, Ferreira SB, Silva-Junior FP (2020) COVID-19: molecular targets, drug repurposing and new avenues for drug discovery. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 115. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760200254

Sheard SA, Mostashari A (2010) A complexity typology for systems engineering. INCOSE Int Symp 20(1): 933–945. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2010.tb01115.x

Song H, Hou J, Zhang Y (2023) The measurements and determinants of patent technological value: Lifetime, strength, breadth, and dispersion from the technology diffusion perspective. J Informetr 17(1): 101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101370

Squicciarini M, Dermis H, Criscuolo C (2013) Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. No. 2013/03, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4522wkw1r8-en

Su HN, Lin YS (2018) How do patent-based measures inform product commercialization? —The case of the United States pharmaceutical industry. J Eng Technol Manag 50: 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.08.002

Suzuki J (2011) Structural modeling of the value of patent. Res Policy 40(7): 986–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.006

Trappey AJC, Trappey CV, Wu CY, Lin CW (2012) A patent quality analysis for innovative technology and product development. Adv Eng Informatics 26(1): 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.005

Van Burg E, Du J, Kers JG (2021) When do academics patent outside their university? An in-depth case study. Technovation 107: 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102287

Wang X, García F, Guijarro F, Moya I (2011) Evaluating patent portfolios by means of multicriteria analysis. Rev Contab 14(1): 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(11)70020-6

Yao L, Ni H (2023) Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach. Scientometrics 128: 4933–4969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04736-z

Zeebroeck NV (2011) The puzzle of patent value indicators. Econ Innov New Technol 20(1): 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590903038256

© 2024 Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmacognosy Research