Token-Based Valuation · SABCD
Eight pillars. Fifty indicators. One PSS score on a 0–100 scale.
The same scoring engine behind every Signal report — what each pillar measures, how the 50 indicators work, and how a 0–100 PSS resolves to an S–D tier against industry peers.
A tier is a discretisation of cohort percentile. S is the top 15% of the pool — the "S (top 15%)" the homepage cites.
| Tier | Band | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| S | ≥ P85 | Premier strategic |
| A | P65–84 | High-value core |
| B | P35–64 | Practical technology |
| C | P15–34 | General defense |
| D | < P15 | Foundation layout |
And rolled up to a portfolio — each gauge is the mean PSS across a company's graded patents, resolved to one aggregate SABCD tier. The strip below shows how it distributes across S–D.
Strong · avg PSS
42 graded patents in the 183-patent semiconductor / IC design pool. SEP-dense, deep international families.
Mid · avg PSS
36 graded patents in the 124-patent image-sensor pool. Strong citation impact, narrower geographic reach.
Mid · avg PSS
28 graded patents in the 91-patent biotech pool. Solid core coverage; technically active, defensible.
Weak · avg PSS
19 graded patents in the 67-patent AI-accelerator pool. Narrow scope; largely defensive positioning.
Weak · avg PSS
23 graded patents in the 142-patent power-electronics pool. Broad but low-citation, ageing foundation layout.
Every patent is graded on 50 indicators across 8 pillars. Raw values are normalised against the same-industry pool, aggregated into a 0–100 PSS, and mapped to a SABCD tier — cohort percentile and rank fall out of the same comparison.
| Step | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1 | Structured signals and NLP rubric scores are computed for all 50 indicators. |
| 2 | Each value is ranked against the same-industry cohort — a percentile, not an absolute. |
| 3 | Indicators roll up into eight pillars, each independently weighted. |
| 4 | The composite resolves to a 0–100 PSS and one SABCD tier. |
By the nature of each indicator.
| Method | How it works |
|---|---|
| Continuous percentile | Ranked against the pool by tie-aware percentile — most indicators. |
| Scarcity | Rarer is stronger — e.g. triadic (US–EP–JP) filings. |
| NLP rubric | A 1–10 rubric score, then normalised in-pool. |
| Disqualifying screen | A gate, not a score — legal status must be granted and active. |
The PSS is a weighted composite of eight pillars; each pillar decomposes into 4–8 indicators, every one traceable to its formula.
| Pillar | What it measures | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| P1 · Citation Impact | How much later art leans on it — volume, velocity, quality. | 7 |
| P2 · Legal Strength | Protection breadth and durability — family, claims, remaining life. | 8 |
| P3 · Technical Value | Substance behind the grant — disclosure depth and NLP-graded novelty. | 7 |
| P4 · Market Coverage | Where it is enforceable — GDP-weighted, key-market footprint. | 5 |
| P5 · Text Quality | Claim clarity, support, hierarchy — the pillar only deep review used to reach. | 8 |
| P6 · Network Centrality | Position in the citation graph — PageRank, betweenness, hub/authority. | 4 |
| P7 · Licensing Potential | Whether it can be monetised — detectability, design-around, damages basis. | 6 |
| P8 · Forward-Looking Value | Future trajectory — maturity, citation trend, adoption, runway. | 5 |
33 structured, 16 NLP, 1 derived. All percentiles in-pool.
| Code | Indicator | Type |
|---|---|---|
| P1.1 | Forward citation count | Structured |
| P1.2 | Citation velocity | Structured |
| P1.3 | Generality index | Structured |
| P1.4 | Originality index | Structured |
| P1.5 | Disruptiveness (CD Index) | Structured |
| P1.6 | Backward citations | Structured |
| P1.7 | Examiner citation ratio | Structured |
| P2.1 | Patent family size | Structured |
| P2.2 | Claim count | Structured |
| P2.3 | Independent claim count | Structured |
| P2.4 | Legal status (eligibility screen) | Structured |
| P2.5 | Remaining patent life | Structured |
| P2.6 | Maintenance-fee status | Structured |
| P2.7 | Continuation / divisional | Structured |
| P2.8 | Prosecution intensity | Structured |
| P3.1 | IPC breadth | Structured |
| P3.2 | Technology-convergence index | Structured |
| P3.3 | Inventor-team size | Structured |
| P3.4 | Specification depth | Structured |
| P3.5 | Technical novelty | NLP |
| P3.6 | Invention level (TRIZ) | NLP |
| P3.7 | SEP essentiality (optional) | Structured |
| P4.1 | Family geographic breadth | Structured |
| P4.2 | GDP-weighted market coverage | Structured |
| P4.3 | Triadic patent indicator | Structured |
| P4.4 | Key-market hit rate | Structured |
| P4.5 | Emerging-market footprint | Structured |
| P5.1 | Claim clarity | NLP |
| P5.2 | Specification support | NLP |
| P5.3 | Means-plus-function ratio | NLP |
| P5.4 | Multiple-dependent-claim efficiency | NLP |
| P5.5 | Claim-scope breadth | NLP |
| P5.6 | Claim-hierarchy completeness | NLP |
| P5.7 | Multilingual consistency (optional) | Structured |
| P5.8 | Specification-quality composite | NLP |
| P6.1 | PageRank centrality | Structured |
| P6.2 | Betweenness centrality | Structured |
| P6.3 | Hub / Authority score (HITS) | Structured |
| P6.4 | Community-bridging position | Structured |
| P7.1 | Infringement detectability | NLP |
| P7.2 | Design-around difficulty | NLP |
| P7.3 | Damages basis | NLP |
| P7.4 | Licensing-history signal | NLP |
| P7.5 | Patent-thicket density | Structured |
| P7.6 | Choke-point index | Derived |
| P8.1 | Technology maturity | NLP |
| P8.2 | Citation-trend slope | Structured |
| P8.3 | Industry adoption | NLP |
| P8.4 | Patent-age efficiency | Structured |
| P8.5 | Future-application potential | NLP |
Every score traces to a formula. Structured indicators show their raw inputs; NLP indicators carry a rubric score and a reasoning trail you can audit. The cohort re-ranks weekly — rank and percentile can move as patents enter or lapse, even when a patent's own indicators don't.
All indicators draw from the Innovue 180M-patent index — 100+ jurisdictions, refreshed daily. Industry assignment uses the patent's primary IPC code.