November AMP_Digital

A D V A N C E D M A T E R I A L S & P R O C E S S E S | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 9 1 9 the volume of patents in each catego- ry, as well as the “recency” (i.e., the percentage of patents in each category filed during the past five years). Based on this analysis, some topics of intense patenting over the 2000-2015 time pe- riod are evident, including technolo- gies related to fabrication or carbon/ graphene materials. Some areas of less overall but more recent patenting (in- dicating potentially emerging technol- ogies poised for future growth) include ZnO nanomaterials, wastewater treat- ment, and solar cell applications. Patent Intelligence: At a high lev- el, the ThemeScape map summarizing hundreds or even thousands of pat- ents can be easily shared and assessed across different divisions, functions, or levels of an organization. Compar- ison of the focal areas highlighted in the map vs. an organization’s invento- ry of technologies can help identify op- portunities for filling technology gaps through internal development, technol- ogy acquisition, or leveraging technolo- gy strengths in newmarkets. Even more quantitative information on potential opportunities is provided through de- tailed analysis of patent volumes and recency evaluations. Ultimately, the materials compa- ny sponsoring this study may explore a number of other factors before com- mitting to a new R&D program, includ- ing its business growth strategy, core expertise, strategic alliances, and more. However, the fact-based analysis of op- portunities such as those shown here enhances the likelihood of success for the company’s plan of action while pro- viding identification and prioritization of those avenues of further research. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION—EXTERNAL TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION Driver: A large steel producer (Steel Co. A) has a relatively large pat- ent portfolio focused on welding, with particular emphasis on arc-welding technologies (e.g., TIG, MIG), but with only a small number of patents focused on energy-beam (e.g., laser, electron beam) welding. Hoping to quickly ex- pand its range of offerings in welding products and technologies, the com- pany is looking to acquire patents relat- ed to energy-beam welding externally rather than developing the technolo- gy itself. Questions: Who are the top com- mercial organizations with respect to welding technology development, and which of those are particularly focused on energy-beam welding? When have these entities been active in the field? Are they recently emerging, which might be attractive for early technolo- gy alliances? Or have they been recent- ly inactive, perhaps exiting the market and seeking to sell their patents? Patent Analytics: Figure 3 shows a listing of several large welding-relat- ed patent portfolio holders. Addition- al relevant data includes the welding patent portfolio size, the recency of the portfolio, and the relative intensity of patenting in specific welding technolo- gy types. Patent Intelligence: The highest patent volume entities in this field ap- pear to be commercially focused either on steel production or the automotive industry. Two steel company competi- tors (Steel Co. B and Steel Co. C) have a slightly greater number of energy-beam welding patents. Although these com- panies may not be desirable transaction partners due to their competitive na- ture, they nonetheless might be worth evaluating for possible shifts in busi- ness focus and consequent interest in patent out-licensing or sale. Patent acquisition from one of the automotive companies may have few- er competitive constraints and present different sourcing options. Automotive Co. X has the overall largest welding technology patent portfolio, along with a moderately sized patent portfolio re- lated to energy-beam welding. The fact that Co. X also has the most recent port- folio (70% filed in past five years) might suggest, on the positive side, technol- ogies that leverage the latest develop- ments in the field. On the other hand, because Co. X appears to be actively building a portfolio in the energy-beam welding area, it might be less inclined to pursue out-license or sale of patents in that area. In contrast, although the energy- beam welding patents owned by Auto- motiveCo.YandCo.Zmightbemorema- ture and therefore less “cutting edge,” their less recent patent portfolios might also suggest that they are no longer fo- cused in this area and might be open to out-licensing or sale negotiations. As illustrated in this example, ad- ditional options become available for Fig. 3 — Company commercial focus, patent portfolio size, recency, and technical focus.