Tracxn - Geo Monthly Report - United States Tech - Mar 2022Tracxn
Check out @Tracxn's #curated latest #startup activity in #Tech rebrand.ly/o6rgsl7
Subscribe for free https://rb.gy/3yuosu to access reports on your #Geography of interest, every month!
Nichts ist vergleichbar mit der Bedeutung, die das Thema Liquidität in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen einnimmt. Weil die Handlungsmöglichkeiten im Fall von Engpässen im Bereich der Liquidität in kleinen Unternehmen gegenüber großen Unternehmen stark eingeschränkt sind. Und leider viel zu oft der Handlungsbedarf erst sehr spät erkannt wird.
In dieser Präsentation gehe ich auf die Bedeutung von Liquidität, die notwendige Qualität von Informationen für Entscheidungen und auf die Typen der Planung ein.
The seed stage of the venture capital industry went through a boom cycle from 2006-2014 but has lately seen a sharp decline. What's happening? Is it temporary or are their structural problems? This deck answers that question.
Overview of Quantopian: where we are and where we are headed.
Quantopian provides this presentation to help people write trading algorithms - it is not intended to provide investment advice.
More specifically, the material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation to buy, or a recommendation or endorsement for any security or strategy, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services by Quantopian.
In addition, the content neither constitutes investment advice nor offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security or any specific investment. Quantopian makes no guarantees as to accuracy or completeness of the views expressed in the website. The views are subject to change, and may have become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.
Tracxn - Geo Monthly Report - United States Tech - Mar 2022Tracxn
Check out @Tracxn's #curated latest #startup activity in #Tech rebrand.ly/o6rgsl7
Subscribe for free https://rb.gy/3yuosu to access reports on your #Geography of interest, every month!
Nichts ist vergleichbar mit der Bedeutung, die das Thema Liquidität in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen einnimmt. Weil die Handlungsmöglichkeiten im Fall von Engpässen im Bereich der Liquidität in kleinen Unternehmen gegenüber großen Unternehmen stark eingeschränkt sind. Und leider viel zu oft der Handlungsbedarf erst sehr spät erkannt wird.
In dieser Präsentation gehe ich auf die Bedeutung von Liquidität, die notwendige Qualität von Informationen für Entscheidungen und auf die Typen der Planung ein.
The seed stage of the venture capital industry went through a boom cycle from 2006-2014 but has lately seen a sharp decline. What's happening? Is it temporary or are their structural problems? This deck answers that question.
Overview of Quantopian: where we are and where we are headed.
Quantopian provides this presentation to help people write trading algorithms - it is not intended to provide investment advice.
More specifically, the material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation to buy, or a recommendation or endorsement for any security or strategy, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services by Quantopian.
In addition, the content neither constitutes investment advice nor offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security or any specific investment. Quantopian makes no guarantees as to accuracy or completeness of the views expressed in the website. The views are subject to change, and may have become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.
How Intellectual Ventures is Streamlining its PortfolioErik Oliver
Our latest paper on Intellectual Ventures has been published in IAM Magazine (Issue #77). We look at how IV's strategy has shifted, how to reduce your risk of exposure to their portfolio, and what the future might hold for them.
"The cover story this time around focuses on Intellectual Ventures. For many years, the firm kept its cards close to its chest - rarely speaking to the press, even more rarely discussing its business model and never, ever revealing the identities of its investors – but these days it is probably one of the most transparent operators out there.
For example, it is now possible to take a close look at the vast majority of its patents and, as a result, to work out the kinds of strategies it might pursue to monetise them. That is exactly the task the article’s authors set themselves. What Erik Oliver, Kent Richardson and Michael Costa found is an organisation in the process of recalibrating its portfolio to make it smaller and more sharply focused on top quality. That will have significant consequences for the companies the firm approaches for licensing deals, the trio says." Joff Wild, IAM Blog, April 4, 2016
How can you be sure you are conducting proper diligence on IP assets when evaluating large patent portfolios during a potential merger & acquisition? Kent Richardson presents with several other IP experts as to how to conduct and budget diligence regardless of asset number, patent families or tech landscapes.
In December 2013, Intellectual Ventures (IV) took a step towards transparency by publicly listing about 33,000 of its patent assets, representing 82% of its patent monetization portfolio (http://patents.intven.com/finder). Analyzing IV’s portfolio has now become a tractable problem. Here are some of the questions we answered: what does IV buy, what characteristics does IV look for in a patent, what does IV do after the purchases, and who did IV buy from?
Patent Market 2015 – Buyers, Sellers & What Are They PayingErik Oliver
What is the current trend of the brokered patent market, and how can you as a buyer or seller exploit the current patent climate? We look into market pricing, litigation risks, NPE activity and more to help you decide your best patent options for 2015.
Nanowire LED Patent Investigation
New nanowire LED startups compete with Asian LED giants in the IP landscape
KEY FEATURES OF THE REPORT
- Nanowire LED IP landscape
- Focus on key technology issues: deposition method, substrate type, active material type, PN junction type, passive material type
- Main patent applicants' IP collaboration network
- IP collaboration network of main patent applicants
- Matrix patent applicants/technology segments
- Relative strength of main key players' IP
- Key patents and current patents nearing expiration
- "Nanowire LED IP" profiles of six key players incl. their patenting activity, key patents, patented technologies, partnerships, and patents nearing expiration
- Excel database with all patents analyzed incl. technology segmentation
- LED market and industry trends: data and forecasts
- Nanowire LED – Pure-players and their roadmap
KEY FEATURES OF THE REPORT
The report provides essential patent data for FD-SOI including:
• Time evolution of patent publications and countries of patent filings.
• Current legal status of patents.
• Ranking of main patent applicants.
• Joint developments and IP collaboration network of main patent applicants.
• Segmentation by architecture (planar FD-SOI, SOI FinFET) and process level (transistor, device, circuit).
• Key patents.
• Granted patents near expiration.
• Relative strength of main companies IP portfolio.
• Matrix applicants / technology segments.
• FD-SOI IP profiles of major companies with key patents, patented technologies, partnerships, and IP strength and strategy.
The report also provides an extensive Excel database with all patents analyzed in the study.
OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT
• Provide an overview of FD-SOI technology.
• Review context for FD-SOI technology.
• Understand the patent landscape for FD-SOI.
• Identify key patents of FD-SOI technology.
• Understand trends in FD-SOI IP.
• Identify the major players in FD-SOI IP and the relative strength of their patent portfolio.
• Identify new players in FD-SOI IP.
• Identify IP collaboration networks between key players.
Research released by Intellidex revealed that BEE deals done by the JSE’s 100 largest companies have collectively generated R317bn of value for beneficiaries.
II-SDV 2016 Bob Stembridge We have all the Time in the World; a Review of ho...Dr. Haxel Consult
One of the key elements in understanding a technology sector or a competitor’s activities is to measure and detect any significant changes over time that may indicate a declining interest or a new hot emerging area.
But how do we spot the signal from the noise? What constitutes a significant change? This depends on how we measure change which in turn depends on the measure of time we use. In scientific literature, we have limited choice – publication date (but even that is changing with wide availability of electronic pre-prints). In patent literature, publication date provides a measure of when an invention is publicly disclosed, but priority date is perhaps a truer measure of when the invention was made. And is it better to look at individual dates, or use moving windows of time?
This presentation will consider these questions using a case study approach to determine the impacts and effectiveness of the different approaches.
How Intellectual Ventures is Streamlining its PortfolioErik Oliver
Our latest paper on Intellectual Ventures has been published in IAM Magazine (Issue #77). We look at how IV's strategy has shifted, how to reduce your risk of exposure to their portfolio, and what the future might hold for them.
"The cover story this time around focuses on Intellectual Ventures. For many years, the firm kept its cards close to its chest - rarely speaking to the press, even more rarely discussing its business model and never, ever revealing the identities of its investors – but these days it is probably one of the most transparent operators out there.
