Nanomaterials: Patenting Trends June 2011

CambridgeIP

Nanomaterials trends:
Evidence from scientific literature

NanoMaterials 2011

June 2011

Quentin Tannock, Chairman and Co-founder
Ilian Iliev, CEO and Co-founder

© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

Outline

• Executive Summary: Overview of findings
• Survey: Your feedback on IP strategies, activities,
budgets & issues
• Study Methodology: Evidence-based
understandings of trends
• Study Context: Patenting in nanotech broadly
• Study Findings:
• NanoMaterials: Patent trends & examples
• NanoManufacturing: Methods & application fields
• Patent strategy conclusions
• Appendix: CambridgeIP background & contacts
2

Overview of nanomaterials patent study findings

• A general rise in nanotechnology patent activity masks a
slow-down in patenting rates in some nanotech sub-spaces
• Growth in ‘Nanomaterials’ has consistently outstripped
growth in other sub-spaces
 Nanomaterials patent filings now account for around 40% of nanotechnology patents
 Within ‘nanomaterials’: Overall, ‘traditional’ nano-materials remain important, Patent trends over time

however we observe increased activity in some ‘emerging’ materials like graphene
 Its all about the money… Emerging application areas include Energy & Environment
• Our nanomaterials patent activity research also reveals
 High inter-relation between patents possibly indicating the presence of
blocking patents and patent thickets, also indicating complexity of nanomaterials
deployments and multiple markets/application spaces
 High patent forward citation rates indicating breadth and quality
 Rising strength of Asian countries and China in particular accompanied by Patents are inter-related
acquisitions of companies and technologies by Chinese companies.
 Good mix of leading Universities & major corporations, indications that the
space overall is research intensive, yet maturing commercially.
 Many joint patent filings indicating collaborative R&D
• You expressed concerns over blocking patents, patent thickets
and patent costs
Corporate/University R&D networks

Outline

budgets & issues
• Study Findings:
4

Survey: About your developments

Only around 16% of respondents are developing a nano-material.
25% are developing a nano-material manufacturing method.
Surprisingly a further 25% are developing a „device‟... Indicating that
the space is maturing commercially? Or of the diversity of the „nano-
materials space‟. Or of complexity in deploying nanomaterials?

CambridgeIP survey on patent strategies in nanotechnology

• Manufacturing method Most respondents
• Material were either in the 25-
• Device
Other (please specify)
50 people (42%) or
50+ people (25%)
size range.

30% of respondents focus their developments on Industrial
applications (like Automotive, Aerospace and Electronics). There was
a roughly even split of application focus on Health, Environment and
5
Chemicals sectors. © 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

Survey: About your patent strategies

These are the objectives of your patent strategies:
CambridgeIP survey on patent strategies in nanotechnology
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Protect your Manage Showcase Not relevant Use in Generate
market litigation risk technology to us as we fundraising licensing
will never efforts revenue
file a patent

This is what your patents seek to protect: Most respondents
CambridgeIP survey on patent strategies in nanotechnology were either in the 25-
40.0% 50 people (42%) or
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% 50+ people (25%)
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
size range.
5.0%
0.0%

6

Survey: About Your IP activities and budgets

• Even if you decide to undertake IP research in-
house (e.g. using a system like Boliven.com) plan &
budget for your IP research time and costs
– IP Research: 90% of survey respondents see value in IP
Landscaping and use IP data to glean technology ideas,
yet 60% of you do not have a budget for IP research
activities
• Best practice is to budget for your planned activities
– Patent filing and maintenance: For those of you with
patents or planning to file patents, your filing and
maintenance budget estimates per patent ranged from
GBP 0.00 to GBP 10k per year

7

Survey: Key IP-related barriers and IP-related difficulties
you face

• Blocking Patents: Half of respondents indicated
that blocking patents exist in their area of focus, a
further third „have never checked‟ for blocking
patents

• Patent Thickets: One third of respondents
indicated that a „patent thicket‟ exists in their area of
focus, a further third „have no idea‟ if a patent
thicket exists or not

8

Take the survey: IP issues facing the nanotech community

• Our survey is ongoing and aims to identify
the key Intellectual Property issues facing
the nanotechnology community today.
• There is an option at the end of the
survey to receive a summary of the survey
results.
Take the survey:
www.cambridgeip.com/index.php/knowled
ge-centre/nanotech-survey

Outline

budgets & issues
• Study Findings:
10

A wealth of technical knowledge in science literature

e.g. The patent system represents a significant global technological library

• Patents as data are:
90% of survey respondents said they
– Structured
use patent data regularly for IP
– Comparable Landscaping & for identifying
– Objective technology ideas.
– Information rich

• Multiple patent data sources are available (an opportunity and a challenge!),
e.g:
– USPTO
– Espace.net
– Google Patents
– Boliven.com
– Specialists like CambridgeIP

• Other useful data sources include: Journal articles, conference
proceedings, clinical trials data, litigation data and more

11

Advanced IP Landscape ® analysis examples

Sector composition analysis Technology evolution maps
Identifying hot-spots and new Identifying technology migration and
areas of R&D activity across broad diffusion patterns over time, together
technology spaces (this example: with interdependencies
Biosensors)
IPC Relationship Map: 2000

