Value and influencing factors of valid Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescription patents for mammary gland hyperplasia

doi:10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2022.06.010

Abstract

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To explore the value and factors influencing the maintenance of valid Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescription patents for the management of mammary gland hyperplasia.

METHODS: The State Intellectual Property Office Patents Database, China Patent Information Center Patents Database, Soopat Patent Search Platform, and CNIPR Search Platform of Chinese and Foreign Patent Database were searched to identify Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescription patents for mammary gland hyperplasia that had been maintained for at least 5 years. Logistic regression analysis was used to detect the factors influencing the maintenance of valid patents.

RESULTS: From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2019, a total of 1228, Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescription patents for mammary gland hyperplasia were authorized. Of these applications, 381 patents were granted and only 176 patents were maintained for more than 5 years. The five independent variables assessed in this study all had significant explanatory functions.

CONCLUSIONS: The maintenance of valid patents for Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescriptions for treating mammary gland hyperplasia is of great importance. The maintenance of such patents depends on many factors, such as the concentration of effective herbs, number of dependent claims, provision of new dosage forms and detailed experimental data, and transfer of patent rights.

Key words: logistic models, mammary glands, human, hyperplasia, patent, Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescription, influencing factor

YANG Xujie, PEI Xiaohua. Value and influencing factors of valid Traditional Chinese Medicine compound prescription patents for mammary gland hyperplasia[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2022, 42(6): 1012-1018.

Figures/Tables 4

References 22

[1]	Domal J. Patenting process of computer-implemented inventions-analysis of current legal status. Przeglad Telekomunikacyjny + Wiadomosci Telekomunikacyjn 2017; 90: 659-4.
[2]	Dombi J, Jns A. Kappa regression: an alternative to logistic regression. Int J Uncertain Fuzz 2020; 28: 237-6. DOI URL
[3]	Kuha J, Mills C. On Group comparisons with logistic regression models. Social Methods Res 2020; 49: 498-525. DOI URL
[4]	Geer SVD. Logistic regression with total variation regularization. Trans. A. Razmadze Math Inst 2020; 174: 217-33.
[5]	John RA, Mark AL. Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents. Aipla Q J 1998; 26: 185-20.
[6]	Susan WG. Improving patent quality through identification of relevant prior art approaches to increase information flow to the patent office. Lewis Clark Law Rev 2007; 11: 495-1.
[7]	Quinn G. Patent searching tips: how to look for prior art using free tools: the importance of classification searching. Inventors' Digest 2020; 36: 37-9.
[8]	Alan CM, Richard DM. Patent examination quality and litigation: is there a link? Nt J Econ Bus 2019; 26: 65-91.
[9]	Rassenfosse GAB. Are patent fees effective at weeding out low-quality patents? Jing Ji Yu Guan Li Zhan Lue Yan Jiu 2018; 27: 134-8.
[10]	Gregory R. The complicated relationship of patent examination and invalidation. American University Law Review 2020; 69: 47-8.
[11]	Adam J, Josh lemer. Innovation and its discontents:the harm and countermeasures of patent system to innovation and progress. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2007: 161.
[12]	England P. The scope of protection of patent claims in Europe and the UPC. Intellet Prop Law 2016; 9: 689-7.
[13]	Federal Trade Commission. To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Washington D. C.: Federal Trade Commission 2003; 10: 1-18.
[14]	Nieto NM. Impact of the new Spanish patent Act in patent information. World Pat Inf 2019; 56: 17-9. DOI URL
[15]	Ronald M. Do patents facilitate financing in the software industry. Tex L Rev 2005; 83: 961-1023
[16]	Taylor EJ. Looking at patent law: defining the meaning and scope of claims through claim construction: insights from the lithium battery patent infringement case. Nterfaces 2020; 29: 51-7.
[17]	Wittfoth S. Measuring technological patent scope by semantic analysis of patent claims-an indicator for valuating patents. World Pat Inf 2019; 58: 1016-9.
[18]	Simone RNR, Andre R, Jordi C, Pompeu C. Contributions to modeling patent claims when representing patent knowledge. AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems 2018; 10791: 140-56.
[19]	Tietz J. The “broadest reasonable interpretation” and applying issue preclusion to administrative patent claim construction. Mich Law Rev 2018; 17: 349-82.
[20]	Cao JY, Sinha Uday Bhanu. Intra-brand patent licensing with inter-brand competition. Math Soc Sci 2020; 104: 71-6. DOI URL
[21]	Ashish BD, Srajan J. A comparative study of the evolving jurisprudence on standard essential patent licensing. J World Intellect Prop 2020; 23: 310-27. DOI URL
[22]	Kasdan A, Kasdan M. Recent developments in the licensing of standard essential patents. Natl Taiwan Univ Law 2020; 40: 1-4.