For example, it is now possible to take a close look at the vast majority of its patents and, as a result, to work out the kinds of strategies it might pursue to monetise them. That is exactly the task the article’s authors set themselves. What Erik Oliver, Kent Richardson and Michael Costa found is an organisation in the process of recalibrating its portfolio to make it smaller and more sharply focused on top quality. That will have significant consequences for the companies the firm approaches for licensing deals, the trio says." Joff Wild, IAM Blog, April 4, 2016
How can you be sure you are conducting proper diligence on IP assets when evaluating large patent portfolios during a potential merger & acquisition? Kent Richardson presents with several other IP experts as to how to conduct and budget diligence regardless of asset number, patent families or tech landscapes.
In December 2013, Intellectual Ventures (IV) took a step towards transparency by publicly listing about 33,000 of its patent assets, representing 82% of its patent monetization portfolio (http://patents.intven.com/finder). Analyzing IV’s portfolio has now become a tractable problem. Here are some of the questions we answered: what does IV buy, what characteristics does IV look for in a patent, what does IV do after the purchases, and who did IV buy from?
Patent Market 2015 – Buyers, Sellers & What Are They PayingErik Oliver
What is the current trend of the brokered patent market, and how can you as a buyer or seller exploit the current patent climate? We look into market pricing, litigation risks, NPE activity and more to help you decide your best patent options for 2015.
Nanowire LED Patent Investigation
New nanowire LED startups compete with Asian LED giants in the IP landscape
KEY FEATURES OF THE REPORT
- Nanowire LED IP landscape
- Focus on key technology issues: deposition method, substrate type, active material type, PN junction type, passive material type
- Main patent applicants' IP collaboration network
- IP collaboration network of main patent applicants
- Matrix patent applicants/technology segments
- Relative strength of main key players' IP
- Key patents and current patents nearing expiration
- "Nanowire LED IP" profiles of six key players incl. their patenting activity, key patents, patented technologies, partnerships, and patents nearing expiration
- Excel database with all patents analyzed incl. technology segmentation
- LED market and industry trends: data and forecasts
- Nanowire LED – Pure-players and their roadmap
KEY FEATURES OF THE REPORT
The report provides essential patent data for FD-SOI including:
• Time evolution of patent publications and countries of patent filings.
• Current legal status of patents.
• Ranking of main patent applicants.
• Joint developments and IP collaboration network of main patent applicants.
• Segmentation by architecture (planar FD-SOI, SOI FinFET) and process level (transistor, device, circuit).
• Key patents.
• Granted patents near expiration.
• Relative strength of main companies IP portfolio.
• Matrix applicants / technology segments.
• FD-SOI IP profiles of major companies with key patents, patented technologies, partnerships, and IP strength and strategy.
The report also provides an extensive Excel database with all patents analyzed in the study.
OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT
• Provide an overview of FD-SOI technology.
• Review context for FD-SOI technology.
• Understand the patent landscape for FD-SOI.
• Identify key patents of FD-SOI technology.
• Understand trends in FD-SOI IP.
• Identify the major players in FD-SOI IP and the relative strength of their patent portfolio.
• Identify new players in FD-SOI IP.
• Identify IP collaboration networks between key players.
Research released by Intellidex revealed that BEE deals done by the JSE’s 100 largest companies have collectively generated R317bn of value for beneficiaries.
II-SDV 2016 Bob Stembridge We have all the Time in the World; a Review of ho...Dr. Haxel Consult
One of the key elements in understanding a technology sector or a competitor’s activities is to measure and detect any significant changes over time that may indicate a declining interest or a new hot emerging area.
But how do we spot the signal from the noise? What constitutes a significant change? This depends on how we measure change which in turn depends on the measure of time we use. In scientific literature, we have limited choice – publication date (but even that is changing with wide availability of electronic pre-prints). In patent literature, publication date provides a measure of when an invention is publicly disclosed, but priority date is perhaps a truer measure of when the invention was made. And is it better to look at individual dates, or use moving windows of time?
This presentation will consider these questions using a case study approach to determine the impacts and effectiveness of the different approaches.
2. Notes
This is a preview of a longer analysis that ROL
Group is undertaking
The final results will appear in IAM Magazine later
in 2014
Sources (when not otherwise noted)
• IV public patent list
• Patent metadata from Thomson Innovation
Still finalizing data, please do not redistribute this
version outside the Gathering
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 2
3. Intellectual Ventures Background
Basics
• Founded 2000, total acquisitions of 70,000 IP assets
• 35,000 IP assets/year evaluated (for purchase/license)
Funds raised
• $6B as of 2014
• Form of capital commitments with a 10 year draw
Expenditures as of 2014
• $2.3B
• $730M to large companies
• $240M to mid-sizes
• $720M to startups/SMEs
• $510M to independent inventors
• $110M to universities
• Does this include: management fees, salaries (500-800 emps), portfolio/prosecution fees?
Return to investors and revenues
• Licensing revenues of $3B as of 2014
News/Context
• IIF1 vs. IIF2 investor returns?
• IIF3 Status?
• Broker community on payments?
• Recent layoffs
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 3
http://www.intellectualventures.com/about/investor-relations
2014 spend from IV Talk slides
4. IV Universe
IV Portfolio*
IV Portfolio
• ~70K
patents/apps
IV Portfolio in
monetization
• ~40K
patents/apps
Public List
• ~33K
patents/apps
US
Published/Issue
d
• ~22K
patents/apps
Business Segmentation
Invention Investment Fund 1
(IIF1)
Invention Investment Fund 2
(IIF2)
Invention Science Fund (ISF)
University/Licensing (IDF)
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 4http://patents.intven.com/finder
+ Invention Investment Fund 3 (IIF3)
5. IV Analysis Process and Focus
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 5
Fund Monetized Listed US Pat +
Pregrant Pub
Assignment
to IV id’ed
Remove
ISF
IIF 1 and 2 ✓ (32.0K) ✓ (25.8K) ✓ (18.2K) ✓ (17.4K) ✓ (17.4K)
ISF (Science) ✓(3.7K) ✓ (3.7K) ✓ (2.4K) ✓ (2.4K) ✗ (0K)
IDF (Univ.
Licensing)
✓ (~4.0K) ✓ (~3.5K) ✓ (0.7K) ✗ (0K) ✗ (0K)
Asset Count
(Approx)
40K 33K 21.3K 19.8K 17.4K
IV’s FAQ explains gap between 70K 40K: http://patents.intven.com/faq, in brief cost controls, patent sales, and expirations.
The US list has issued US patents and US patent publications only; reissues have been removed (425); applications with no publication number
have been removed (276).
IIF – We are including the Digimarc licensing agent agreement as part of IIF, approximately 700 assets.
ISF – We believe that they have listed substantially all of their ISF portfolio
IDF – We know that Asia is a focus for the program, we did not have access to the assignment records in those countries; however, we estimated
that the Asian listed IDF portfolio was 4x the size of the US listed IDF portfolio and scaled that to approximate the monetized asset count..
We primarily performed analysis of US
IIF subset and then back-estimated to
the purchased IIF patents
Reminder we have a
snapshot today... What
did the portfolio look
like 2, 3, 4 years ago?
6. When was IV Buying?
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 6
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Scaled Acquisitions by Year (Monetized IIF)
IV was buying when the market was down and continued to buy throughout the downturn
Assignment data reflects opportunistic purchases from struggling companies
Low numbers may reflect
expiration/sales of IIF1 patents or early
buying selectivity
7. Estimated Spend by IV per Year
Total Est. Spend $1.7B
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Scaled Spend per year ($M) (Monetized IIF )
Comparable acquisition
#, but paying less per
patent by 2011
8. When do the IIF portfolios expire?
Estimated Expiration Using 20 Years from Earliest Priority
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 8
<201
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Freq 2 2 0 61 679 1643 1848 2275 2181 2742 3343 4117 3523 3241 2079 1958 1741 1332 980 743 550 270 352 23
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Scaled Assets by Estimated Expiration Year (Monetized IIF)
~50% of portfolio
expired by 2021
(7 years)
~80% of portfolio
expired by 2024
(10 years)
If your company were to consider a deal with IV and the deal runs 5-7 years (2019-2021) what would a future deal
look like? Where is the distribution of patent value from IV’s perspective vs.your company’s perspective?
9. RemainingAsset Life at Time of Purchase
Calculated based on estimated expiration
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 9
Robust continuation practice
Approx 8% of portfolio today
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Scaled Remaining Asset Life at time of IV Purchase
(Monetized IIF)
Further Prosecution
Purchased
10. Remaining Life over Time is Declining
EstimatedAverage Remaining Life OverTime
(US Pats & Pubs; Continuations Excluded)
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 10
IV seems to be buying assets closer to expiration over time!
Why? Is IV cherry picking patents with greater adoption certainty?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Estimated Average Remaining Life Over Time (US Pats &
Pubs; Continuations Excluded)
11. Sellers are Diffuse
Frequency ofAssetsAssigned by Sellers
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 11
100+ 90-99 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10-19 <10
Freq 22 3 2 1 8 14 16 33 57 139 1348
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Frequency Distribution of Number of Sellers with Indicated
Quantity of Assets Assigned (US Pats and Pubs)
~100 total companies
~60% of assets
~300 total companies
~75% of assets
~1350 individuals
but only 25% of total
assets
This distribution generally foots with IV’s reported spend to IV entity size
12. Who is Selling?
Ordered by Number of Patents Sold (at least 30 sold)
Top 20 Next 20 Next 20 Next 20
Kodak Nortel Recursion Software Mosaid
Digimarc Cubic Wafer Hong Kong Technologies Lapis
NXP Genesis Microship Nippon Steal Casio
Raytheon Marconi IP Fujitsu Thales
Mangachip Delphi Chunghwa Picture Tubes Alcatel-Lucent
Telcordia Verizon Sonic Dowling Consulting
Transmeta Aplus Flash AT&T Lockheed Martin
Spyder Navigations Autocell Katrein-Werke Pulse-Link
Amex Crosstek Capital California Inst of Tech Lightspeed Logic
Polaroid Tier Logic Be Here PSS Systems
Cypress Semi Mindspeed Technologies Digital Imaging Systems DuPont
Daimler Cirrus Logic Ideaflood Lightsmyth Tech
France Telecom Kimberly-Clark UMC ST Micro
Primax Electronics Airnet Communications Microsoft Rockwell
Conexant Idelix Software Airip Cooler Master
BAE Icefyre Semi Discovision Xerox
Sanyo Mitsubishi Motorola Arraycom
Nokia Neomagic Triquint Believe
Bellsouth Oki Electric Terabeam General Dynamics
Entorian IPWireless Exclara
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 12
Many “blue-chip”/household names among sellers of patents to IV
Implications? How would something like a license on transfer impact a future aggregator?
13. Technology MarketAreas
Based on CPC code analysis
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 13
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Relative Size of Portfolio by Market
Hardware Software Other
14. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Relative Size of Market Category Purchases by Year
Hardware
Software
Other
Technology Market Areas over Time
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 14
Less subject matter
focus in 2010?
Pivot into hardware?
Or did hardware
patents expire/sold
sooner?
15. International Asset Distribution
Monetized IIF – Not Yet Filtered for Pub vs. Patent
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 15
IIF portfolio has limited foreign coverage ~10K assets—weak in BRIC
Issued foreign portfolio likely significantly smaller—publications were listed
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
JP WO EP AU DE CN KR CA GB AT Other TW FI FR IL ES SE BR NO MX HK DK
Estimated Foreign Asset Profile (Monetized IIF)
16. ROL GroupAutomated Ranking System
•How to decide where to spend time first in a portfolio?
