Not only for protecting an invention, a patent can also be employed as a strategic tool of the patentee. As a strategic tool, the most aggressive use of a patent is to attack others. Of course, not every patent can be employed as a strategic weapon to attack others. In this study, we call this kind of patents which can be employed to attack others Attacker Patents. We define Attacker Patents as patents which have economic value or potential, are easy to be infringed and are difficult to design around.
When making R&D plans, developing new technologies, or launching new products, if a firm does not notice existing Attacker Patents in the industry, it is possible the firm will encounter unnecessary loss in surprise. The traditional way to detect Attack Patents is to use experts to analyze competitors’ patents and identify Attacker Patents. However, expert support is costly. It is impossible to analyze all patents in the industry periodically. In this study, we apply data mining techniques to develop an automated method to effectively and efficiently detect Attacker Patents in the industry. According to our empirical evaluation results, our proposed detection model can achieve favorable performance.

專利除了可以保護專利權人的發明成果，也可以做為企業的策略工具，其中最激烈的策略用途，就是利用專利去進行攻擊。當然，並非所有專利都可以被拿來當成武器進行攻擊，本研究將那些可以被用於攻擊他人的專利稱為「攻擊型專利」。本研究對於「攻擊型專利」的定義為：具有經濟價值或潛力、容易被侵權且不容易進行迴避設計的專利。
企業在擬定研發計畫、發展新技術、推出或引進新產品時，若是沒有注意到產業中存在的「攻擊型專利」，無意間侵犯了他人的專利而遭受攻擊，將會蒙受不必要的損失。傳統上，企業會聘請專家來對競爭者的專利進行分析，並且判斷競爭者的專利是否具有攻擊性。然而專家的協助是昂貴的，企業很難對整個產業的所有專利進行例常性的偵測。本研究係利用資料探勘的技術，發展一套自動化的方法，在不需要大量人力投入的情況下，有效地偵測出產業中的攻擊型專利，以提供企業管理決策的參考。本研究的實證評估結果顯示，我們所提出之偵測模式可以達到不錯的效能。

Allison, J., Lemley, M., Moore, K., Trunkey, R. (2004). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435-479.
Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M. (2006). Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Science, 52 (2), 293-56308.
Austin, D. (1993). An event-study approach to measuring innovative output: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 83 (2), 253-258.
Blind, K., Cremers, K., Mueller, E. (2007). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Zentrum fuer Europaeische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, No. 07-013.
Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U. (2004). The patent upsurge in Germany: The outcome of a multi-motive game induced by large companies. Working paper presented at the Eighth Schumpeter Conference in Milan, Karlsruhe, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35, 655-672.
Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal, 112, C97-C116.
Cockburn, I., Kortum, S., Stern, S. (2002). Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of examiner characteristics on patent statistics and litigation outcomes. NBER Working Paper No. 8980, JEL No. O3, K3, L3.
Columbia, S., Blasberg, S. (2006). Beware patent trolls. Risk Management, 53 (4), 22-27.
Cooter, R., Rubinfeld, D.L. (1989). Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution. Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1067-1097.
Ernst, H, (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25, 233-242.
Ernst, H. (2001). Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: Evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, 30, 143-157.
Guellec, D., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economic Letters, 69(1).
Hall, B., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 36 (1), 16-38.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81 (3), 511-515.
Harhoff, D., Scherer, F., Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 33, 1343-1363.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics.
Hughes, J., Snyder, E. (1989). Policy analysis of medical malpractice reforms: What can we learn from claims data? Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 7 (4), 423-431.
Jaffe, A., Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kim, J., Choi, K. (2007). Patent document categorization based on semantic structural information. Information Processing and Management, 43, 1200-1215.
LaFuze, W., Ruble, R. (2007). Patent trolls. The IP Litigator: Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement. New York: Mar/Apr 2007. Vol. 13, Iss. 2, 31-37.
Lanjouw, J., Pakes, A., Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 405-432.
Lanjouw, J., Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. Rand Journal of Economics, 32 (1), 129-151.
Lanjouw, J., Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114, 441-465.
Lerner, J. (1995). Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics, 38, 463-96.
Lin, B., Chen, C., Wu, H. (2006). Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and firm value. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53 (1), 17-26.
Macdonald, S. (2004). When means becomes ends: Considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation. Information Economics and Policy, 16, 135-158.
Motohashi, K. (2008). Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms. Research Policy, 37, 1548-1555.
Ohkuma, Y., Sahashi, M., Hsueh, H., Brennan, J. (2006). Patent trolls in the US, Japan, Taiwan and Europe. CASRIP (Center for Advanced Study & Research on Intellectual Property) Newsletter, Spring/Summer 2006, Vol. 13, Iss. 2.
P’ng, I.P.L. (1983). Strategic behavior in suit, settlement and trial. Bell Journal of Economics, 14 (2), 539-550.
Park, G., Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 793-812.
Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., Heath, C. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed.” Research Policy, 36, 134-154.
Shavell, S. (1982), Suits, settlement, and trial: A theoretical analysis under alternative models for the allocation of legal costs. Journal of Legal Studies, 11 (1), 55-82.
Witten, I., Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques, 2nd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.