The applications
and location of
client‟s technology
are dispersed

IPC Relationship Map: 2007

Over time, 2 key
clusters of
application have
developed

12

Discovery of networks and knowledge flows

Case study: Tshingua
University
Nanotechnology R&D
networks

Number of Patents: Annual and Cumulative
Number of New Applications Cumulative

60 400

350
50
300

Patents - Cumulative
40

Patents - Yearly
250

30 200

150
20
100
10
50

0 0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
© 2010


The role of knowledge management platforms

e.g., Boliven.com:
• Comprehensive: 100 million+ document database of patent and non-patent literature
• Popular & accessible: Rapidly growing - 30,000+ unique visitors per month
• Unparalleled ease of use: Real-time results, integrated analytics
• Built-in expert and expert network identification: People need to understand & implement
technologies

Search literature & access full results Undertake your own analysis: e.g., trends
over time, top corporations

14

Nanotechnology patent study methodology (1)

We undertook patent research into nanotechnology patents and identified
trends & patents of interest emerging over the last 5 years

• We undertook a literature review focused on past patent studies
• We interviewed nanotechnology and industry experts
• We conducted a semi-automated and expert-validated analysis of the
patent space on our systems, generated trend information and identified
example patents
 Samples are available on Boliven.com (free registration for access)
 www.boliven.com/landscapes
 http://www.boliven.com/boliven_landscapes/ip_report/nanotechnology_patent_review
 Further research is available on request

15

Methodology (2): From technology taxonomy to patent and
partner discovery
discovery Manufacturing
NanoParticles fuel cells Photovoltaics construction air purification water
and concrete purification
Techniques

Deposition techniques
lithography x x x x
Top Down

vacuum coating x x x x
spray coating x x x x
Mechanical
ball milling x x
planetary grinding x x
Wet chemistry
Sol-Gel Processing x x x x Filtering
Hydrothermal synthesis x x x enables rapid
microemulsion processing x x x identification of
Bottom Up

nanoemulsion processing x x x technology
Sonochemical processing x x x
solutions and
Gas phase synthesis
plasma vaporization x
prospects
chemical vapour synthesis x
laser ablation x
Production in liquid CO2 x x x x
Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x

45
41
Top 10 Assignees and Number of Patents
40

35

30 27

25
21
20 18

15 13
11 11
10 10 10
10

5
`
0
R J REYNOLDS PHARMACIA & PHILIP MORRIS THINK GLOBAL KABI ESSER RALF HF & PHF ADVANCED ARADIGM CORP LTS LOHMANN
TOBACCO CO UPJOHN INC BV PHARMACIA AB REEMTSMA TOBACCO THERAPIE-
COMPANY GMBH PRODUCTS INC SYSTEME AG

© 2009

R&D relationships
Key players Relevant solutions

16

Outline

budgets & issues
• Study Findings:
17

Nano-context: Key conclusions from previous
research (1)
Patent trend research indicates that nanotechnology:
• Is a cross-cutting technology applicable to multiple market sectors
• Has high levels of public development and support , compared to the average in other
fields
• Global development and application
– US is a leader in terms of volume of patent filings , and is highly diversified
– Nanobiotechnology dominates European patent filings
– Nanoelectronics dominates Japan activity

18
Source: Dang (2009) © 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

Nano-context: Key conclusions from previous
research (2)
CambridgeIP research reveals:
• Higher inter-relation between patents in nano-field
– Relatively high patent forward citation rates for patents relative to forward citation
rates observed elsewhere
– Rising strength of China: Rise in China patenting rates (accompanied by
acquisitions of companies and technologies by Chinese companies)
– Russia: Russian nanotechnology developments are often overlooked in the English
speaking world. Many clients have little or no exposure to patent and non-patent
literature in Cyrillic. The role of RusNano?
• Patenting rates slow down in the period 2002 - 2004 in some nanotechnology sub-
spaces, in part driven by:
– Delays in patent filings (perhaps due to „time to market‟ and other considerations)
– Fewer nano patents granted - increased sophistication and rigor of the nano-patent
examination process
– Lower levels of VC investment - end of the honeymoon?
• Multiple & varied technology areas with inter-dependencies and growing number of
applications
1996: A relatively 2006: An ‘explosion’ of activity across an
small number of ever-increasing array of industrial
IPCs is association applications. No single ‘core area can be
with the discerned, which is indicative of a ‘raft’ or a
nanotechnology ‘platform’ technology entering maturity
19 field

CambridgeIP research: Nanotech patent trends

• Broadly rising over time, masking a drop-off in some sub-sectors
• Very strong showing in the past 5 years from Asia
• There are indications that the space overall is research intensive, yet maturing
commercially
– Top players in the past 5 years include corporations and Universities, e.g. Canon, Rice
University, Samsung, Tsinghua University and 3M
– Top inventors tend to be from Universities and have an industrial affiliation
• Its all about the money… Example applications we observe in the patent
literature include
 Electronics
Patent
 Materials applications
may be
 Health & Lifestyle unpublished for
18+ months.
Therefore the
number of
reported
patents for the
last 2 years
may be under-
represented

