1 / 78

Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents

Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents. Xin Li Yiling Lin Hsinchun Chen Dec 2006. Outline. Introduction Background and Research Objectives Research Design Dataset Basic Bibliographic Analysis Content Map Analysis

LionelDale
Download Presentation

Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents Xin Li Yiling Lin Hsinchun Chen Dec 2006

  2. Outline • Introduction • Background and Research Objectives • Research Design • Dataset • Basic Bibliographic Analysis • Content Map Analysis • Citation Network Analysis • Conclusions

  3. Introduction Introduction • Nanotechnology • A fundamental technology. • Critical for a nation’s technological competence. • Revolutionizes a wide range of application domains. • Its R&D status attracts various communities’ interest. • Patent analysis has been widely used to assess a field’s research and development status. • (Huang et al., 2003a, Huang et al., 2004 ) studied the longitudinal patent publications of different countries, institutions, and technology fields in the nanotechnology field. • (Huang et al., 2005) studied the impact of National Science Foundation’s funding on nanotechnology patents.

  4. Introduction Introduction • Our previous research shows that: • The US is the main contributor to the nanotechnology field. • Japan and some European countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, play an important role in worldwide nanotechnology research. • Many patent analysis studies are based on the patents filed in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database. • Although the USPTO covers many of the patents in the nanotechnology field, the European Patent Office (EPO) and Japan Patent Office (EPO) also document large amounts of nanotechnology patents. • Little research/information available about • The nanotechnology research status reflected by the patents in the EPO database and JPO database. • Comparisons of the characteristics of the patents filed in the three repositories.

  5. Introduction Our Research • Our research focuses on the nanotechnology field and is a comparative study of nanotechnology patents filed in USPTO, EPO, and JPO. • The nanotechnology research in German, P. R. China, South Korea, and France are also very active. Their patent offices documented many nanotechnology patents (mostly in their own language). But in this research we focus on the patents documented in EPO and JPO, which have been translated into English. • We use basic bibliographic analysis, content map analysis, and citation network analysis techniques.

  6. Background and Research Objectives Patent Analysis • Patent publication status has been used in evaluating technology development (Karki, 1997; Oppenheim, 2000; Narin, 1994) in different domains: • Nanotechnology field (Huang et al., 2003a; Huang et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2005) • Gastroenterology field (Lewison, 1998) • Taiwan high-tech companies (Huang et al., 2003b)

  7. Background and Research Objectives Patent Offices in the World • There are several governmental (e.g., USPTO) or intergovernmental (e.g., EPO) patent offices which control the granting of patents in the world. • USPTO, EPO and JPO issue nearly 90 percent of the world’s patents (Kowalski et al., 2003). • In the nanotechnology field, the United States, the European group, and Japan dominate the patent publication in the USPTO filed patents (Huang et al., 2003a). • The inventors may file their patents in different patent offices.

  8. Background and Research Objectives Three Major Patent Offices • USPTO Patents • US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): more than 6.5 million patents with 3,500 to 4,000 newly granted patents each week. • EPO Patents • European Patent Office (EPO): more than 1.5 million patents with more than 1,000 newly granted patents each week. • European Patent Office provides an online patent search system, esp@cenet, which contains the structured patent information from EPO, JPO, USPTO, and other countries’ patent offices. • JPO Patents • Japan Patent Office (JPO): more than 1.7 million patents with 2,000 to 3,000 newly granted patents each week.

  9. Background and Research Objectives Patent Offices’ Effect • The patent offices have different procedures and policies which affect the patent publication process. • USPTO patents have more citations per patent due to the different rules governing citation practices (Bacchiocchi et al., 2004). • In the USA, the “duty of candor” rule requires applicants to disclose all the prior related work of which they are aware. • At the European Patent Office, there is no such rule. Most EPO patent citations were added by the examiners. • The USPTO has less rigorous patent applications standards than the EPO (Quillen et al., 2002). • The USPTO has a significantly higher grant rate than EPO and JPO.

  10. Background and Research Objectives Patent Offices’ Effect (cont.) • The “home advantage” effect can be another factor that affects the composition of the patents in one repository. • Domestic applicants, proportionate to their innovative activities, tend to file more patents with their home country patent office than foreign applicants do (European Commission, 1997). • Both EPO and USPTO patents have the home advantage effect (Criscuolo P, 2005). • The patents in USPTO, EPO, and JPO databases have the home advantage effect both in the whole dataset and in “high-tech” areas (Ganguli, 1998).

  11. Background and Research Objectives Utilizing Different Patent Offices’ Repositories • To obtain a comprehensive understanding of a technology area’s development, it is necessary to study the patents filed in different patent offices’ repositories.