Problem
•Quick and easy to calculate
•Scoring vectors make intuitive sense
•Easy to explain
Constraints
•Heuristic ranking system based on static characteristics
Solution
•# independent claims
•# forward citations adjusted for age
•Remaining patent life
•Claim 1 word length
•Means claims reduces rank
•Current age reduces rank
•Etc.
Sample Characteristics
•Used across projects for over 5 years – regularly helps us find where to focus in a portfolio
•Have benchmarked in the past versus human selection and alternative (more complex) scoring systems and
generally found similar—but not identical subsets for value—but high return for low computation
costs/explanatory simplicity
Results
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 16
17. IV Portfolio
Computer-based Ranking byAssignment Year
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 17
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
H 31 63 82 397 595 407 927 1299 1146 1631 1424 1178 851
M 18 84 96 538 976 612 1283 2103 1643 1033 1970 1412 1115
L 49 33 131 514 1156 671 1181 2273 1594 667 1976 1389 1136
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Scaled Asset Rank by Assignment Year (Monetized IIF)
• High selectivity in purchases - Overall portfolio is relatively evenly
distributed between H/M/L, this is atypical
• Selectivity has varied over time, e.g. 2008 (bulk) vs. 2010 (quality)
18. Reissues
Demonstrates IV’s focus on patent development
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
IV Before IV
Who Reissued? (n=386)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
IV Initiated Reissues by
Filing Year (n=250)
IV focused on reissuing
patents for value and bought
reissued patents for value
The vast majority of reissues
were filed by IV in the first 24
months after purchase
19. Litigation Analysis
Coming soon
Lex Machina data under analysis:
~430 US patents where assignment was found ever been litigated
~182 litigations
To do: Figure out which litigations occurred after the IV purchase
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 19
20. Gathering Discussion Topic
What other questions could be asked?
• Tech area specific analysis, e.g. Expiration time line vs. spend
• More fine-grained analysis of IV’s purchases in “my company’s” market segments
• Assignment analysis, e.g. holding companies used and intra-IV transfers as indicators
• Analysis of sellers
• Is there overlap to companies who complain about NPEs?
• Are there common characteristics of sellers, e.g. financial distress for corporates?
• Better quantifying the amount of patent development IV performs after the purchase
• When IV purchases a patent how much of the TAM is potentially consumed by the IIF members?
• E.g., the revenue of all the corporations in that IIF fund for the area of the purchases patents
• Further follow up, publicly announced IV licensees?
• Royalty modeling, e.g. Microsoft v. Motorola (Washington; Apr 2013)
• Apply a similar analysis to IV’s portfolio, what is the proportion of total patents in the area vs.
size of IV’s portfolio
• Could be performed on a segment-by-segment basis, e.g. what % of active patents in a given
CPC class does IV own?
• Note the Washington case was a RAND case
• How would you use the information to counter an IV assertion? Prepare for IV to knock?
What would you like to know?
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 20
21. Gathering Discussion Topic
What else would you like to know?
• What would you do (differently) if IV approached
based on this data?
• What else would you like to know?
Possible future IV scenarios?
• No change: IIF3 moves forward, licensing continues
• Funds unwind/time out: What happens to portfolio?
• Legal shift: FTC action vs. NPEs, CLS/Alice Bank
@ SCOTUS reduces SW patents, other (e.g.
Licensing approach shifts to IBM/Twitter style
licenses)?
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 21
23. Technology Market Areas by Year
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 23
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Circuitry
Semiconductors
Registers and Randomness
Material Properties
Optics
Signal Processing
Telephony/Signal Transmission
Information Storage
Data Processing
Navigation
Money Handling
Medical Devices
Climate Change
24. Technology MarketAreas
Drilldown on Telephony/Signal and Data Processing
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 24
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Data Processing Subclasses
Relative Size
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Telephony/Signal
Transmission Subclasses
Relative Size