CambridgeIP research: Tshinguha University‟s nano R&D network


CambridgeIP research: Tshinguha University‟s nano R&D network –
Inventors with 6 or more patents

CambridgeIP research: Trends in UK nanotechnology
R&D

• UK nano strengths lie
mainly in
bionanotechnology, medical
and cosmetic applications.
• The UK‟s relatively strong
R&D base in physics,
materials, instrumentation
and aspects of electronics
(e.g. lasers, optics) also
reflects in the nano related
patent data

2006: An ‘explosion’ of activity
1996: A relatively across an ever-increasing array
small number of IPCs of industrial applications. No
is association with single ‘core area can be
the nanotechnology discerned, which is indicative of
field a ‘raft’ or a ‘platform’ technology
entering maturity
23

Outline

budgets & issues
• Study Findings:
24

CambridgeIP research: Nanomaterials patent trends (1)

• Overall, ‘traditional’ nano-materials remain important
 E.g. CNT
• However we observe increased activity in some ‘emerging’
materials
 E.g. Graphene
• Its all about the money… Example applications we observe in
the nanomaterials patent literature include
 Coatings and lubricants
 Reinforced materials, e.g. Hardened cutting tools including drill bits
 Self-cleaning & anti-bacterial surfaces

Emerging applications for nanomaterials include Energy (e.g.
Conversion & storage); Environment (e.g. Water treatment)

Nano Toxicity remains a concern for some application areas


CambridgeIP research: Highly cited nano patent example (1)

US 2003012723
SPATIAL LOCALIZATION OF DISPERSED SINGLE WALLED CARBON NANOTUBES
INTO USEFUL STRUCTURES
Assignee: CLARKE MARK S.F, ; BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
Inventor: CLARKE MARK S F [US]
Publication Date: 2003-01-16

Abstract: Methods of aligning single walled carbon nanotube structures into
selected orientations for a variety of different applications are achieved by initially
dispersing the nanotube structures in aqueous solutions utilizing a suitable
dispersal agent. The dispersal agent coats each individual nanotube structure in
solution. The dispersal agent may be substituted with a suitable functional group
that reacts with a corresponding binding site. Dispersed nanotube structures
coated with substituted dispersal agents are exposed to a selected array of
binding sites such that the nanotubes align with the binding sites due to the
binding of the substituted functional groups with such binding sites. Alternatively,
crystalline nanotube material is formed upon deposition of dispersed nanotube
structures within solution into channels disposed on the surface of the substrate.;
Combining dispersal agent chemical modification techniques with deposition of
the nanotubes into substrate channels is also utilized to produce useful
structures.
Number of forward references: 33

26 © 2011 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.

CambridgeIP research: Highly cited nano patent example (2)

US 2005258571

METHOD OF IMPRINTING SHADOW MASK NANOSTRUCTURES FOR DISPLAY PIXEL
SEGREGATION
Assignee: AGENCY SCIENCE TECH & RES [SG]
Inventor: DUMOND JARRETT [SG]; LOW HONG Y [SG]
Abstract: The present invention is directed to micro- and nano-scale
imprinting methods and the use of such methods to fabricate supported and/or
free-standing 3-D micro- and/or nano-structures of polymeric, ceramic, and/or
metallic materials, particularly for pixel segregation in OLED-based displays. In
some embodiments, a duo-mold approach is employed in the fabrication of
these structures. In such methods, surface treatments are employed to impart
differential surface energies to different molds and/or different parts of the
mold(s). Such surface treatments permit the formation of three-dimensional (3-
D) structures through imprinting and the transfer of such structures to a
substrate.; In some or other embodiments, such surface treatments and
variation in glass transition temperature of the polymers used can facilitate
separation of the 3-D structures from the molds to form free-standing micro-
and/or nano-structures individually and/or in a film. In some or other
embodiments, a "latch-on" assembly technique is utilized to form supported
and/or free-standing stacked micro- and/or nano-structures that enable the
assembly of polymers without a glass transition temperature and eliminate the
heating required to assemble thermoplastic polymers.
Number of forward references: 20

27 © 2011 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.

CambridgeIP research: Graphene nanomaterials

• High profile material, especially since the award of the 2010 Nobel Prize for
Physics to Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov
• We have identified over 1,800 „graphene‟ patents and patent applications
– Essentially, graphene is a 2D form of chystalline carbon. This might give rise to
challenges in distinguishing graphene from other forms of nano-carbon (including
CNT, buckyballs and graphite).
– Early signs are promising for patent applicants, with patent applications being granted,
however there have been rejections (e.g. Lucent Technologies Inc has had a patent
rejected by the US patent office on the basis of CNT prior art).
• Interestingly, neither the University of Manchester nor its Nobel Prize winning inventors
filed for patent applications covering their discoveries
• Manufacturing graphene in large scale remains challenging. Key methods
include:
– Exfoliation
– Epitaxy (e.g. CVD)
– Cleavage
• Wide range of potential applications include
– Electronic devices
– Sensors
– Memory devices