No.	Category	Name	Connotation	Characteristic	Expression
1	Dependent variable	Patent validity	Whether the patent has been maintained for more than 5 years	Binary virtual variable	1/0
2	Independent variable	Transfer	Whether the patent was transferred	Binary virtual variable	1/0
3	Independent variable	Dependent claim	Number of dependent claims for the patent	Numerical variable	Numerical value
4	Independent variable	Experimental data	Whether the patent application provided detailed pharmacological, chemical or other experimental data	Binary virtual variable	1/0
5	Independent variable	Innovative form	Presence or absence of innovative dosage forms in the patent file	Binary virtual variable	1/0
6	Independent variable	Herbal efficacy species	Number of functional herbal species in each patent	Numerical variable	Numerical value

No.	Category	Name	Connotation	Characteristic	Expression
1	Dependent variable	Patent validity	Whether the patent has been maintained for more than 5 years	Binary virtual variable	1/0
2	Independent variable	Transfer	Whether the patent was transferred	Binary virtual variable	1/0
3	Independent variable	Dependent claim	Number of dependent claims for the patent	Numerical variable	Numerical value
4	Independent variable	Experimental data	Whether the patent application provided detailed pharmacological, chemical or other experimental data	Binary virtual variable	1/0
5	Independent variable	Innovative form	Presence or absence of innovative dosage forms in the patent file	Binary virtual variable	1/0
6	Independent variable	Herbal efficacy species	Number of functional herbal species in each patent	Numerical variable	Numerical value

Item	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig	Exp (B)
Transfer	2.388	1.672	2.586	1	0.007	13.561
Dependent claim	0.278	0.168	2.299	1	0.026	2.008
Experimental data	3.103	0.893	10.998	1	0.002	30.768
Innovative form	1.898	0.876	4.698	1	0.009	7.032
Herbal efficacy species	–0.325	0.268	1.462	1	0.039	0.654
Constant	–3.576	1.368	5.532	1	0.021	0.029

Item	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig	Exp (B)
Transfer	2.388	1.672	2.586	1	0.007	13.561
Dependent claim	0.278	0.168	2.299	1	0.026	2.008
Experimental data	3.103	0.893	10.998	1	0.002	30.768
Innovative form	1.898	0.876	4.698	1	0.009	7.032
Herbal efficacy species	–0.325	0.268	1.462	1	0.039	0.654
Constant	–3.576	1.368	5.532	1	0.021	0.029

Item	n	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. regression coefficient
Transfer	176	0.00	2.00	0.375	0.486	0.640
Dependent claim	176	0.00	45.00	5.789	5.498	0.801
Experimental data	176	0.00	1.00	0.635	0.501	0.857
Innovative form	176	0.00	1.00	0.532	0.517	0.541
Herbal efficacy species	176	1.00	9.00	3.598	2.276	–0.408
Valid N (listwise)	176	–	–	–	–	–

Home

Online First

Author Center

Reviewer Center

Issues

Announcement

About Us