本研究以營收排名在全球前十五名及台灣主要無晶圓IC設計公司（Fabless）為研究對象，樣本收集期間從西元2001年至2002年間獲准之美國專利，應用Ordered Probit Model分析模型，分三個階段進行實證研究，分別是，專利特性對專利維護次數的關聯性分析、美國廠商與其他國家廠商對於專利維護次數的分析、涉訟專利對專利維護次數的關聯性分析。
結果發現，對專利維護次數有顯著的正向關聯性之解釋變數有：專利引證次數、專利被引證次數、技術涵蓋範圍，本研究認為引證的文獻愈多，表示發明揭露書也會更周詳及嚴密，若能通過審委的核准發證，則該專利應具有相當的價值。專利被引證次數愈多，表示該專利應是有價值的核心技術，實證發現該些專利的維護次數的確較多次。而專利歸屬的技術涵蓋範圍愈多項，與年費維護次數有正向的連動關係，印證專利涵蓋範圍愈廣，價值愈高。

對專利維護次數不具有顯著性之正向關聯性的解釋變數有：發明人人數、專利權人數、專利請求項數。過去文獻甚少將發明人人數納入解釋變數，本研究初始目的認為多個發明人經由腦力激盪將會構思具有周密的創作發想，但實證後發現發明人人數對於專利價值的衡量，並不是適合的解釋變數，主要是專利價值不會隨著發明人人數愈多而價值愈高，再者，多位發明人之間可能會有道德風險（Moral Hazard）的問題，而無法發揮腦力激盪的好處。而專利權人之間，可能因擁有的核心技術不同，為加速開發計劃而進行策略聯盟或技術授權，以避免重複投資之浪費，因共同研究之成果歸屬於雙方（三方、甚至多方）持有，在本研究中，所有權人超過1家的樣本數太少，所以對於專利維護次數的關聯性並不顯著。

涉訟專利在本研究中具有正向，但不顯著的關聯性，但若將28個涉訟專利之維護次數進行統計，有高達96.43%的專利是繳納全期（3次）的維護費，顯現涉訟專利的確具有較高專利價值。

In this study, with revenue in the global ranking the Top 15 and Taiwan's main fabless IC design companies as the research objects. Collected US issued patents from 2001 to 2002 and applied ordered probit model analysis model. Empirical research conducted in three stages: patent characteristics and patent maintenance association analysis, the US manufacturers and other countries for patent maintenance analysis, litigating patent for patent maintenance association analysis.

It was found that there are significant number of patents to maintain a positive association of explanatory variables are: the number of patent citations, the number of patents cited, technical scope, the present study suggests that the more cited literature indicates invention discloses the book will be more comprehensive and tight, if approved by the audit committee of issuance, the patent should have considerable value. Patents are cited more times, indicating that the patent should be valuable core technology, empirical findings that these patents are indeed relatively maintenance number of times. The technology covered by the patent belongs more items, with an annual fee to maintain the number of positively interlocking relationship, confirms patent coverage more widely, the higher the value.

Patent maintenance times does not have significant positive correlation between the explanatory variables are: the number of inventors, the number of patentee, the number of claims. The number of inventors over the last little literature explanatory variables included in the invention, the initial purpose of this study think brainstorm via multiple inventors will have a well-conceived creative, but the inventors have found that the number of the empirical value of the measure for the patent is not suitable the explanatory variables, mainly the more the number of inventors, patent value does not increase proportionally. Moreover, there may be moral hazard problem, and can not play more than brainstorming benefits between inventors . And between the patentee, it may be due to have different core technologies to accelerate the development program and strategic alliances or technology licensing, in order to avoid duplication of investment in the waste, due to the results of joint research attributable to both parties (constituents, even multi-) holds in the present study, the number of samples in the ownership of more than one patentee is too small, so the number of patents to maintain relevance not significant.

Litigating patent in this study has a positive, but not significant correlation, but if the 28 litigating patents maintenance frequency statistics, up to 96.43% of the patent is to pay the entire period (3 times) the maintenance fees, to show the litigating patents have high value.