Nanotoxicology: A Large Network

Pioneers in the prevention
Own 3 patents on Now working with the EC
Cell Nanotoxicology
(See next Slide)

Specialized Magazine

A Network of Universities and Institutes

Database

© 2010 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.
29

CambridgeIP Research - Example Patent: Toxicology
Nanotoxicity

WO2007094870
TOXICOLOGY AND CELLULAR EFFECT OF MANUFACTURED
NANOMATERIALS
Assignee: UNIV CALIFORNIA
Inventor: CHEN FANQING [US]
Abstract: The increasing use of nanotechnology in consumer products
and medical applications underlies the importance of understanding its
potential toxic effects to people and the environment. Herein are
described methods and assays to predict and evaluate the cellular
effects of nanomaterial exposure. We have performed whole genome
expression array analysis and high content image analysis-based
phenotypic measurements on human skin fibroblast cell populations
exposed to multiwall carbon nano-onions (MWCNOs), multiwall carbon
nanotubes (MWCNTs), and semiconductor nanocrystals. Here we
demonstrate that exposing cells to nanomaterials at cytotoxic doses
induces cell cycle arrest and increases apoptosis/necrosis, activates
genes involved in cellular transport, metabolism, cell cycle regulation,
and stress response.; Certain nanomaterials induce genes indicative of
a strong immune and inflammatory response within skin fibroblasts.
Furthermore, the described MWCNOs can be used as a therapeutic in
the treatment of cancer due to its cytotoxicity.
© 2010 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.
30

Outline

budgets & issues
• Study Findings:
31

Nanomaterials manufacturing methods
Creating nanoscale devices by using larger, externally-
controlled materials, directing their formation

Method Detail Type
Deposition To settle nanoparticles from a bulk Top Down
techniques material onto a pre-existing surface

Mechanical Production of nanoparticles using Top Down
physical mechanism

Wet chemistry Nanoparticles used in chemical organic Bottom Up
solution

Gas phase Nanoparticles being produced in gas Bottom Up
synthesis phase using various technologies

Production in Liquid CO2 infused with nanoparticles for Bottom Up
liquid carbon coating/cleaning purposes
dioxide
Use of Use of a mould to build nanoparticles Bottom Up
scaffolds
(polymer)

Using small molecular components, building them
up into more complex assemblies

Technology matrix: Bio-related fields

NanoParticles Manufacturing drug delivery/ Medicine – scaffolds for Cosmetics
Techniques (re) diagnostics tissue
Formulation engineering
lithography x
Top Down

vacuum coating
spray coating
Mechanical
ball milling x
planetary grinding x
Wet chemistry
Sol-Gel Processing x x x x
Hydrothermal synthesis x x x
microemulsion processing x x x x
Bottom Up

nanoemulsion processing x x x x
Sonochemical processing x x x x
Gas phase synthesis
plasma vaporization
chemical vapour synthesis
laser ablation
Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x x x
33

Technology matrix: Environment-related fields
Key area of concern for
climate change policy

NanoParticles Manufacturing fuel cells Photovoltaics construction air purification water
Techniques and concrete purification

lithography x x x x
Top Down

vacuum coating x x x x
spray coating x x x x
Mechanical
ball milling x x
planetary grinding x x
Wet chemistry
Sol-Gel Processing x x x x
Hydrothermal synthesis x x x
microemulsion processing x x x
Bottom Up

nanoemulsion processing x x x
Sonochemical processing x x x
Gas phase synthesis
plasma vaporization x
chemical vapour synthesis x
laser ablation x
Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x
34

Technology matrix: Industry-related fields

NanoParticles Manufacturing automotive aerospace lubricants for paints, smart catalysis electronics
Techniques industrial coatings
components
lithography x x x x x x
Top Down

vacuum coating x x x x x x
spray coating x x x x X x
Mechanical
ball milling x x x x x
planetary grinding x x x x x
Wet chemistry
Sol-Gel Processing x x x x x
Hydrothermal synthesis x x x x x x
microemulsion processing x x x x x
Bottom Up

nanoemulsion processing x x x x x
Sonochemical processing x x x x x
Gas phase synthesis
plasma vaporization x x x x x
chemical vapour synthesis x x x x x
laser ablation x x x x x
Production in liquid CO2 x x x x x x
Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x x x x x
35

Access all nanotechnology patents in the past 5 years

For a series of nanotech patent landscapes
 www.boliven.com/boliven_landscapes/ip_report/nanotec
hnology_patent_review

Outline

budgets & issues
• Methodology: Evidence-based understandings of
trends
• Context: Patenting in nanotech broadly
• Findings:
• Patent strategy conclusions: Nanotechnology
37

Nano-context: Volume/Quality requirements for nano-
manufacturing
We know some of the volume/quality requirements for nanomanufacturing
High
Scaffolds for Drug Fuel Cells
tissue formulations/d
engineering Photovoltaic
elivery

Medical Cosmetics
Quality Requirements

Diagnostics
Catalysis Air purification

Automotive
Aerospace
Water
purification
Industrial
lubricants
Paints/coatings
Experimental
applications Cement/
Construction
Low
Low Volume Requirements High