  12. Background and Research Objectives Utilizing Different Patent Offices’ Repositories • In some other domains, a few previous studies combine different patent offices’ data for their research: • Balconi et al. (2004a; 2004b) studied Italian professors’ contribution in the firms in science-based technological classes using the patents filed in USPTO and EPO. • Lukach et al. (2001) studied inter-firm and intra-firm knowledge diffusion patterns using patents published in EPO and USPTO by Belgian Companies. • In the nanotechnology field, many previous studies use a single patent repository. • Huang et al. (2003a, 2004) assessed nanotechnology research status from 1976 to 2003 using USPTO patents. • Meyer (2001) assessed the interrelationships between science and technology in the nanotechnology field using USPTO patents.

  13. Background and Research Objectives Research Gap • Few studies employ multiple repositories to reveal the nanotechnology field’s R&D status. • Results of past patent analysis studies may be biased by the characteristics of different databases.

  14. Background and Research Objectives Research Objectives • Assess the nanotechnology development status represented by USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents. • Compare and contrast the differences in the nanotechnology patents in the three repositories.

  15. Research Design Research Design We develope a framework to assess the R&D status of a a science and engineering domain based on the patents in the three repositories: USPTO, EPO, and JPO. USPTO dataset Data acquisition Patent parsing Research status analysis USPTO database Number of patents Patent publication Collected by keywords EPO dataset Average number of cites Patent importance/ strength of a repository EPO database EPO+JPO patent Collected by keywords Topic coverage Content map JPO patent JPO dataset Knowledge diffusion Citation Network Patent status JPO database Patent statuschecking

  16. Research Design Research Design • The framework contains three steps: • Data acquisition • Retrieve patents from the three repositories. • Patent parsing • Parse the free-text data to structured data. • Research status analysis • Analyze the patents at different analytical unit levels, i.e., country (country group), assignee institution, and technology field (represented by third level IPC categories) .

  17. Research Design Data Acquisition • Retrieve the patents from the three repositories • A list of keywords can be used to search for patents related to a domain from the three repositories. • USPTO • USPTO provides online full-text access for patents issued since 1976. • The patents can be searched using almost all the data fields of a patent. • EPO • esp@cenet provides online full-text access to EPO patents issued since 1978. • The patents can be searched based on title, abstract, and some of the bibliographic data. • JPO • Patent Abstracts of Japan (PAJ) is the official patent database of JPO, which contains the patents issued since 1976. • The PAJ database is difficult to spider. But its patents and patent applications can be searched from esp@cenet. • Need to use the PAJ database to differentiate granted patents from patent applications.

  18. Research Design Research Status Analysis • We assess a field’s research status using the following indicators. • Patent publication trend • Number of patents by country in each year • Number of patents by country group in each year • Number of patents by assignee institution in each year • Number of patents by technology field in each year • Patent impact • Average number of cites by country • Average number of cites by assignee institution • Average number of cites by technology field • Topic coverage • Content map analysis • Knowledge diffusion • Country citation network analysis • Institution citation network analysis • Technology field network analysis

  19. Research Design Data Limitations • The three repositories have different data fields, which need to be considered during the analysis. • There is no assignee country information in JPO patents. We can't perform the "assignee country analysis" and "country group analysis" on the JPO patents. • There is no citation information in JPO patents. We can't perform the citation network analysis on the JPO patents. • In previous studies we used US Patent Classifications to represent technology fields. Since USPTO, EPO, and JPO all have International Patent Classification (IPC), in this research we use IPC classifications to represent technology fields. • The United States Patent Classification has 462 first-level categories. • IPC has 120 level-2 classifications and 631 level-3 classifications. To be comparable to our previous research, we use level-3 IPC in this study.

  20. Research Design Analysis Performed

  21. Dataset Data Collection • Keyword list • A nanotechnology-related keyword list provided by domain experts (Huang et al., 2003; 2004). • Patent search/retrieval • In our previous research, we retrieved nanotechnology patents by searching the nanotechnology-related keyword list in patent title, abstract, and claims (“title-claims” search) and in all patent data fields (“full-text” search) from USPTO database (Huang et al., 2003; 2004). • Because of the limitation of the search function of esp@cenet, we collected the nanotechnology patents in EPO and JPO by searching the nanotechnology-related keyword list in patent title and abstract (“title-abstract” search). • To be comparable with the patents retrieved from EPO and JPO, we collected the data using “title-abstract” search from USPTO database in this research.

  22. Dataset Data: USPTO Patents • Comparing with "full-text" search and "title-claims" search, “title-abstract” search provides fewer search results but with higher accuracy. • From “title-abstract” search: • 5,363 unique patents were collected. • Submitted by 2,196 assignee institutions, 8,405 inventors, and 46 countries.

