Nanomaterials: Patenting Trends June 2011

CambridgeIP

Nanomaterials trends:Evidence from scientific literature

NanoMaterials 2011

June 2011

Quentin Tannock, Chairman and Co-founderIlian 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

© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved2

• 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, 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 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

Overview of nanomaterials patent study findings

Patent trends over time

Patents are inter-related

Corporate/University R&D networks

Outline



budgets & issues




• Study Findings:






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?

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

Chemicals sectors.© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

5

Most respondents

were either in the 25-

50 people (42%) or

50+ people (25%)

size range.

CambridgeIP survey on patent strategies in nanotechnology

• Manufacturing method

• Material

• Device

Other (please specify)

Survey: About your patent strategies

These are the objectives of your patent strategies:

This is what your patents seek to protect:


0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%

Protect your market

Manage litigation risk

Showcase technology

Not relevant to us as we will never

file a patent

Use in fundraising

efforts

Generate licensing revenue


0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%


Most respondents

were either in the 25-

50 people (42%) or

50+ people (25%)

size range.

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


• 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


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

you face

• 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/knowledge-centre/nanotech-survey

Take the survey: IP issues facing the nanotech community

http://www.cambridgeip.com/index.php/knowledge-centre/nanotech-survey






Outline



budgets & issues




• Study Findings:






A wealth of technical knowledge in science literature

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

• Patents as data are:

– Structured

– Comparable

– Objective

– 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


90% of survey respondents said they

use patent data regularly for IP

Landscaping & for identifying

technology ideas.

Advanced IP Landscape ® analysis examples

Sector composition analysis

Identifying hot-spots and new

areas of R&D activity across broad

technology spaces (this example:

Biosensors)

Technology evolution maps

Identifying technology migration and

diffusion patterns over time, together

with interdependencies

IPC Relationship Map: 2000

The applications

and location of

client‟s technology

are dispersed

Over time, 2 key

clusters of

application have

developed

IPC Relationship Map: 2007


Discovery of networks and knowledge flows

Case study: Tshingua

University

Nanotechnology R&D

networks

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

Pate

nts

-C

um

ula

tive

Pate

nts

-Y

earl

y

Number of Patents: Annual and Cumulative

Number of New Applications Cumulative

© 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


15

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


http://www.boliven.com/landscapes


Methodology (2): From technology taxonomy to patent and

partner discovery

discovery

Filtering

enables rapid

identification of

technology

solutions and

prospects

Top 10 Assignees and Number of Patents41

27

21

18

1311 11

10 10 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

R J REYNOLDS

TOBACCO CO

PHARMACIA &

UPJOHN

COMPANY

PHILIP MORRIS

INC

THINK GLOBAL

B V

KABI

PHARMACIA AB

ESSER RALF HF & PHF

REEMTSMA

GMBH

ADVANCED

TOBACCO

PRODUCTS INC

ARADIGM CORP LTS LOHMANN

THERAPIE-

SYSTEME AG

`

© 2009


NanoParticles Manufacturing

Techniques

fuel cells Photovoltaics construction

and concrete

air purification water

purification

Deposition techniques

lithography x x x xvacuum coating x x x xspray coating x x x x

Mechanical

ball milling x xplanetary grinding x x

Wet chemistry

Sol-Gel Processing x x x xHydrothermal synthesis x x xmicroemulsion processing x x xnanoemulsion processing x x xSonochemical processing x x x

Gas phase synthesis

plasma vaporization xchemical vapour synthesis xlaser ablation x

Production in liquid CO2 x x x x

Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x

Bo

tto

m U

pTo

p D

ow

n

Relevant solutionsKey playersR&D relationships

Outline



budgets & issues




• Study Findings:






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

Source: Dang (2009)

Nano-context: Key conclusions from previous

research (1)


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 small number of

IPCs is association with the

nanotechnology field

2006: An ‘explosion’ of activity across an ever-increasing array of industrial applications. No single ‘core area can be discerned, which is indicative of a ‘raft’ or a ‘platform’ technology entering maturity

Nano-context: Key conclusions from previous

research (2)


• 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

Materials

Health & Lifestyle

CambridgeIP research: Nanotech patent trends

Patent

applications

may be

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

• 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

1996: A relatively small number of IPCs

is association with the nanotechnology

field

2006: An ‘explosion’ of activity across an ever-increasing array of industrial applications. No single ‘core area can be discerned, which is indicative of a ‘raft’ or a ‘platform’ technology entering maturity


CambridgeIP research: Trends in UK nanotechnology

R&D

Outline



budgets & issues




• Study Findings:






• 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

CambridgeIP research: Nanomaterials patent trends (1)


Emerging applications for nanomaterials include Energy (e.g.

