2.7 Technology Activity Searches
How Has This Technology Evolved Over Time and Who Has Contributed to Its Development?
Technology activity searches are conducted to explore a defined technological area in detail, for example, to determine whether a leading company, inventor, or country dominates the sector, or to assess how the technology has advanced over time.
2.7.1 Search Activity - Honey Medicament
You are active in the field of apiculture. You may have been informed by earlier practitioners that honey possesses advantageous properties for the topical treatment of wounds. You decide to investigate further, anticipating substantial activity in this area. Instead of investing significant time reviewing all pharmaceutical publications related to this subject, you choose to carry out a technology activity search. Therefore, using Patentscope, attempt to identify whether a specific company, inventor, or country demonstrates notable activity in the field of honey-based medicines.
First, you will need to perform a search for medic* AND honey. At this stage, note that medic* includes all terms beginning with "medic" (this search method is referred to as truncation, which will be explained in greater detail in Unit 3). By entering the query medic* AND honey, you retrieve documents that contain any of the words "medicine," "medicinal," or "medical," together with the term "honey."
You will obtain more than 6000 results.
You may browse through the documents to gain a broad understanding of developments in this technological domain.
To determine which countries and inventors are most active, select the blue 'Analysis' bar located approximately midway down the page.
This illustration shows that China is, by a substantial margin, the most active country.
Another useful function of Patentscope is the ability to present results in graphical format. To do so, find the 'Options' tab positioned directly beneath the 'Analysis' tab and choose 'Graph' followed by 'pie'. This produces:
[Image Description: A pie chart showing the distribution of patent activity by country, with China having the largest share.]
In addition, you can select alternative display options by clicking on the relevant tab – 'Main IPC', 'Main applicant', 'Main inventor', etc.
Choosing 'Graph' and 'bar' produces the following:
[Image Description: A bar chart showing the distribution of patent activity by country, with China significantly leading.]
Again, further specific selections can be made, for example, 'Main IPC'.
This chart demonstrates that a large proportion of applications were classified under IPC subclass A61K, followed by A61P, and subsequently A23L.
Summary of Search Activity 2.7.1
As your experience with patent searching increases and after you have completed Units 3 and 4, you will recognize that IPC and CPC classification symbols are extremely useful in conducting searches, as they correspond to predefined technological domains. You may also consider expanding this search further. For instance, you could review the subdivisions of IPC subclass A61K on the WIPO website at wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/ to determine whether any of them correspond to your particular requirements.
2.8 Freedom to Operate Searches; Legal Status Searches - Can I Produce and/or Commercialize This Product in That Country; Has This Patent Been Granted; Is It in Force?
Freedom to operate searches, also referred to as infringement searches, are performed to identify patents that might be infringed if a particular invention were introduced to the market in a specific country. Often, searchers also track and evaluate the progress of pending patent applications that could eventually be granted with claims that might create blocking patent rights. In this type of search, the aim is to determine whether any patents exist, or may come into existence, that cover the invention or any portion of it within the country or region where the invention is intended to be manufactured, used, or marketed.
A critical aspect of a freedom to operate search is determining the legal status of any relevant patents, meaning the information describing the legal standing of a patent or patent application within particular countries or regions.
The legal status of both patent applications and granted patents may change at any stage during their lifecycle. Certain countries and regional authorities require the payment of annual renewal fees during the application phase; failure to pay such fees results in the application lapsing. At the international and regional levels, applicants must decide which states to designate or elect, which can lead to the abandonment of some jurisdictions at an early stage. The most significant milestone occurs when, and if, a patent is granted. Thereafter, for each year-up to a maximum of 20 years*-the patent will remain in force if the required annual renewal fee is paid; otherwise, it will lapse.
(Certain countries, such as the US, may grant an additional period. Refer to the concept of Patent Term Adjustment, which is intended to compensate for delays attributable to the US Patent Office during the prosecution of a US patent application. This additional time is added to the standard 20-year term of a US patent. When granted, such a term adjustment is indicated on the front page under the bibliographic data of a granted US patent.)
In the case of regional offices that issue a bundle of national patents rather than a single unitary patent covering all member states, the patent proprietor may choose to pay the renewal fee in one country but not in another, depending on commercial strategy.
Finally, a patent may be amended after grant by its owner (for example, the claims may be narrowed if previously unknown prior art is discovered); alternatively, a patent may be revoked by a court meaning it is annulled if it is determined to be invalid.
These lifecycle events including assignments, sales, and licensing form part of the legal status of a patent. In certain countries, legal status information can be verified online through the relevant authority. However, such online information may not always be complete or fully up to date. Whenever uncertainty exists, the legal status should be confirmed directly with the competent authority in the respective country.
Beyond supporting decisions about entering a particular national market, legal status information can also help in evaluating the validity of a patent (refer to 2.5 above), in negotiating licensing arrangements, and in assessing the value that the patent owner attributes to a specific patent.
2.8.1 Search Activity - Emergency Housing
This activity illustrates a simple search process, using Google and Espacenet, to determine the legal status of a patent.
Tsunami Reconstruction
Pod Housing has been designed, improved, tested, and implemented more than 100 times over a four‑year period. Icosa Village Pods offer affordable, dignified, four‑season, multi‑year, semi‑permanent housing.