  23. Dataset Data: USPTO Patents (cont.) • Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignees (with average patent age) and countries based on “title-abstract” search of patents published from 1976 to 2004

  24. Dataset Data: EPO Patents • EPO nanotechnology patent collected by “title-abstract” search in esp@cenet. • 2,328EPO patents were collected. • Submitted by 1,168 assignee institutions, 5,400 inventors, and 43 countries.

  25. Dataset Data: EPO Patents (cont.) • Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignees (with average patent age) and countries based on “title-abstract” search of patents published from 1978 to 2004

  26. Dataset Data: JPO Patents • JPO patent collection • The patents collected by “title-abstract” search in esp@cenet contain both JPO patent applications and JPO registered patents. • The patents’ status are retrieved from the JPO database to filter out patent applications. • 923 JPO registered patents were collected. • Submitted by 348 assignee institutions and 1,729 inventors.

  27. Dataset Data: JPO Patents (cont.) • Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignees based on “title-abstract” search of patents published from 1976 to 2004

  28. Dataset Data: USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents • The numbers of nanotechnology patents published in USPTO, EPO and JPO by year (log scale) • The numbers of nanotechnology patents in USPTO and EPO roughly show a pattern of straight line, indicating exponential increases of the nanotechnology patents. • After 1993, the number of nanotechnology patents published in JPO becomes stable.

  29. Basic Bibliographic Analysis I. Basic Analysis- USPTO Patents by Country • Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignee countries in USPTO (“title-abstract” search) and their patents by year, 1976-2004 (log scale) • Many countries had an increasing trend of nanotechnology patent publication • The United States published more nanotechnology patents than other countries in USPTO. The US nanotechnology patents showed an exponential growth trend. • Between 1994 and 2002, Japan nanotechnology patents showed a slower increasing speed. • Germany patents in USPTO were continuously increasing. • After 2002, the number of nanotechnology patents published by France experienced a decrease.

  30. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- EPO Patents by Country • Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignee countries in EPO (“title-abstract” search) and their patents by year, 1978-2004 (log scale) • The United States filed more nanotechnology patents than other countries. The US nanotechnology patents showed an exponential increase trend. • The Japan patents kept at the same level between 1989 and 2000. After 2000, there was a rapid growth of Japan patents. • Germany patents remained at the same level after 2000. • France patents were consistently increasing in EPO.

  31. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- USPTO Patents by Country Group • Assignee country group analysis by year, 1976-2004 (“title-abstract” search) (log scale) • The United States filed more patents than the other three groups. • The European Group, Japan, and the Others group had similar numbers of nanotechnology patents in each year.

  32. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- EPO Patents by Country Group • Assignee country group analysis by year, 1978-2004 (“title-abstract” search) (log scale) • The numbers of patents filed by the United States and European group countries were at the same level. • The numbers of patents filed by Japan and Other countries were at the same level after 1998. These two groups’ patents are fewer than the patents filed by the other two country groups.

  33. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Findings - Patents by Country and Country Group • USPTO and EPO assignee country analysis: • Many of the top 20 assignee countries had an increasing trend of nanotechnology patent publication. • The United States filed more nanotechnology patents than other countries. Its patents showed an exponential increasing trend. • Some countries showed different publication trends in the two repositories. • USPTO and EPO assignee country group analysis: • In USPTO, the United Sates published more patents than the other three country groups. • In EPO, the United Sates published a similar number of patents to European group countries. • The United States filed much more nanotechnology patents in USPTO than in EPO. • European group countries filed more patents in EPO than in USPTO.

  34. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- USPTO Patents by Assignee • Top 10 nanotechnology patent assignee institutions in USPTO (“title-abstract” search) and their patents by year, 1976-2004 • Most of the top assignees were United States companies/ institutions. • Some institutions, such as IBM and “Micron Technology, Inc” showed a decrease in recent years’ nanotechnology patent publication. • Most institutions started publishing nanotechnology patents in 1990s, while IBM, “The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy,” “Eastman Kodak Company,” and “Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company” started in 1970s.

  35. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- EPO Patents by Assignee • Top 10 nanotechnology patent assignee institutions in EPO (“title-abstract” search) and their patents by year, 1978-2004 • The top 10 assignees consisted of companies/institutions from the United States, Koreas, Japan, etc. • “Samsung Electronics Co Ltd” had a steady increase in patent publication after 2001 • Some institutions, such as “Eastman Kodak Co” and “Japan Science & Tech Corp” experienced a decrease in recent years.

