IP Landscape in Nanotechnology Competitive Intelligence and Freedom - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IP Landscape in Nanotechnology Competitive Intelligence and Freedom to Operate Casey K. Chan MD, Seeram Ramakrishna PhD and Linda Lee Division of Bioengineering Nanotechnology Initiative at National University of Singapore Michelle Ngaim WizPatent Presented at the International Congress of Nanotechnology, October 31-November 3, 2005 San Francisco

Agenda  Competitive intelligence  Freedom to Operate  Nanotechnology IP challenges  Our methodology  Results  Case studies

Competitive Intelligence  Strategic knowledge about competitors’ positions, research efforts, and trends  Sources of Competitive Intelligence  Scientific Literature  Conferences  Media  Patents

Patents as a Source of Competitive Intelligence  Publicly available documents  Excellent source of info for emerging technologies  Nanotechnology  Mining of patent information, usually bibliographic data reveals:  Top inventors  Top assignees  Year  Patent classification  References to other patents  Referenced by other patents  Abstract

Bibliographic Data  1 st page of patent document  Contains:  Inventor’s name and Country  Assignee and Country  Date filed, Date issued  Classification  References Cited  Referenced By  Abstract

How many Nanotech patents? 8630 in 2003 alone University of Arizona report 3818 from 1985 to Lux Research Report Mar. 2005 5613 in 2004 Nanotechnology Researchers Network of Japan 1377 in Class 977 USPTO search on 17 Oct 2005  Different keyword searches and databases leads to confusion

Nanotech-related patents (US, Japan, Europe, Worldwide) in 2004 6000 5000 Number of patents 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 s d y n e n a A a K d n n a a c d e S n a U a n w p a r a l U m o a i r a n l a e r r K a r J e F T z e C h t G i w t e S N Source: Nanotechnology Researchers Network of Japan

Adjusted to Size of Economy # of patents / GDP (Billions of dollars) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 s d y n A e n a K a d n n a c a d e S U n a a w n r p a U a m l o r a a i n a l K e r r J r a F T e z e C t h G i w t e S N

Class 977 Breakdown in 2003 70% 60% Companies 50% 40% 30% Universities 20% 10% 0% US Japanese German Australian non-US companies companies companies companies government and universities Source: ETC Group

Nanotechnology IP Challenges  Nanotech defines a scale of measurement, not a particular application  Lack of uniform definitions and terminology for nanotechnology  USPTO Class 977 “Nanotechnology”  1) 1-100 nm  2) Novel properties due to nanoscale size  “Patent land grab” and “patent thickets”

Methodology (1)  USPTO Issued Patents  1976 to Present  TXT data  Robust  Forward and Backward citations  Preliminary Search  Nano$ in patent abstract  Secondary Search  Identify possible irrelevant patents (Nanomet$, Nanogra$, Nanosec$, NaNO)  Review individual patents and make decision  Data Cleaning

Methodology (2) Irrelevant Irrelevant Nanogra$, nanomet$, nanosec$, NaNO Relevant Relevant Nano$ Nano$ Final Database

R1: Search by R2: Search on R3: Search on keyword(s) key inventor(s) key assignee(s) R4: Select pertinent patents R4: Select pertinent patents from R1 + R2 + R3 from R1 + R2 + R3 Final Search Results = Final Search Results = R4 + R6 + R9 Identify most pertinent IPC R4 + R6 + R9 code(s) from R4 R5: Search by IPC code(s) R6: Select pertinent R6: Select pertinent patents in R5 patents in R5 R7: Search patents that are cited R8: Search patents that cite by R6 (backward searching) patents in R6 (forward searching) R9: Select pertinent patents in R7 R9: Select pertinent patents in R7 + R8 + R8

Methodology(3)-Data Cleaning  Patent analysis is further complicated by inconsistent records of assignee or inventor names  International Business Machines Corp.; International Business Machine(s) Corporation; Internation Business Machines Corporation  The Regents of the University of California; The Regents, University of California; Regents of the University of California  L’oreal; L’oreal SA, Societe L’oreal  Data cleaning is time-consuming and cannot be fully automated

US 6,260,795 Oya Computerized Glider  Irrelevant patent that was not eliminated in preliminary or secondary searches  Modified hang-glider Hang-glider wing  “Nano” mentioned once in patent abstract  “…incorporates…nano wires, and nano cables, for electrical connections and manual control levers.”