Conversion & storage); Environment (e.g. Water treatment)

Nano Toxicity remains a concern for some application areas

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.

© 2011 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.26

Number of forward references: 33

CambridgeIP research: Highly cited nano patent example (1)

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]

Publication Date: 2005-11-24 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.

27

Number of forward references: 20

© 2011 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.

CambridgeIP research: Highly cited nano patent example (2)

• 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

CambridgeIP research: Graphene nanomaterials



Nanotoxicology: A Large Network

29

Own 3 patents on

Cell Nanotoxicology

(See next Slide)

Pioneers in the prevention

Now working with the EC

Specialized Magazine

A Network of Universities and Institutes

Database

http://icon.rice.edu/

WO2007094870

TOXICOLOGY AND CELLULAR EFFECT OF MANUFACTURED

NANOMATERIALS

Assignee: UNIV CALIFORNIA

Inventor: CHEN FANQING [US]

Publication Date: 2007-08-23

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.


CambridgeIP Research - Example Patent: Toxicology

Nanotoxicity

30

Outline



budgets & issues




• Study Findings:






Method Detail Type

Deposition

techniques

To settle nanoparticles from a bulk

material onto a pre-existing surface

Top Down

Mechanical Production of nanoparticles using

physical mechanism

Top Down

Wet chemistry Nanoparticles used in chemical organic

solution

Bottom Up

Gas phase

synthesis

Nanoparticles being produced in gas

phase using various technologies

Bottom Up

Production in

liquid carbon

dioxide

Liquid CO2 infused with nanoparticles for

coating/cleaning purposes

Bottom Up

Use of

scaffolds

(polymer)

Use of a mould to build nanoparticles Bottom Up

Creating nanoscale devices by using larger, externally-

controlled materials, directing their formation

Using small molecular components, building them

up into more complex assemblies

Nanomaterials manufacturing methods

Technology matrix: Bio-related fields

33


Techniques

drug delivery/

(re)

Formulation

Medicine –

diagnostics

scaffolds for

tissue

engineering

Cosmetics


lithography xvacuum coating

spray coating

Mechanical

ball milling xplanetary grinding x

Wet chemistry

Sol-Gel Processing x x x xHydrothermal synthesis x x xmicroemulsion processing x x x xnanoemulsion processing x x x xSonochemical processing x x x x

Gas phase synthesis

plasma vaporization

chemical vapour synthesis

laser ablation


Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x x x

Bo

tto

m U

pTo

p D

ow

n

34

Key area of concern for

climate change policy


Techniques

fuel cells Photovoltaics construction

and concrete

air purification water

purification


lithography x x x xvacuum coating x x x xspray coating x x x x

Mechanical

ball milling x xplanetary grinding x x

Wet chemistry

Sol-Gel Processing x x x xHydrothermal synthesis x x xmicroemulsion processing x x xnanoemulsion processing x x xSonochemical processing x x x

Gas phase synthesis

plasma vaporization xchemical vapour synthesis xlaser ablation x


Use of scaffolds (polymer) x x

Bo

tto

m U

pTo

p D

ow

n

Technology matrix: Environment-related fields

35


Techniques

automotive aerospace lubricants for

industrial

components

paints, smart

coatings

catalysis electronics


lithography x x x x x xvacuum coating x x x x x xspray coating x x x x X x

Mechanical

ball milling x x x x xplanetary grinding x x x x x

Wet chemistry

Sol-Gel Processing x x x x xHydrothermal synthesis x x x x x xmicroemulsion processing x x x x xnanoemulsion processing x x x x xSonochemical processing x x x x x

Gas phase synthesis

plasma vaporization x x x x xchemical vapour synthesis x x x x xlaser 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

Bo

tto

m U

pTo

p D

ow

nTechnology matrix: Industry-related fields

For a series of nanotech patent landscapes

www.boliven.com/landscapes

www.boliven.com/boliven_landscapes/ip_report/nanotechnology_patent_review

Access all nanotechnology patents in the past 5 years




Outline



budgets & issues

• Methodology: Evidence-based understandings of

trends

• Context: Patenting in nanotech broadly

• Findings:



• Patent strategy conclusions: Nanotechnology



Nano-context: Volume/Quality requirements for nano-

manufacturing

We know some of the volume/quality requirements for nanomanufacturing

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

Volume Requirements

Qu

alit

y R

eq

uire

me

nts

HighLow

Low

High

Cement/

Construction

Cosmetics

Scaffolds for

tissue

engineering

Drug

formulations/d

elivery

Aerospace

Medical

Diagnostics

Catalysis

Photovoltaic

Paints/coatings

Industrial

lubricants

Automotive

Fuel Cells

Air purification

Water

purification

Experimental

applications


CambridgeIP: Evolving nanomaterials value chain

Manufacture Integration Distribution

• 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

Mixtures: Emulsions,

Coatings, Composites,

ComponentsProducts: Sports equipment,

Seals, Drill bits

Services, Facilities, Equipment

Raw materials: e.g. CNT,

Quantum dots

R&D: Inventions &

Discoveries, basic and

applied

$$$

$$$

$$$

$$$

$$$


Nanomaterials sub-spaces

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

A number of challenges before its full commercial

potential is realised:

• Lack of large scale manufacturing techniques

• 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© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

One third of survey respondents indicated that they faced a patent thicket

in their focus area, half face blocking patents

Many technologies

require many

iterations before

arriving at a market

ready form – this is

not unique to

nanotech

41

…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 www.boliven.com/landscapes

Thank you !Ilian Iliev

(CEO and Founder)

[email protected]

GSM: +44-077-863-73965

Tel: +44-1223 778 846

Corporate office

Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd

8a Kings Parade, Cambridge

CB2 1SJ, United Kingdom

UK: +44 (0) 1223 777 846

Fax: +44 (0) 20 3357 3105

Internet resources

Website: www.cambridgeip.com

www.boliven.com

Blog: www.cambridgeip.com/blog

Sign up for our free newsletter

on our home page

Quentin Tannock

(Chairman and Founder)

[email protected]

GSM +44 -077-862-10305

Tel: +44-1223 778 846


http://www.boliven.com/



mailto:[email protected]



Outline



budgets & issues




• Study Findings:







• Nanotech Case Studies: Examples of past work

• CambridgeIP snapshot

• CambridgeIP experience

• CambridgeIP team

• Contacts

Appendix Outline

43© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved

• 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

• 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

Business situation

Our approach

• Identification of fundamental technologies and key actors

• Identification of areas of strength together with technologies applicable to

multiple sectors of application for future focus by our client

• Understanding of recent M&A activity with significant impacts on the

ownership of the UK‟s nanotechnology IP assets

• Insights into corporate R&D collaborations - identiifying key players in the

patent space, together with their overlapping relationships

• Independent and fact-based assessments of the client organisations impact

on UK IP assets, valuable in stakeholder reporting

Results and benefits

Senior executives from a publically funded organisation approached CambridgeIP for assistance in mapping a broad section of the UK

nanotechnology space

Client profile

CS 1: Rapid mapping of large nanotech spaces - UK

nanotechnology patent audit


• Working with the client‟s senior technical and business

representatives we defined the client‟s technology and market

spaces

• We identified two technology focus areas of critical

importance to the client‟s technology with the client and

performed an IP Landscape report these two areas

• 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.

Business situation

Our approach

A top UK University spin-out approached us for an IP Landscape report.

Client profile

CS 2: University spin-off, competitor strategy analysis

using patent-based Intelligence

• The resulting patent-based intelligence was used in

negotiations by our client.

• The client felt that the findings on competitors‟ patenting

activity helped secure a go-ahead for a joint venture with a

major industry player: “The strategic partner‟s reaction to the

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

Name

Rank by # of

Patents in

Client Tech.

Space

Total #

Patents in

Client Tech.

Space

Year of

entry into

the field

Total Patents

in Overall

Industry

Portfolio

Proportion

of Tech.

