nanomaterials: patenting trends june 2011
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given at the NanoMaterials 2011 event in LondonTRANSCRIPT
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
• 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 reserved4
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:
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved6
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
CambridgeIP survey on patent strategies in nanotechnology
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%
CambridgeIP survey on patent strategies in nanotechnology
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved7
• 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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved8
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
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 reserved10
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved11
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved12
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved14
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved16
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
• 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 reserved17
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)
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved18
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)
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved19
• 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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved23
CambridgeIP research: Trends in UK nanotechnology
R&D
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 reserved24
• 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)
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
© 2010 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.
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
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.
© 2010 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.
CambridgeIP Research - Example Patent: Toxicology
Nanotoxicity
30
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 reserved31
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
NanoParticles Manufacturing
Techniques
drug delivery/
(re)
Formulation
Medicine –
diagnostics
scaffolds for
tissue
engineering
Cosmetics
Deposition techniques
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
Production in liquid CO2 x x x x
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
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
Technology matrix: Environment-related fields
35
NanoParticles Manufacturing
Techniques
automotive aerospace lubricants for
industrial
components
paints, smart
coatings
catalysis electronics
Deposition techniques
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
• Executive Summary: Overview of findings
• Survey: Your feedback on IP strategies, activities,
budgets & issues
• Methodology: Evidence-based understandings of
trends
• Context: Patenting in nanotech broadly
• Findings:
• NanoMaterials: Patent trends & examples
• NanoManufacturing: Methods & application fields
• Patent strategy conclusions: Nanotechnology
• Appendix: CambridgeIP background & contacts
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved37
Nano-context: Volume/Quality requirements for nano-
manufacturing
We know some of the volume/quality requirements for nano- manufacturing
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved38
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
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$$
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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)
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)
GSM +44 -077-862-10305
Tel: +44-1223 778 846
© 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 reserved42
• Appendix: CambridgeIP background & contacts
• 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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved44
• 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.
Results and benefits
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
• 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.
Results and benefits
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved46
• 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
Results and benefits
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved47
• Appendix: CambridgeIP background & contacts
• Nanotech Case Studies: Examples of past work
• CambridgeIP snapshot
• CambridgeIP experience
• CambridgeIP team
• Contacts
Appendix Outline
48© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 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© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
53© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
55© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
• Appendix: CambridgeIP background & contacts
• Nanotech Case Studies: Examples of past work
• CambridgeIP snapshot
• CambridgeIP experience
• CambridgeIP team
• Contacts
Appendix Outline
56© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
60© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved61
• Appendix: CambridgeIP background & contacts
• Nanotech Case Studies: Examples of past work
• CambridgeIP snapshot
• CambridgeIP experience
• CambridgeIP team
• Contacts
Appendix Outline
62© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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.
64© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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
65© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
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)
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)
GSM +44 -077-862-10305
Tel: +44-1223 778 846
© 2011 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved