Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

ICIC 2016: Patent Information - Looking beyond China

623 views

Published on

Many information specialists are currently being overwhelmed by the linguistic complexity and sheer volume of patent information emerging from China, which is having an enormous impact upon their ability to perform high-quality searches. But if the economic bubble bursts in Asia, where will the future lie? This presentation will review some trends amongst current "second division" countries and attempts to perceive where major new sources of patent information might come from, in the next decades.

Published in: Internet
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ICIC 2016: Patent Information - Looking beyond China

  1. 1. “Beyond China” - Who are the rising stars in patent information? Stephen Adams Magister Ltd., GB ICIC 2016, Heidelberg
  2. 2. Background • Many information professionals still rely upon commercial family databases for a proportion of their patent-based searches – FTO searches may be run in single-country collections; – patentability searches are usually more efficient in a database with wider country coverage (+/- value added indexing) • Commercial database producers are under pressure to select the right mix of countries in their products. © Magister Ltd, 2016 2
  3. 3. © Magister Ltd, 2016 3 “Re-active coverage” • Historically, expansion of coverage in multi- national databases has concentrated upon including – mature or growing industrialised economies (G8+) – newly-identified, high-volume contributors to the state of the art (CN) – user demand (cf. MX vs. DE-U) • There is no foolproof way of predicting where the next avalanche of prior art will come from…but…there may be useful clues.
  4. 4. An approach towards “pro-active” expansion of database coverage © Magister Ltd, 2016 4 II. Political, economic, financial factors I. Pragmatic issues of data collection III. Statistical measures of the IP system
  5. 5. An approach towards “pro-active” coverage (I) © Magister Ltd, 2016 5 Does the potential new country have the capacity to produce a reliable electronic data feed of patent information? Back-file digitisation? IT infrastructure for front-file origination? Pragmatic issues of data collection
  6. 6. An approach towards “pro-active” coverage (II) © Magister Ltd, 2016 6 Political, economic, financial factors Where do potential new countries stand on the WIPO Global Innovation Index? Is the innovation score rising, falling, or static? If rising, what is the rate of rise? Is the patent system important in this country?
  7. 7. WIPO’s Global Innovation Index © Magister Ltd, 2016 7 Annual publication since 2007; ranking 120-140 countries on a wide range of parameters measuring the environment for innovation, including operation of their IP system. Back issues from: www.wipo.int/publications/en/series/index.jsp?id=129 More details from: www.globalinnovationindex.org
  8. 8. Global Innovation Index • Each issue ranks the surveyed countries using an aggregate score: – Switzerland has ranked no.1 for the last 6 years – Bottom ranked countries include Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar, Syria… • A ‘rising star’ could be a country which shows a sustained rise up the rankings, year on year. • Data from 2011-2016 were analysed – rankings from this period plotted, fitted to a regression line, scored as the ‘inverse value of the slope’ as a indication of consistent rise or fall. © Magister Ltd, 2016 8
  9. 9. Cumulating GII data – example for Canada © Magister Ltd, 2016 9 GII ranking 2011 8 2012 12 2013 11 2014 12 2015 16 2016 15 Slope of regression line fitting score data = + 1.37 An increase in overall rank number over time represents a deterioration in performance; the inverse value (-1.37) is used as an index of sustained performance.
  10. 10. Cumulating GII data – example for Kazakhstan © Magister Ltd, 2016 10 GII ranking 2011 84 2012 83 2013 84 2014 79 2015 82 2016 75 Slope of regression line fitting score data = – 1.51 A decrease in overall rank number over time represents an improvement in performance; the inverse value (+ 1.51) is used as an index of sustained performance.
  11. 11. Top 15 consistent improvers, 2011-2016 © Magister Ltd, 2016 11
  12. 12. Performance in the top 1/3 of the table (ranked higher than 50 in at least one year) • Some of the overall good performers are starting from a very low base; they may not make an impact for some while. • All of the following are ‘mid-range’ countries: © Magister Ltd, 2016 12
  13. 13. Summary so far • The GII data can help us to identify a small number of countries which – have a generally positive environment for innovation, including an established IP system, and – have shown consistent improvements in their ranking over the last 6-8 years. • Of these candidates, a number currently have little or no content in family databases: – Panama, Morocco, Mongolia (rapid risers) – Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Mauritius, Costa Rica (slowly rising from middle to top range) © Magister Ltd, 2016 13
  14. 14. An approach towards “pro-active” coverage (III) © Magister Ltd, 2016 14 Statistical measures of the IP system Grant statistics (% national, % non-national) Volume of activity (absolute numbers; applications/1m population) “Originality” (% new basics) What is the state of the national IP publication system? Is past performance a clue to the future?
  15. 15. © Magister Ltd, 2016 15 What do (might) the numbers tell us? • Legal viewpoint: an “active” IPR regime might be expected to exhibit – a rising level (absolute numbers) of grants to national applicants • implies that IP system is attractive to local industry – a significant proportion of grants to non-national applicants • implies that multi-national inventors have sufficient confidence to obtain IP rights in that country • Technical viewpoint: is the country becoming a major contributor to the state of the art? – a significant proportion of the published unexamined applications should be new basics, not equivalents.
  16. 16. © Magister Ltd, 2016 16 Selecting and processing the data • The WIPO IP Statistics Data Center (http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/) collates data on – origin of applications – grants to national and non-national applicants. • Processing method – Select data from countries which either • averaged at least 500 patents/year granted to nationals over 2011- 2014 and/or, • averaged at least 5,000 patents/year granted to all applicants over 2011-2014 (national + non-national). – Eliminate the IP5, the G8, and any EPO member states. – Select the next 10 on the grant rankings.
  17. 17. © Magister Ltd, 2016 17 > 500 patents/year to nationals
  18. 18. © Magister Ltd, 2016 18 > 5000 total patents/year
  19. 19. © Magister Ltd, 2016 19 The leading players so far… 13 countries • Americas: – Mexico • Africa: – South Africa • Europe: – Belarus, Ukraine • Middle East, Central/South Asia: – Kazakhstan, India, Iran, Israel • Australasia, East Asia: – Australia, Hong Kong, North Korea, Singapore, Taiwan
  20. 20. But is this a good measure? • Many countries in the 1990-2010 period passed utility model (UM) laws – possibly a local reaction to international treaty obligations to pass TRIPS-compliant patent legislation, not meeting the need of local industry. • Does the picture change if we consider total invention-related IP (i.e. patents and utility models together)? © Magister Ltd, 2016 20
  21. 21. Incorporating UM into the mix • Repeat the exercise • Slightly modified criteria: – Total grants selected from >1000, not >5000 – Grants to nationals selected from >500 – Retained any individual states which also belong to a regional patent-granting system such as the EPO • smaller applicants may use a local UM system in preference to a regional patent system © Magister Ltd, 2016 21
  22. 22. © Magister Ltd, 2016 22 > 500 UM/year to nationals
  23. 23. © Magister Ltd, 2016 23 > 1000 total UM/year
  24. 24. © Magister Ltd, 2016 24 The new leader board… 20 countries • Americas: – Mexico • Africa: – South Africa • Europe: – Belarus, Czech Rep. (U), Germany (U), Italy (U), Russian Fedn. (U), Spain (U), Ukraine • Middle East, Central/South Asia: – Kazakhstan, India, Iran, Israel, Turkey (U) • Australasia, East Asia: – Australia, Hong Kong, North Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand (U)
  25. 25. © Magister Ltd, 2016 25 Focus on those with little/no prior coverage… • Americas: – Mexico • Africa: – South Africa • Europe: – BELARUS, CZECH REP. (U), Germany (U), ITALY (U), Russian Fedn. (U), Spain (U), UKRAINE • Middle East, Central/South Asia: – KAZAKHSTAN, India, IRAN, Israel, Turkey (U) • Australasia, East Asia: – Australia, Hong Kong, NORTH KOREA, Singapore, Taiwan, THAILAND (U)
  26. 26. Potential new content; average publication rate, 2010-2014 Country Patents (nationals) Patents (total) UMs (nationals) UMs (total) Grand total Ukraine 1787 3658 9626 9796 13454 North Korea 6322 6360 ND ND 6360 Iran 4285 4546 0 0 4546 Italy (U) 3113 3404 3404 Belarus 1291 1408 829 896 2304 Kazakhstan 1465 1689 78 134 1823 Czech Rep. (U) 1400 1458 1458 Thailand (U) 805 842 842 New patents: 17661 New UM: 16530 Grand total of new documents per year: 34191 © Magister Ltd, 2016 26 Mostly missing from current family databases
  27. 27. Summary and conclusions • Statistical data may provide a more objective method, alongside other factors, to identify ‘rising stars’ • These analyses have only considered the patent-granting scenario; – more research on the impact of published unexamined applications (CC-A documents) would be helpful – no comment is possible on the quality of disclosures (new basics vs. equivalents) © Magister Ltd, 2016 27
  28. 28. The ones to watch? © Magister Ltd, 2016 28 Country code Flag Country code Flag BY MN CR MU IR PA KP SA KZ UA MA VN

×