Space

5 Year

Growth of

in Focus

Field

Company 1 1 37 1993 6,576 1.6% 48.6%

Company 2 2 25 1998 33 100.0% 56.0%

Company 3 3 19 1997 2,007 7.1% 15.8%

Company 4 4 16 1992 1,646 2.1% 62.5%

Company 5 5 14 1999 840 7.2% 92.9%

Company 6 6 11 1995 8,838 4.1% 63.6%

Company 7 15 6 2003 400 1.8% 100.0%

The example shows how patent data can be

used to analyse the R&D strategy of

competitors, and to develop licensing strategy.

The findings suggest that Company 7 is

aggressively expanding into the client‟s field: it

has the highest growth rate of patenting

activity. In turn Company 2 is most dependent

on this field for its strategic success: 100% of

its patents are in the field of focus.



• 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.

• 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

Business situation

Our approach

• 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

• 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.


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

Client profile

CS 3: IP Landscape® - nano-sensor devices


• We defined the technology space and implemented a multi-layer

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

• 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

Business situation

Our approach

• 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

to client academic experts in a convenient format


A leading UK University asked us to help identify market opportunities for an early stage surgical materials development

Client profile

CS 4: Accelerate licensing strategy development –

early stage surgical materials technology







• Contacts

Appendix Outline


49

• 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

CambridgeIP - a provider of actionable patent-based

technology intelligence



http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object3/207/45/n104404470325_5061.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boliven-LLC/104404470325?v=info&usg=__XdQAmpkxIxBwZFkTLdh4oRTV-tM=&h=138&w=173&sz=5&hl=en&start=5&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=4w7hjkggdA0_rM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=100&prev=/images?q=boliven&um=1&hl=en&tbs=isch:1

CambridgeIP and open innovation

Fact-based technology intelligence through science literature analysis

and expert interviews 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

50

Which technology components are you ready to license out? Which

ones should you acquire?

Identify key players


Design

Needle

Drug reconstitution

Monitoring

Electronic

Needle Free

injector

Pen Shape Electronic

AutoInjectorDisposable x x

Cartridge x x x

Drug Mixing x x xSingle dose x x xMulti Dose x x

Needle x x x

Retractable x x xShield x x x

Piston x x x

Spring x x xHigh Pressure x x xPump x x xAir Jet x

Display x x x

LCD Screen x x xMechanical x x x

Auto-Activation x x x

Mechanic x x xSensor x x x

Data Storage x x x

Mechanic x x xElectronic x x x

Dose control x x x

Mechanic x x xElectronic x x x

CambridgeIP‟s IP Landscape® report standard

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

51

Decomposition of complex products and processes drives an intelligent

patent research program

Prior art analysis helps identify key IP risks in a space

Inventor and collaborator networks

IP Landscape ® reports: informing IP, R&D and

investment strategy


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


Technology foresight

Technology foresight activities helping

you identify:

• Emerging technology trends

• Industry white space analysis

• Investment opportunities

• Key technology market scenarios

Nanoparticle Manufacturing Techniques: As the technology matures, the different industry field requirements will determine industrial R&D

Volume Requirements

Qu

ali

ty R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

HighLow

Low

High

Cement/

Construction

Cosmetics

Scaffolds for

tissue engineering

Drug

formulations/delivery

Aerospace

Medical

Diagnostics

Catalysis

Photovoltaic

Paints/coatings

Industrial

lubricants

Automotive

Fuel Cells

Air purification

Water

purification

Experimental

applications

Technology maturity and market requirements drive likely market adoption

Emerging technologies in electrical energy storage

Target Opportunities

Where should we invest ?

Market

Attractiveness

Linking technology potential to market

attractiveness


54

Technology tree and categorisation: identifying key solutions and

example technologies

Technology market review reports provide a review of

key development areas as they correspond to current

and future market niches, helping:

• Corporate investment and M&A strategy in rapidly developing

markets

• Inform in-house R&D strategy

• Support public sector innovation support strategies

• Assist young technology companies in prioritising key market

segments and identifying strategic partners

Analysis of key participants in complex systems

Technology evolution maps:

migration and interdependencies

IPC Map 2000

IPC Map 2007


Technology market review

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

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







• Contacts

Appendix Outline


Our clients

57

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


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

58

For a full list of publications, media coverage and presentations, please refer to