一、 英文部分（依英文字母順序排列）

1. Albert, M.B., Avery D., McAllister, P. & Narin, F. (1991), “Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of Industrially Important Patents”, Research Policy
2. Allison, J. R., Mark A. Lemley, Kimberly A. Moore, and R. Derek Trunkey (2004), "Valuable Patents." Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, No. 133
3. Bessen, J. (2008), "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics." Research Policy, 37(5), 932-945
4. Bjorn L. BASBERG (1998), "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature", Research Policy 16 (1987) 131-141, North-Holland
5. Carpenter, M., Cooper, M., et al. (1980), "Linkage Between Basic Research Literature and Patents". Research Management 3, 30–35.
6. Dominique Guellec, Bruno van Potelsberghe de la Potterie (2000), "Applications, grants and the value of patent", Economics Letters 69 (2000) 109-114
7. Ernst, H. (2003), "patent information for strategic technology management." World Patent Information, 25, 233-242
8. Gallini, N.T. (1992), "Patent policy and costly imitation". RAND Journal of Economics 23 (1), 52–63
9. Gilbert, R., Shapiro, C. (1990), "Optimal patent length and breadth". RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1), 106–112.
10. Greene, J.R., Scotchmer, S. (1995), "On the division of profit in sequential innovation." RAND Journal of Economics 26 (1), 20–33.
11. Griliches, Z. (1990), "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey", Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 28, pp.1661-1707.
12. Grupp. H and Schmoch, U. (1999), "Patent Statistics in the age of globalization: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation." Research Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 377-396.
13. Hall, B.H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg, M. (1999), "Market value and patent citations: A first look. Collection Cahiers de l' Innovation", 99004, CNRS.
14. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K. (1997), "Exploring the tail of patent value distributions." Mimeo, Harvard University.
15. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K., (1999). "Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation". Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 511–515.
16. Harhoff, D., F. M. Scherer and K. Vopel (2003), “Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights.” Research Policy, Vol. 32(8), 1343–1363
17. Harhoff, D. and M. Reitzig (2004), “Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 22(4),443-480
18. James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer (2005), "LESSONS FOR PATENT POLICY FROM EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON PATENT LITIGATION", BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, WORKING PAPER SERIES, LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 05-22
19. Jonathan A. Barney (2001), "Comparative Patent Quality Analysis", NACV White Pape.
20. Klemperer, P. (1990), "How broad should the scope of patent protection be?" RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1), 113–130.
21. Lanjouw, Jean O., Schankerman, Mark (1997), "Stylized facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership" 6297. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA., USA
22. Lanjouw, Jean O., Ariel Pakes, Jonathan Putnam (1998), "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data." The Journey of Industrial Economics, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.405-433, 1998.
23. Lanjouw, Jean O., Schankerman, Mark A. (2000), "Patent Suits: Do They Distort Research Incentives?" CEPR.
24. Lanjouw, Jean O., Mark A. Schankerman (2004), "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators." The Economic Journal, pp.441-465, Apr. 2004.
25. Larry M. Goldstein (2013), "True patent value, Defining quality in patents and patent portfolios"
26. Lerner, J. (1994), "The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis." RAND Journal of Economics 25 (2), 319–333.
27. Manuel Trajtenbert (1990), "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patnet Citations and the Value of Innovations", The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 172-187
28. Markus Reitzig (2003), " What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry", Research Policy 32 (2003) 13–26
29. Maurseth, Per Botolf (2005), "Lovely but Dangerous: The Impact of Patent Citation on Patent Duration." Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 14, pp.351-374
30. Nordhaus, W.D. (1967), "The Optimal Life of a Patent". Yale University, New Haven.
31. Pakes, A. (1986), "Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding Eruopean Patent Stocks", Econometrica, Vol. 54, pp. 755-784.
32. Putnam, J. (1996), "The value of international patent rights." Ph.D. 1342 Thesis. Yale University, Yale.
33. Rahn, G. (1994), "Patenstrategien japanischer Unternehmen". Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (International) 5, 377–382
34. Roger Svensson (2007), "Licensing or Acquiring Patents? Evidence from Patent Renewal Data", Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
35. Schankerman, Mark and Pakes, Ariel (1986), "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period" Economic Journal, Vol. 96 (384). pp.1052-1076. ISSN 1468-0297
36. Tong, X. & Frame J. (1994), "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data", Research Policy, 23(2), 133-141
37. Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson and John P. Walsh (2000), " Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)" NBER Working Paper No. 7552

二、中文部分：

1.李國鼎（民國101年），「專利向後引證與專利移轉之實證分析—以太陽能光伏轉換技術為例」，國立中央大學，碩士碩文。
 

三、參考網址：

1.Ocean Tomo http://www.oceantomo.com/
2.經濟部智慧財產局 http://www.tipo.gov.tw/
3.美國專利商標局　 http://www.uspto.gov/
4.中國國家知識產權局 http://www.sipo.gov.cn/
5.日本專利局 https://www.jpo.go.jp/indexj.htm
6.韓國專利局 http://www.kipo.go.kr
7.Thomson Innovation http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/
8.科技產業資訊室 http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/
9.維基百科 https://zh.wikipedia.org/