The key question will be which are the technologies that become adopted/accepted in each of these fields?
As the technology matures, the different industry field requirements will determine industrial R&D

38

CambridgeIP: Evolving nanomaterials value chain
R&D: Inventions &
Discoveries, basic and
applied Mixtures: Emulsions,
Coatings, Composites,
$$$
Raw materials: e.g. CNT, Products: Sports equipment,
Quantum dots Components Seals, Drill bits
$$$

Manufacture Integration Distribution $$$
$$$
Nanomaterials sub-spaces
$$$

Services, Facilities, Equipment

• End-markets and applications are likely to remain very diverse
• The value chains are evolving but are disaggregated and are likely to remain so
• There are overlaps between functions in the value chain but there appear to be few
vertically integrated nanotech players
• The value chain is surrounded by key service providers, facility providers, equipment
providers and other supporters
 Your position in the value chain will impact your business and patent strategies

Nanotech IP conclusions

Nanotechnology has cross-sectoral application, much
nanotechnology IP covers fundamental discoveries,
some nanotech terms are still unsettled in the patent
literature:
• Can result in unintentional overlapping granted patents (i.e., „patent
thickets‟)
• Can not be viewed in isolation – need to understand IP in the
surrounding „ecosystem‟ of suppliers, partners, competitors and in end-use
sectors
• Traditional strengths in the USA and Europe with increasingly strong
showings from Asia, especially China Many technologies
One third of survey respondents indicated that they faced a patent thicket require many
in their focus area, half face blocking patents iterations before
A number of challenges before its full commercial arriving at a market
ready form – this is
potential is realised:
not unique to
• Lack of large scale manufacturing techniques nanotech
• Challenge of cost effective production
• Health/toxicity/safety concerns
• Very long time to market for nano-products
• Unclear regulatory framework – affecting investment decisions into R&D
and manufacturing capacity

…and finally…

Feel free to discuss your specific technology intelligence requirements with Quentin
or Ilian

Visit CambridgeIP‟s www.boliven.com for free patent searches
For a series of nanotech patent landscapes

Quentin Tannock Ilian Iliev
(Chairman and Founder) Thank you !
(CEO and Founder)
Quentin.tannock@cambridgeip.com ilian.iliev@cambridgeip.com
GSM +44 -077-862-10305 GSM: +44-077-863-73965
Tel: +44-1223 778 846 Tel: +44-1223 778 846

Corporate office Internet resources
Website: www.cambridgeip.com
Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd www.boliven.com
8a Kings Parade, Cambridge Blog: www.cambridgeip.com/blog
CB2 1SJ, United Kingdom
UK: +44 (0) 1223 777 846 Sign up for our free newsletter
Fax: +44 (0) 20 3357 3105 on our home page

41

Outline

budgets & issues
• Study Findings:
42

Appendix Outline

• Nanotech Case Studies: Examples of past work
• CambridgeIP snapshot
• CambridgeIP experience
• CambridgeIP team
• Contacts

43

CS 1: Rapid mapping of large nanotech spaces - UK
nanotechnology patent audit
Client profile
Senior executives from a publically funded organisation approached CambridgeIP for assistance in mapping a broad section of the UK
nanotechnology space

Business situation
• A key driver was the need to inform our clients‟ strategy in this complex and patent intensive space
• Our remit was to assist client executives develop a clear understanding of the existing landscape, identify areas of relative strength &
weakness and existing R&D collaborations, analyse trends and provide statistical information & benchmarking data for use in business
planning and stakeholder reports

Our approach

• Working with CambridgeIP and senior industry experts we developed and implemented a complex patent search strategy
• Results were analysed using our proprietary tools and methods and a focus area for deep analysis was identified
• A workshop was conducted for client executives with our internal experts, assisting interpretation and dissemination of findings

Results and benefits

• Identification of fundamental technologies and key actors
• Insights into corporate R&D collaborations - identiifying key players in the
• Identification of areas of strength together with technologies applicable to patent space, together with their overlapping relationships
multiple sectors of application for future focus by our client
• Independent and fact-based assessments of the client organisations impact
• Understanding of recent M&A activity with significant impacts on the on UK IP assets, valuable in stakeholder reporting
ownership of the UK‟s nanotechnology IP assets
44

CS 2: University spin-off, competitor strategy analysis
using patent-based Intelligence
Client profile
A top UK University spin-out approached us for an IP Landscape report.

