ELECTRONICS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
TECHNOLOGICAL |
|
NUMBER OF |
CURRENT-IMPACT |
SCIENCE |
TECHNOLOGY |
||||||
|
|
STRENGTH/RANK |
|
PATENTS |
INDEX |
LINKAGE |
CYCLE TIME |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1998-2002 |
|
|
1998-2002 |
|
1998-2002 |
|
1998-2002 |
|
1998-2002 |
COMPANY |
COUNTRY |
2003 |
RANK |
AVERAGE |
RANK |
2003 |
AVERAGE |
2003 |
AVERAGE |
2003 |
AVERAGE |
2003 |
AVERAGE |
Zippy Shin Jiuh
Corp. |
TW |
16 |
85 |
9 |
117 |
13 |
8 |
1.22 |
1.11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDEXING INNOVATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Technology Review
has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent
Scorecard, an industry-by- |
|
|
|
||||||||||
industry ranking
of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of patents a company
receives with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture |
|||||||||||||
of innovation.
Here are the specifics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technological
Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall
assessment of a company’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by |
|||||||||||||
multiplying the
number of a company’s U.S. patents by its current-impact index (see below). |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
Patents: The number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other
special-case inventions. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current-Impact
Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents
by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five |
|||||||||||||
years are cited as prior art in the
current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency,
so, for example, a value of 1.4 would indicate a |
|||||||||||||
company’s
patents were cited 40 percent more often than the average. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science Linkage:
Some patents cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the
average number of scientific references listed in a company’s |
|||||||||||||
U.S. patents. A
high figure indicates a company closer to the cutting edge than competitors
with lower values. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technology Cycle
Time: This indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology
into intellectual property is defined as the median age (in years) of |
|||||||||||||
the U.S. patents cited as prior art in
the company’s patents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
footnotes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Figures include
values for all subsidiaries and wholly owned companies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
2. Embol-X was
acquired in 2003 by Edwards Lifesciences, which is not listed on the
scorecard. |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
3. Patent total
may include patents reassigned to Avaya after it spun off from Lucent in
2000. |
|
|
|
|
|