Dramatic Rise in Number of Nanotech-related Patents # Patents / # Patents (1995) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* Year All Issued Patents Nano Related Patents *Estimated

Nanotech-related patents and patents across selected industries 1990-2005 9000 Autom otive 8000 Internet** Number of issued pate 7000 N ucleicAcid 6000 Pharm aceutical Sem iconductor 5000 N ano$ 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 * 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 *estimated Y ear

Nanotech-related patents and patents across selected industries 1995-2005 12 Number of issued patents/Number of Automotive Internet** 10 Nucleic acid issued patents in 1995 Pharmaceutical 8 Semiconductor Nano$ 6 4 2 0 * 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 *estimated year **Baseline 1998

Top Ten Inventors 50 Yadav; Tapesh 40 40 Mirkin; Chad A. Smith; Douglas M. 30 28 27 27 27 26 26 26 Patents Issued Letsinger; Robert L. 30 Schmidt; Helmut 24 Forbes; Leonard 20 Mucic; Robert C. Elghanian; Robert Storhoff; James J. 10 Lan; Tie 0 1 Assignee

Top Inventors – Pre- and Post-Y2K 45 40 2000-2005 Number of patents 35 1990-1999 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 . u e h . . t . t y . . d d e a A o u M L C r A J e z s l e i l r i s i m v e a e a T l k t s b e n s t d a s r b p A k l n r e a o e ; r a a a e e D i a a m n e h o m b R t H h l b ; a T S s a T g e s o ; C a o o I u L L y d o ; R ; ; . ; R n J h ; t o o s R a Y v e ; d ; a T n o M a D ; ; s n r i f ; i a r m ; ; d i e c n f m ; a e n k s o n H ; i a b a g h r h c a m e m h o i r Y h M t n c u s R o r a t a i g m S M o a n i F s i y l t a l T E t S l a S e i H W k L a N

Top Ten Assignees University of California 95 100 International Business 90 84 Machines Corporation 80 Navy Number of patents 70 63 61 Hewlett-Packard 60 52 52 51 50 Xerox Corporation 50 LOreal 39 36 40 Eastman Kodak Company 30 Micron Technology, Inc. 20 10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0 Industrial Technology 1 Assignee Research Institute

Top Ten US Classifications Nanotechnology 467 500 400 Nanoparticles relating to drug Count 300 applications such as drug delivery 200 Nanomaterials as coating 128 98 91 80 72 72 66 64 100 63 63 0 9 3 5 6 2 9 1 1 0 3 1 . . 8 0 4 / 0 0 0 9 2 G 5 7 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 I / / / / / / / / D 4 8 4 4 8 3 4 4 4 8 / 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 / 3 7 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 2 7 4 9 UPC

Top Ten Referenced Patents Top R eference C ited 90 Organo Luminescent semiconductor nanocrystal probes …… 81 80 No. Times Cited 70 Semiconductor nanocrystals covalently bound to solid inorganic ….. 62 54 60 46 46 50 43 42 41 40 39 40 30 20 10 0 9 8 9 0 8 0 7 7 0 8 7 1 6 3 3 6 5 0 0 2 4 0 4 2 1 5 3 9 0 9 0 1 2 3 7 7 2 9 7 5 9 5 5 6 9 4 6 0 3 0 9 7 5 6 0 7 2 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 5 5 5 5 5 S S S S S S S S S S U U U U U U U U U U USPatent Num ber

Nanotech Patents by Assignee Type 5% 2% 21% 4% Academic Commercial Government Individual Undetermined 68%

By Assignee Type Over Time 2500 Academic Commercial 2000 Number of Patents Government Individual 1500 Undetermined 1000 500 0 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2005

Nanotech Patents by Structure 1% 12% 15% Nanofiber Nanocomposite Nanocomposite N a n Nanotube o f i l m Nanoclay Nanoporous 11% Nanotube Nanowire Nanoparticle 28% Nanocrystal Nanocrystals 3% Nanoemulsion Nanoceramic 8% Nanocapsule Nanoparticle 2% 2% Nanofilm 11% 3% 4%

Nanotech Patents by Application Instrumentation etc Instrumentation, Tools, Nanoelectronics 26% Metrology, Standards 31% Environmental Science Medical 2% Nanoscale Science in Materials 11% Chemical Medical 21% Nanoelectronics 9% Chemical