Business situation

• The client was backed by a major UK government funding organisation.
• The CEO of the company required deep intelligence about industry incumbents‟ R&D strategy.
• The client also needed independent analysis of the industry‟s patent landscape for use in technology licensing negotiations and
structuring a strategic partnership.
Our approach Results and benefits

• Working with the client‟s senior technical and business • The resulting patent-based intelligence was used in
representatives we defined the client‟s technology and market negotiations by our client.
spaces • The client felt that the findings on competitors‟ patenting
• We identified two technology focus areas of critical activity helped secure a go-ahead for a joint venture with a
importance to the client‟s technology with the client and major industry player: “The strategic partner‟s reaction to the
performed an IP Landscape report these two areas report‟s findings was startling: immediately inviting us to their
HQ to meet with their Head of Development to finalize an
agreement towards jointly developing a product.”
• The report has also been used by the client when applying for
participation Framework 7 programs, by demonstrating the
client‟s deep knowledge of the industry‟s patenting trends.
Competitor Analysis of Technology Focus in Client's Field
Assignee Rank by # of Total # Year of Total Patents Portfolio 5 Year
Name Patents in Patents in entry into in Overall Proportion Growth of The example shows how patent data can be
Client Tech. Client Tech. the field Industry of Tech. in Focus used to analyse the R&D strategy of
Space Space Space Field
competitors, and to develop licensing strategy.
Company 1 1 37 1993 6,576 1.6% 48.6% The findings suggest that Company 7 is
Company 2 2 25 1998 33 100.0% 56.0% aggressively expanding into the client‟s field: it
Company 3 3 19 1997 2,007 7.1% 15.8%
has the highest growth rate of patenting
Company 4 4 16 1992 1,646 2.1% 62.5%
activity. In turn Company 2 is most dependent
Company 5 5 14 1999 840 7.2% 92.9%
Company 6 6 11 1995 8,838 4.1% 63.6%
on this field for its strategic success: 100% of
Company 7 15 6 2003 400 1.8% 100.0% its patents are in the field of focus.

CS 3: IP Landscape® - nano-sensor devices
Client profile
A medium sized VC funded company delivering nano-enabled sensing solutions to the defense and homeland security sectors approached
CambridgeIP for assistance updating their IP portfolio and developing an up-to-date patent landscape

Business situation
• Sophisticated and well-advised client with good understanding of its IP space and competitors, holding a relatively large patent portfolio.
• Key drivers were to improve understanding of adjacent IP spaces, increase efficiency and structure in IP intelligence gathering activities,
inform investor communications
Our approach
• We audited the client‟s patent holdings, developing indexed and cross-referenced patent databases; We defined the client‟s space and
identified adjacent spaces, undertaking IP Landscape and benchmarking analysis against the client‟s existing portfolio. Business
intelligence and key statistics were extracted using the RedEyeTM suite of tools.
Results and benefits
• Identified technology migration opportunities & threats from
adjacent technology spaces
• Demonstrated client‟s dominance of aspects of its IP Landscape
• The client used our independent findings and analysis in
presentations to VC investors, as part of a successful Series C
funding round.

• Identified existing, known, players and new entrants to the client‟s
core IP space – including newly active academic institutes and
corporations
• Improved organisation of the client‟s existing portfolio, laying a
foundation for future portfolio management
• Identified portfolio gaps for our client to plug and areas for
consideration in future patent filings

46

CS 4: Accelerate licensing strategy development –
early stage surgical materials technology
Client profile
A leading UK University asked us to help identify market opportunities for an early stage surgical materials development

Business situation

• Previous market research had not resulted in uptake of the technology by corporate prospects
• A go / stop decision point was imminent as international PCT roll-out of an initial patent application approached

Our approach Results and benefits

• 20+ organisations were identified, were categorised by type and
arranged in order of priority for approach by our client
• Marketing objectives and recommendations were made in relation to
each organisation type
• Key geographical markets containing high profile licensing prospects
were identified for addition to PCT designated states lists
• Information on similar approaches, including diagrams, were provided
• We defined the technology space and implemented a multi-layer to client academic experts in a convenient format
search strategy that aimed at identifying
• licensing candidates
• potential collaboration partners
• key markets & applications
• critical geographical areas
• Information useful to marketing the technology
• Results and recommendations were presented to the client in a
PowerPoint summary report, and cross-referenced Excel dataset
• A workshop with the client's TTO representatives and client‟s
academic experts aids understanding and dissemination of results
and recommendations

47

Appendix Outline

• Contacts

48

CambridgeIP - a provider of actionable patent-based
technology intelligence
• IP Landscape® informing IP, R&D and investment strategy:
– Our global IP databases, proprietary methodologies and consulting provide unique
patent landscape coverage, highlighting technology “white space” and informing your
own FTO due diligence efforts

• Competitive intelligence:
– Database-driven analysis and custom reporting on who the competitors are, where they
are located, when they became active and who they are partnered with

• Identify prospective partners, acquisitions and clients:
– Information on top corporate, university and governmental partner/acquisition candidates
operating in your area of interest, or could leverage your technologies

• Technology foresight:
– Foresight on emerging technology patterns, technology hotspots and investment strategy

• CambridgeIP‟s technology platforms:
– www.boliven.com industry leading patent search platform
– IP Landscape® report standard
– Proprietary software analytics and workflow platform

49

CambridgeIP and open innovation

 Fact-based technology intelligence through science literature analysis
and expert interviews Identify key players
 Identify key players, R&D relationships and their intensity
 Find relevant technology examples, diagrams and descriptions
 Understand trends by technology, geography, application and
other factors
 Confirm freedom to operate and identify expired/abandoned patents
 Inform IP and technology valuations