www.cambridgeip.com


Addiction

therapiesNicotine

Molecular

engineeringMarkers

Gene silencing

Nano-reagents

Cell therapyRegenerative

medicine

iPSC

Tissue engineering

Cell based vaccines

Pharmaceutical

formulationsExcipients

Carriers

Liposomes

Propellants

ImmunologyAsthma/COPD

Transplant

Tissue Targeting

Active

pharmaceutical

ingredientsBiopharmaceuticals

Tissue Targeting

Drug Conjugation

Vaccines

Healthcare and life sciences

59

Medical

devices

DiagnosisTele health

Molecular-based

tests

Blood Glucose

Monitoring

Heart rate

Monitoring

Blood pressure

monitoring

TherapyAuto-injectors

Inhalers

SurgeryEndoscopy

Ultrasound

Wound healing


Consortia &

research

alliances

Refineries,

power gen,

co-gen.

Smart grid

Marine transport

Clean coal

carbon capture

CO2-EOR

Geothermal

energy

Systems

Advanced

refrigeration

Biomass

Nano devices

& materials

Fuel cells

Concentrated

solar & other

energy storage

Systems

Photovoltaic &

component

Technologies

Wind energy

systems

Cleantech and energy focus areas


e-HealthRemote diagnostics

Device access control

HardwareCard readers

Routers

Mems

Flexible displays

Contactless card

Satellite communications

Telecoms standardsETSI

Continua alliance

RFID

Blue tooth

Near field communication

Radio frequency identification

Geographical SystemsGIS measurements

Satellite navigation/GPS

Mobile devices/applicationsE-reader

Mobile search

Application software

Media convergence

3G/4G/WiFi

Internet & data handlingSearch

Cloud computing

Data fusion

Database replication

Clean techSmart grid

Smart meters

Transport management

Distributed sensor systems

Energy harvesting

Wireless authenticationPhysical/Remote access control

Merchant/Purchasing

Digital credentials

Telecommunications and electronics







• Contacts

Appendix Outline


Selected team members

Quentin Tannock

Chairman & co-founder

Ilian Iliev

CEO & co-founder

Arthur Lallement

Senior Associate

Ralph Poole

Boston

Representative

Mark Meyer

Business Development

Manager

North America

Helena van der Merwe

Senior Associate

Vladimir Yossifov

Geneva Representative

Dr Robert Brady

Non-Exec Director

Sarah Helm

Senior Associate

63

Yanjun Zhao

Senior Associate


Key team members 1

Quentin Tannock (Chairman & co-founder)

Prior experience: founder of a successful company in the chemical sector; lawlecturer; facilitated major R&D collaborations at Cambridge University (Electronics,Photonics & Nanotechnology); member of Lambert working group tasked bygovernment to draft model contracts for industry-university collaborations; IPanalysis & strategic advice to nanotechnology venture capitalists; assistingCambridge University Institute of Biotechnology start-ups (bio-nano diagnosticdevices) 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 andran 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 riskmanagement software solutions to companies and banks operating in the metalsand minerals, energy and 'soft' commodity sectors. Dr Brady acts as an activementor and advisor for several growth companies, specializing in informationtechnology and services. He is the current treasurer of Cambridge Angelsinvestment group.

Education: fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he specialized in the field ofphysics.


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 businessdevelopment experience

VP and Director level assignments at independent oil & gas companies, international oilcompanies, energy sector startups and high tech firms.

Mark has been recognized by the Harvard Business Review, Gartner Group and IBMCorporation 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


http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en

66

…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 !

Ilian Iliev

(CEO and Founder)

[email protected]

GSM: +44-077-863-73965

Tel: +44-1223 778 846

Corporate office

Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd

8a Kings Parade, Cambridge

CB2 1SJ, United Kingdom

UK: +44 (0) 1223 777 846

Fax: +44 (0) 20 3357 3105

Internet resources

Website: www.cambridgeip.com

www.boliven.com

Blog: www.cambridgeip.com/blog

Sign up for our free newsletter

on our home page

Quentin Tannock

(Chairman and Founder)

[email protected]

GSM +44 -077-862-10305

Tel: +44-1223 778 846






http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object3/207/45/n104404470325_5061.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boliven-LLC/104404470325?v=info&usg=__XdQAmpkxIxBwZFkTLdh4oRTV-tM=&h=138&w=173&sz=5&hl=en&start=5&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=4w7hjkggdA0_rM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=100&prev=/images?q=boliven&um=1&hl=en&tbs=isch:1