CambridgeIP presentation to the \"Licensing Executives Society\" Annual Meeting 2008. We identified the need for creative IP management and royalty sharing model to meet the renewable energy technology transfer needs in coming years

1. Technology Transfer in the Renewable Energy
Space: Key Challenges and Opportunities for
the Technology Licensing Community
Ilian Iliev (CEO) , CambridgeIP Ltd
To: Licensing Executives Society Annual Meeting
2nd July, 2008
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..

2. CambridgeIP Snapshot
CambridgeIP is an innovative and cost-effective
provider of:
• Actionable IP intelligence
• To the technology sector Number of New Patent Applications by Year
228
• In the UK and internationally 204
140
149
102
97
82
75 71 76 71
61
43 45
38 37
32 34
We are not a legal service provider:
26 27
16
6
2006
2002
2003
2000
2005
1988
1998
1986
1989
1996
1999
2004
1992
1993
2001
1990
1985
1995
1991
1987
1997
1994
• IP Lawyers are our clients too
We have offices in Cambridge and London, and 100%
5 Year Growth of Technology Field and Share of All Biosensors Field
% of P atents in Last 5 years
% of A ll P atents in Field
50%
Technology Field as % of All Biosensor Patents
90% 45%
Patents Filed in last 5 Years as % of Total
80% 40%
representation in Boston, USA 70%
60%
50%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
30% 15%
20% 10%
10% 5%
0% 0%
Electrochemical
Acoustic Wave
Thermometric
Fluorescence
Chain Reaction
Optical
Biomimetic
Paramagnetic
Spectroscopy
Photoacoustic
Piezoelectric
Pyrolysis
Polymerase
Raman
Surface
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
2

3. CambridgeIP has developed a comprehensive capability in
deploying actionable IP-based business intelligence
Precise definition of your technology Related Industrial applications
History and trends
space & key patent ranking Patent Distribution: Top 5 IPCs
Number of New Patent Applications by Year
H01R 12/00, 5.8%
250
2 28
H01R 13/22, 5.4%
204 H01R 13/24, 5.3%
2 00
149 H01R 11/11, 5.1%
140
150
Development over Time of the Relevant Industry Segments
102
40 97
1 00
82
H01R 11/28, 4.5%
Patent Ranking: Score Distribution 75 71 76 71
40 35
61
Keywords Weighting Weight 43 45
50 30 38 37
35 Tech. descriptor 1 2 3 2 34 27
26
Tech. descriptor 2 2
25
16
3 2 4 2 5 6 7 6
30 Tech. descriptor 3 2 1 1
Tech. descriptor 4 2 0
20
2006
2002
2003
2000
2005
1988
1998
2001
1986
1989
1996
1999
2004
1982
1992
1983
1993
1980
1990
1985
1995
1981
1991
1987
1997
1976
1979
1984
1994
1973
1974
25 Tech. descriptor 5 2
Tech. descriptor 6 10 15
Score
Tech. descriptor 7 10
20
Tech. descriptor 8 8 Other: 74%
10
Tech. descriptor 9 8 © 2007
15
Tech. descriptor 10 10 5
Tech. descriptor 11 10
10
0
1971
1981
1991
1977
1987
1997
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1974
1976
1979
1984
1986
1989
1994
1996
1999
1972
1982
1992
1973
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
5
0 A61N 7/00 A61K 9/50 C12N
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Patent number © 2007
Deep Analysis of Corporate IP Inventor Network Analysis
Top Inventors & Top Assignees
70
65 Top 10 Assignees and Number of Patents Portfolios
Selected Assignees: Patent Portfolio Key Numbers
60 Rank by Assignee Name #Assignee Year of 1st Total Patents in Total # Search 2A
55 # of Patents in Patent Client Patents by Patents
Patents Search 2A Application in Industry* Assignee After 2000
in S.2 Search 2
50 1 ASSIGNEE 1 124 1981 2,568 501,746 23
45
2 ASSIGNEE 2 50 1978 3,857 676,142 6
40
40 3 ASSIGNEE 3 46 1975 3,164 720,028 6
4 ASSIGNEE 4 36 1979 3,413 727,743 11
30 5 ASSIGNEE 5 14 1977 2,659 155,148 3
30 26
20 Selected Assignees: Patent Portfolio Key Ratios
19 18 Rank by Assignee Name Assignee Search 2A Search 2A Overall Search 2A
20 16 # of Patents as % Patents as % of Patents as % of Importance Patents:
Patents of all Patents All Assignee Assignee All of Client Growth
` in S.2 in Search 2A Patents in Client Patents Industry* for 2000-6
10 Industry* Assignee
1 ASSIGNEE 1 14% 4.8% 0.025% 0.51% 18.5%
0 2 ASSIGNEE 2 6% 1.3% 0.007% 0.57% 12.0%
Assignee 1 Assignee 2 Assignee 3 Assignee 4 Assignee 5 Assignee 6 Assignee 7 Assignee 8 Assignee 9 Assignee
3 ASSIGNEE 3 5% 1.5% 0.006% 0.44% 13.0%
10
4 ASSIGNEE 4 4% 1.1% 0.005% 0.47% 30.6%
10 ASSIGNEE 5 2% 0.5% 0.009% 1.71% 21.4%
VISIT WWW.CAMBRIDGEIP.COM © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
3

4. Example: Assignee & Inventor Network Analysis
We discover inventor networks relevant to a client’s technology
space
That enables clients to identify more licensing opportunities,
and develop an approach strategy
Legend
Blue Bubble: Inventor
Red Bubble: Patent Owner (Assignee)
Bubble Size: # of Patents
Line Thickness: # of joint patents
© 2008
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
4

5. Our work in the renewable space
A sample of projects in the past year:
Focus Area Key Questions
Alternative Refrigeration ID incumbents’ R&D strategy
Technologies
Photo-Voltaics Identify value chain changes
Air Supply Systems to Fuel- Licensing strategy development & competitor
Cells monitoring
BioMass Electricity Identify key developing economy world players
Clean Coal Technology R&D portfolio of major corporate players
We are also working with Climate Strategies to
identify technology transfer trends in the
renewable space
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
5

6. Renewable Energy: The Broader Context
• We are in the early stages of a transition to a low-
carbon economy
– The last time we did this was in the industrialisation era
(electricity, rail, steam)
– We are now doing it in a 20-30 year span
• This transition will be characterised by technology
development and technology deployment on a massive
scale
– Trillions of dollars of investment in R&D & deployment
– Strong role for Government in funding, regulatory frameworks
and market creation
As a professional community we need to take into
account the institutional framework which is
emerging: and how that impacts IP management
options for our clients
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
6

7. Renewable are already mainstream:
Example PV Space
PV Competitive Space: Key Players' IP Portfolios
Company name The total number of # of PV patents held Country
patents held by the by the company
company
Japanese
Top 10 cell manufacturers
Conglomerates
Sharp 140,836 433 Japan
dominate the
Sanyo 143,645 276 Japan
patenting space
Kyocera 36,108 63 Japan
BP Solar 99 15 EU
Shell Solar 51 14 US
Schott Solar 56 11 EU
The Oil majors are
JFE Steel Electric
Mitsubishi 248,251
5,156 8
2 Japan also entering this
Selected EU cell manufacturers space
Würth Solar - DE 4 EU
SollandSolar -Nl 228 nil or n/a nil or n/a
Solterra - Swiss 0 0 EU
Selected Jp cell manufacturers
Kaneka Solartech 4,927 295 Japan
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 7,545 30 Japan
Fuji Electric 56,841 82 Japan
Selected US cell manufacturers
GE Energy 76 nil or n/a US
Solar Power Ind. 77 15 US
Ebara Solar 129 12 US
SunPower 313 25
Source: Own research © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
7

8. What is the impact on the business of IP
professionals?
We are already seeing the impact in the composition of our
deal flow:
• AIM has been a major destination for alternative energy start-ups
• Increased VC investment in alternative energy start-ups
• Boom in activity by established corporations
• Increased deal flow from University TTOs
• Government funding into research (KTNs, Carbon Trust, NESTA, etc.)
So far, this has been a patent-intensive field, combining complex multi-
disciplinary technologies
So far, so good…
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
8

9. Policy Framework & Economic Context
It is now recognised that the key problem for Climate Change strategies is
carbon emissions from high-growth developing economies, such as India
& China
The majority of energy infrastructure investment in the next 20-30 years
will be in India and China combined: it is the growth opportunity
Already major corporate players are expressing fears about protection of IP
by selling & co-developing technology in these markets
Policy Framework
• The UN Climate Change Conference and the Bali Action Plan
(2007) are setting the framework:
– All countries are jointly responsible for emissions reductions
– Have to pursue measurable, reportable and verifiable actions
– Developed countries have obligations to support developing
countries through, among other things, technology transfer
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
9

10. There are long-term challenges to how IP
Management is practiced
Two elements to a successful and rapid transition
to a low-carbon economy
1. Rapid development of new technologies
2. Rapid deployment and diffusion of these
technologies
Herein lies a paradox:
• Patents provide the incentives for private actors to
innovate
• But a strong patent regime may also discourage and
slow down the deployment of new technologies
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
10

11. Tensions in the current system may build up…
If the current patent system and licensing practices are
seen as a barrier to innovation and technology diffusion
of low carbon technologies, you may see:
– NGO action to ‘force open’ the IP portfolios
– Government action to go around IP rights
– Attachment of ‘open sourcing’ conditions to R&D funding
It has happened before!!!
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
11

12. There is a lot that we can do to lead the debate!
The licensing professionals community is in a unique position to pro-actively
identify the IP licensing regime most conducive which will incentivise both
– R&D Investment & collaborative innovation
– and Technology diffusion/deployment
Past examples of innovative industry-level licensing models
Industry Model
Mobile Phone Symbian: formed 1998 in partnership with
Operating Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Psion
System Royalty-free access for mobile app. developers
WiMax Intel, Cisco, Samsung, Sprint, Alcatel: joint
licensing of WiMax patents to limit Royalties costs
Pharma: AIDS Differentiated pricing for drugs according to an
drugs economy’s level of development
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
12

13. In Conclusion: Some Questions to Consider
• What are the innovative IP licensing regimes we have seen
in the past that could be applied?
• How can we balance the interests of incumbents, new
entrants and consumers?
• What differentiated pricing regimes between different
countries can be implemented?
• What mechanisms do we have for licensing revenue
administration in pooled IP portfolio?
• How can we increase transparency? E.g. licensing
reporting framework, benchmarking, valuation
principles…
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
13

14. …and finally…
Feel free to discuss your specific IP Intelligence requirements with us
Sign up to our Newsletter and visit our blog to get regular IP Intelligence
insights
Thank You !
Ilian Iliev
(CEO and Founder)
www.cambridgeip.com
Tel: 01223 370 098
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
14