 Expert partnering, M&A and IP acquisition advice and contacts derived in
over 120 major technology scouting and technology mapping projects
 Expert in decomposing products into their component parts and identifying technology ownership,
overlapping technology areas and cross-over technologies
 Rapid identification of IP-related strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited/plugged with
open innovation techniques
 Our understanding of the technology trends and activity of key players helps inform your open
innovation and partnering strategy
 Due diligence on external partners and technologies

 CxO compatible materials, workshops and seminars
 Accelerating internal communication
 Facilitating effective technology transfer Which technology components are you ready to license out? Which
ones should you acquire?
50

IP Landscape ® reports: informing IP, R&D and
investment strategy
CambridgeIP‟s IP Landscape® report standard Inventor and collaborator networks

informs:
• IP strategy development and execution
• Development of freedom to operate (FTO) and white
space analyses
• Investors‟ due diligence and strategic overview of a
space
• Identify prior art in a space
Decomposition of complex products and processes drives an intelligent
patent research program
Needle Free Pen Shape Electronic Prior art analysis helps identify key IP risks in a space
injector AutoInjector
Disposable x x
Cartridge x x x
Drug Mixing x x x
Single dose x x x
Multi Dose x x
Needle x x x
Retractable x x x Drug reconstitution
Shield x x x
Piston x x x
Spring x x x
High Pressure x x x Design
Pump x x x
Air Jet x
Display x x x
LCD Screen x x x
Mechanical x x x
Auto-Activation x x x Electronic
Mechanic x x x
Sensor x x x
Data Storage x x x
Mechanic x x x
Electronic x x x
Dose control x x x
Mechanic
Electronic
51 x
x
x
x
x
x
Needle Monitoring © 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

Competitive intelligence

Key benchmarks and comparisons against key competitors or alliances
• Strengths and weaknesses of patent portfolios
• Inventor and collaborator networks
• Evolution of R&D focus
• Technology value chain mapping

Technology value chain mapping Evolution of R&D focus

52

Technology foresight
Emerging technologies in electrical energy storage
Technology foresight activities helping
you identify:
• Emerging technology trends
• Industry white space analysis
• Investment opportunities
• Key technology market scenarios

Technology maturity and market requirements drive likely market adoption
Nanoparticle Manufacturing Techniques: As the technology matures, the different industry
field requirements will determine industrial R&D Linking technology potential to market
High attractiveness
Scaffolds for
Drug Fuel Cells
tissue formulations/d
engineering elivery Photovoltaic
Quality Requirements

Medical Cosmetics
Diagnostics
Air purification
Catalysis
Where should we
invest ?
Automotive
Aerospace

Water
purification Target
Industrial Opportunities
lubricants
Paints/coatings
Experimental
applications Cement/
Construction
Low Market
Low Volume Requirements High Attractiveness

53

Technology market review
Technology evolution maps:
Technology market review reports provide a review of migration and interdependencies

key development areas as they correspond to current IPC Map 2000
and future market niches, helping:
• Corporate investment and M&A strategy in rapidly developing
markets
• Inform in-house R&D strategy
IPC Map 2007
• Support public sector innovation support strategies
• Assist young technology companies in prioritising key market
segments and identifying strategic partners
Technology tree and categorisation: identifying key solutions and
example technologies Analysis of key participants in complex systems

54

CambridgeIP‟s technology and knowledge platforms

CambridgeIP‟s offerings are based on a combination of:
• Proprietary software and workflow platforms tested through more than 100 real life projects
• A 100 million document database of patent and non-patent literature
• Quality assurance and report standards that ensure consistency in the outputs for our clients
• The Boliven.com online platform of technology literature search and analytics with 8,000+
registered users and 30,000+ unique visitors per month

RedEye: our software analytics and workflow platform
Boliven.com: a leading portal for R&D and IP professionals

55

Appendix Outline

• Contacts

56

Our clients

We have delivered more than 100 projects with leading
organisations: including major corporations, research institutes,
service providers, high-tech SMEs and investors

Selected clients:

… and
other
leading big
pharma

57

Thought leadership

• CambridgeIP is a recognised thought leader in the technology
intelligence space
• Our research has been covered by Harvard Business Review, Financial
Times and other leading media
• Our collaborations include Chatham House, University of Sussex,
Cambridge University‟s Judge Business School

For a full list of publications, media coverage and presentations, please refer to
58 www.cambridgeip.com

Healthcare and life sciences

Medical Cell therapy Active
devices Regenerative pharmaceutical
medicine ingredients
iPSC Biopharmaceuticals
Diagnosis Tissue engineering Tissue Targeting
Tele health Cell based vaccines Drug Conjugation
Molecular-based
Vaccines
tests
Blood Glucose
Monitoring Molecular Immunology
Heart rate Asthma/COPD
engineering
Monitoring Transplant
Markers
Blood pressure Tissue Targeting
Gene silencing
monitoring
Nano-reagents
Therapy
Auto-injectors
Inhalers Pharmaceutical Addiction
formulations therapies
Surgery Excipients Nicotine
Endoscopy Carriers
Ultrasound Liposomes
Wound healing Propellants

59

Cleantech and energy focus areas

Wind energy Fuel cells Nano devices
systems & materials

Biomass Advanced Geothermal
refrigeration energy
Systems

Photovoltaic & Clean coal Refineries,
component carbon capture power gen,
Technologies CO2-EOR co-gen.