To support Tsunami reconstruction initiatives, bulk orders reduce the price to as little as US$1,175 for a standard 108 sq. ft. (33 m²) IcoPod (suitable for 2 adults & 1-2 children), and $2,698 for 472 sq. ft. (144 m²) DecaPods (spacious enough to comfortably accommodate 12 people for sleeping).
Step (1) Since this product was likely featured in the news during the Tsunami, conduct a Google search for "ICOPOD" to identify the inventor’s name.
Step (2) Next, use Espacenet to locate the corresponding patent number and verify its legal status in your country.
Step (3) Establish whether you would be permitted to reproduce this product. Would you be able to export it to France?
Step (1) A Google search rapidly indicates that the inventor’s name is Ponder Sanford.
Step (2) Enter this name into Espacenet using the 'Inventor' search field.
Only one document appears.
Select the document title, "Folding structural panel unit," to access further details about the US patent. (Observe that the title is descriptive and does not contain the word "ICOPOD." In fact, most patent document titles are descriptive in nature, which facilitates classification and supports inventors, examiners, and patent professionals in conducting searches).
Click on the 'INPADOC legal status' tab located on the left. It indicates that a US patent was granted but has since lapsed.
Step (3) As the patent protection has expired, you would be free to reproduce the product. However, when the patent was originally granted, you would not have been allowed to manufacture, sell, or import it into the US. By selecting 'INPADOC patent family,' you can see that no foreign equivalents exist. Patent protection was never obtained in France, therefore you would also be permitted to export the product there.
Summary of Search Activity 2.8.1
A search for the legal status of a patent or patent application, as well as the status of any equivalent documents (known as Patent Family Equivalents), assists in identifying whether an invention has any enforceable rights in a specific country or region. For example, an invention granted and active in the United States might be freely utilized elsewhere if there are no equivalent patent grants or pending applications in those areas. In such cases, it is advisable to communicate with the inventor to explore options for commercializing the product in a jurisdiction where it is needed.
As noted in the disclaimer on the legal status tab, it is essential to consult the original source for the most reliable and current legal status information. In practical situations, patent examiners and professionals may visit the USPTO and conduct an exhaustive search to ensure up-to-date data, though this comprehensive approach is not pursued in this simplified exercise.
2.9 The Analysis of Patent Information for Strategic Use
2.9.1 Introduction
A patent information search proves valuable at various critical points across an invention’s lifecycle, such as before undertaking research, during the patent drafting phase preceding submission, or when formulating strategies for patent litigation. Nonetheless, this conventional micro-level approach to patent information has broadened into a notably more strategic role, enabled by the development of tailored computerized patent databases.
Intellectual Property (IP) valuation now constitutes a rapidly growing discipline in an information-centric era, where competitiveness is intense and increasingly dependent on IP assets. Financial institutions that provide lending to major corporations, managers involved in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), government authorities overseeing regulatory compliance, and accountants applying valuation techniques are all increasingly utilizing patent information within their professional engagements.
Consider the following passage from an article published several years ago, describing a past acquisition proposal by Microsoft for Yahoo!, both companies being significant users of the patent system in their business models.
Reflect on the following passage from a report released some years ago, addressing a past acquisition proposal by Microsoft for Yahoo!, both of which are prominent participants in the patent ecosystem within their business activities.
“Aside from the business benefits, Microsoft has a lot to gain from Yahoo!’s intellectual property (IP) assets. The synergy obtainable from the patent portfolios of these companies is rather high. Microsoft and Yahoo! have recorded consistent research and development (R&D) expenditures over the years, a key area that the combined entity will want and hope to leverage and optimize. While Microsoft is undeniably the leader in terms of sheer number of patents/applications spread across over 100 IPCs (intellectual property codes), it has lagged when compared to Yahoo! and Google in terms of innovation (as reflected by a citation analysis). Yahoo emerges as a significant innovative player in this regard, probably more so than even Google. Given this scenario, a Yahoo! acquisition will definitely prop up Microsoft’s IP arsenal against its battle for technology supremacy against Google.”
As a result, economists, social science investigators, government officials, corporate executives, and practitioners have increasingly adopted the utilization of patent data. As evidenced in Search Activity 2.7.1, this method is deployed to examine global trends within specific industries; to pinpoint the nations where a particular technology is most aggressively patented, or where a specific corporation demonstrates the peak level of engagement, among other findings.
Two primary methodologies exist for the examination of patent data: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative assessment involves the exhaustive evaluation of the information contained within separate patent records. Conversely, the quantitative approach necessitates the statistical investigation of a wide array of patents within a set technological sector. These two techniques fulfill unique purposes and possess varying implementations or utilities for a patent researcher.
The outcomes generated from patent examination can be visually depicted via bar charts, line graphs, pie diagrams, radar plots, and other visual styles, collectively designated as ‘Patent Charts/Graphs/Maps.’ This acts as a powerful method of portraying the findings of patent data examination. A version of this visualization was demonstrated in the previous Search Activity regarding Technological Activity Searches.
Currently, electronic databases, specialized statistical software, and external service providers augment the utility of patent and technology databases, thereby assisting in the examination of patent data to attain increased reliability, consistency, and velocity. Numerous other applications exist for the examination of patent data.
The Secretariat of WIPO assumes no liability or responsibility with regard to the transformation or translation of the original content. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2023). WIPO Patent Drafting Manual, Second edition. Geneva: WIPO. DOI: 10.34667/tind.44657