  36. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- JPO Patents by Assignee • Top 10 nanotechnology patent assignee institutions in JPO (“title-abstract” search) and their patents by year, 1976-2004 • Most of the top assignees were Japanese companies/ institutions. • Many of assignee institutions in JPO experienced a decrease in recent years, such as “Nippon Electric Co,” “Agency Ind Science Techn,” “Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co,” etc. • “Japan Science & Tech Corp” and “Nat Inst for Materials Science” continued to have active patent publications in recent years.

  37. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Findings - Patents by Assignee • “Home advantage” effect: • In the three patent databases, many of the top nanotechnology patent assignee institutions are companies that belong to the same region as the patent office.

  38. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields • Top 10 technology fields according to the number of patents published between 1976 and 2004 based on US Class (“title-abstract” search)

  39. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields • Top 10 US classification technology fields by year (1976-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • Most of the top 10 technology fields had an increasing trend of patent publication. • Comparing with other technology fields, the number of patents in technology field “250: Radiant energy” did not change much after 1989. • Technology field “257:Active solid-state devices” experienced a rapid growth since 1999.

  40. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields • Top 10 technology fields according to the number of patents published between 1976 and 2004 based on IPC (“title-abstract” search) • Technology field “H01L” had the most nanotechnology patents published, almost double the amount of the second largest technology field “A61K.”

  41. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields • Top 10 IPC technology fields by year (1976-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • Most of the top 10 technology fields had an increasing trend of patent publication. • The technology fields “H01L: Semiconductor devices; electric solid state devices” experienced much faster growth than other technology fields. • The patents published in technology field “A61K: Preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes” each year became stable after 1996. • Some of the technology fields in the two systems have similar meanings and similar development trends, for example, H01L in IPC and 438 in USPC.

  42. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- EPO Technology Fields • Top 10 technology fields according to the number of patents published between 1978 and 2004 (“title-abstract” search)

  43. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- EPO Technology Fields • Top 10 technology fields by year (1978-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • Most of the top 10 technology fields had an increasing trend of patent publication. • After 2000, technology fields “A61K: Preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes,” “H01L: Semiconductor devices; electric solid state devices,” and “C01B: Non-metallic elements; compounds thereof" showed faster growth than the other technology fields. • The patent publication of technology field “G01B: Measuring length, thickness, or similar linear dimensions; measuring angles; measuring areas; measuring irregularities of surfaces or contours” was quite consistent in recent years, which is different from the other technology fields.

  44. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- JPO Technology Fields • Top 10 technology fields according to the number of patents published between 1976 and 2004 (“title-abstract” search)

  45. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- JPO Technology Fields • Top 10 technology fields by year (1976-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • Many of the technology fields experienced a decrease in recent years. • Technology field “C01B: Non-metallic elements; compounds thereof” had a steady growth in patent publication.

  46. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Summary: USPTO/EPTO/JPO Technology Fields • The three repositories have several top technology fields in common, e.g., “A61K,” “H01L,” “H01J,” “G01B,” and “G01N.” • Although the top 10 technology fields are very similar in the three repositories, their rankings (and numbers of patents published) are significant different.

  47. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Findings - Technology Fields • In USPTO, technology field H01L had many more nanotechnology patents than other fields. In EPO and JPO there was no dominate technology field among the top 10 technology fields. • USPTO, EPO and JPO have many top technology fields in common. • Most of the JPO top technology fields experienced a decrease in recent years, which was different from the technology fields in USPTO and EPO. • In USPTO patents, the top technology fields were mainly related to biomedical research, material research and semiconductor research. • In EPO patents, the top technology fields were mainly related to biomedical research, chemistry research, material research, and semiconductors research. • In JPO patents, the top technology fields were mainly related to biomedical research and material research and semiconductor research.

  48. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- Average Number of Cites by Country • USPTO top 10 countries with more than 10 patents based on the average number of cites measure (1976-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • EPO top 10 countries with more than 10 patents based on the average number of cites measure (1978-2004) (“title-abstract” search)

  49. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- Average Number of Cites by Assignee Institution • USPTO top 10 assignee institutions with more than 10 patents based on the average number of cites measure (1976-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • EPO top 10 assignee institutions with more than 10 patents based on the average number of cites measure (1978-2004) (“title-abstract” search)

  50. Basic Bibliographic Analysis Basic Analysis- Average Number of Cites by Technology Field • USPTO top 10 technology fields with more than 10 patents based on the average number of cites measure (1976-2004) (“title-abstract” search) • EPO top 10 technology fields with more than 10 patents based on the average number of cites measure (1978-2004) (“title-abstract” search)

More Related