Concentrated Marine transport Consortia &
solar & other research
energy storage alliances
Systems
Smart grid

60

Telecommunications and electronics

Wireless authentication Geographical Systems
Physical/Remote access control GIS measurements
Merchant/Purchasing Satellite navigation/GPS
Digital credentials

Clean tech Telecoms standards
Smart grid ETSI
Smart meters Continua alliance
Transport management RFID
Distributed sensor systems Blue tooth
Energy harvesting Near field communication
Radio frequency identification
Internet & data handling
Search Hardware
Cloud computing Card readers
Data fusion Routers
Database replication Mems
Flexible displays
Contactless card
Mobile devices/applications
Satellite communications
E-reader
Mobile search
Application software e-Health
Media convergence Remote diagnostics
3G/4G/WiFi Device access control
61

Appendix Outline

• Contacts

62

Selected team members

Quentin Tannock Ilian Iliev Dr Robert Brady Mark Meyer Ralph Poole Vladimir Yossifov
Chairman & co-founder CEO & co-founder Non-Exec Director Business Development Boston Geneva Representative
Manager Representative
North America

Arthur Lallement Helena van der Merwe Sarah Helm Yanjun Zhao
Senior Associate Senior Associate Senior Associate Senior Associate

63

Key team members 1
Quentin Tannock (Chairman & co-founder)
 Prior experience: founder of a successful company in the chemical sector; law
lecturer; facilitated major R&D collaborations at Cambridge University (Electronics,
Photonics & Nanotechnology); member of Lambert working group tasked by
government to draft model contracts for industry-university collaborations; IP
analysis & strategic advice to nanotechnology venture capitalists; assisting
Cambridge University Institute of Biotechnology start-ups (bio-nano diagnostic
devices) with commercial and fundraising strategies
 Education: Law, (Roman-Dutch, Common Law, International Law in Cambridge &
elsewhere)

Ilian Iliev (CEO & co-founder)
 Prior experience: strategy & innovation advisory work for a Magic Circle law firm;
award-winning biotech start-up in Cambridge; policy advice; 1990s: founded and
ran a 100+ employee business in the electrical industry in Southern Africa
 Education: Economics and Management; Ccmpleting a PhD on „Innovation
Finance‟ at the Judge Business School, Cambridge University

Dr Robert Brady (non-Exec. Director)
 Prior experience: Founder of Brady plc a leading supplier of transaction and risk
management software solutions to companies and banks operating in the metals
and minerals, energy and 'soft' commodity sectors. Dr Brady acts as an active
mentor and advisor for several growth companies, specializing in information
technology and services. He is the current treasurer of Cambridge Angels
investment group.
 Education: fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he specialized in the field of
physics.
64

Key team members 2
Mark Meyer (Houston Representative and Head of North America)
 Mark leads our North America business development, and is based in Texas
 Mark has more than 20 years of oil and gas experience and 25 years of business
development experience
 VP and Director level assignments at independent oil & gas companies, international oil
companies, energy sector startups and high tech firms.
 Mark has been recognized by the Harvard Business Review, Gartner Group and IBM
Corporation for best practices in business transformation and business development.
 Education: BS in Chemical Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin.

Ralph Poole (Boston Representative)
 Assists CambridgeIP in knowledge management and taxonomy methodology development
 Supports our client base out of Boston
 Former Chief Knowledge Officer at Ernst &Young LLP and Cap Gemini; former partner at
Boston Consulting Group and Bain & Company;

Vladimir Yossifov (Geneva Representative)
 Assists CambridgeIP with relationships with patent authorities and the Swiss market
 More than 35 years of executive experience in intellectual property, transfer of technology,
licensing, innovation and IP infrastructure development.
 Former director at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for regional IP
information and Innovation promotion systems in countries of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Caribbean

65

…and finally…

Feel free to discuss your specific technology intelligence requirements with Quentin
or Ilian

Visit CambridgeIP‟s www.boliven.com for free patent searches

Thank you !

Quentin Tannock Ilian Iliev
(Chairman and Founder) (CEO and Founder)
Quentin.tannock@cambridgeip.com ilian.iliev@cambridgeip.com
GSM +44 -077-862-10305 GSM: +44-077-863-73965
Tel: +44-1223 778 846 Tel: +44-1223 778 846

Corporate office Internet resources
Website: www.cambridgeip.com
Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd www.boliven.com
8a Kings Parade, Cambridge Blog: www.cambridgeip.com/blog
CB2 1SJ, United Kingdom
UK: +44 (0) 1223 777 846 Sign up for our free newsletter
Fax: +44 (0) 20 3357 3105 on our home page

66

Nanomaterials: Patenting Trends June 2011

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (15)

Ähnlich wie Nanomaterials: Patenting Trends June 2011

Ähnlich wie Nanomaterials: Patenting Trends June 2011 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Nanomaterials: Patenting Trends June 2011