Great to hear that you're still interested in patents, Richard. Roy's
excellent response to your perfectly reasonable question focused on issues
of companies' patenting policy, but I'd like to flag up some bibliometric
problems associated with the somewhat idiosyncratic US patent system. In the
"highlights" of Current Patents Gazette 0002, dated January 14th, I have
already pointed to the dominance of electronics companies in some rankings,
with chemical companies (let alone pharma/biotech specialists) only
fleetingly represented.
The US system, characterized by issue (publication) only on grant, does not
encourage bibliometric studies. Whereas a study based on current PCT
applications can be thought of as a fairly realistic snapshot of innovative
practical work being carried out some eighteen months or perhaps two years
previously, no such regular interval can be assumed for US patents.
So, the main point to make about US patents in this context is that the
subject matter is likely to be "old" (that is, older than eighteen months,
as it would be if PCT documents were the subject of the study). But it may
also be that industry- or sector-specific factors are involved.
To illustrate this point, I have looked at the application data associated
with a small (hopefully representative) sample of recent US patents assigned
to IBM, and found them to be on average 37 months old - that is it took just
over three years for examination to be completed and for them to issue. I
did the same for an established biotech company, and found a delay of almost
five years. Not only is biotech a more "difficult" subject to examine
(because of evolving legal codes and the complications introduced by moral
considerations), but the industry itself is more slow-moving than
electronics, where it is nigh-on inconceivable that a product based directly
on 15- or 20-year old technology could be a market leader.
My opinion is that studies based solely on issued US patents are unlikely to
give a true picture of current trends in innovation. Specifically, the
recent blossoming of biotech innovation (from such applicants as Human
Genome Sciences, University of California and Incyte) will not show for
several years in US-based studies.
I hope these thoughts help.
Peter Steele
Managing Director, Current Patents Ltd
Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland Street
London W1P 6LB, UK
Tel: +44 (0)171 323 0323
Fax: +44 (0)171 580 5646
E-mail: peter.steele@cursci.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Murray [mailto:billmurray2@hotmail.com]
Sent: 18 January 2000 14:43
To: piug-l@derwent.tecc.co.uk
Subject: FWD: RE:Top patenting companies announced by IFI
Non-member submission from ["Richard Poynder" <df04@dial.pipex.com>]
Hi,
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but I was struck that the
figures published by Micropatent and IFI on the top patenting
companies show IBM as one of the top (if not *the* top) patenting
company, whereas if you look at the PCT figures published on the WIPO
site (http://www.wipo.int/eng/pct/newslett/1999/99_08/99_08-06.htm
http://www.wipo.int/eng/pct/newslett/1998/98_08/98_08-01.htm)
IBM has position 43 in 1997 and is down to position 81 in
1998. The leading company in both cases on the PCT tables
is Siemens. I assume that the Micropatent and IFI tables are based
on US granted patents, which would make a difference, but
I have been told that as this (not surprisingly of course) gives a US
bias the PCT stats are a better guide -- as so many are now using it,
and the main countries can all file and publish in their own languages
(whereas US patents have to be in English)
As I say, this might be a naive question from a journalist (and it is
possible that I have misunderstood the available stats) but I would
be interested to hear other people's views on this (off the list perhaps),
and to know whether anyone has tried to consolidate, say, the US, EPO,
PCT and JPO patent figures in order to give a more global picture
as to the top patenting companies in the world (rather than just the US).
Best wishes,
Richard Poynder
Freelance Journalist
Tel +44 (0)1844 215646
Fax: + 44 (0)1844 215646
Mobile +44 (0)793 202 4032
E-mail: Richard.Poynder@journalist.co.uk
Web: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/df04/
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Murray <billmurray2@hotmail.com>
To: <piug-l@derwent.tecc.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 2:19 PM
Subject: FWD: Top patenting companies announced by IFI
>Non-member submission from [Ificlaims@aol.com]
>
>According to the IFI Patent Intelligence and Technology Report
>2000, IBM Corporation leads in number of U.S. patents.
>
>IBM Corporation continues with top honors in 1999 by receiving
>2,789 US patents or 37% more than the next company who is NEC
>Corporation receiving 1,853 patents. Only three US corporations
>namely IBM, Lucent Technologies and Motorola appeared in the top
>10 companies receiving US patents in 1999.
>
>To review our press release and a listing of the top 53 companies
>receiving US patents in 1999, please visit our web site at
>www.ificlaims.com.
>
>
>Harry M. Allcock
>Vice President
>IFI CLAIMS Patent Services
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 15:58:04 EDT