How to create patent landscapes intelligently
In my previous posts in this series, I tried to expose the myths related to the usage of patent landscape studies. In this post, I will explore prevalent myths related to the execution of landscape studies. This post can be useful to analysts and managers with responsibilities to conduct and/or commission patent landscape studies.
Download entire Article (Click Here)
Please download entire article from above link. The article discusses realities and action steps on below mentioned Myths.
Myth 6: Any patent analysis with charts is landscaping
Reality: Contrary to popular belief, any patent analysis with charts does not constitute a patent landscape. One chart can speak a thousand words, but mere inclusion of charts does not suffice a thorough analysis. A chart is a nice way of representation of the analysis; however, mere inclusion of chart without any specific objective may not qualify a study for a landscape. Unlike other patent analysis studies, patent landscapes have broader business perspectives and can be used by a diverse set of audience. A competitive patent intelligence cannot be deemed to be complete if it does not relate hard market facts with patent trends. There is a very thin line demarcating patent intelligence and patent mining from patent landscape projects.
Action Step: Landscape insights can cater to a vast and diverse set of audiences, such as strategists, technology managers, and attorneys. On the other hand, other patent analysis studies such as FTO and Patentability assessment have very narrow and specific objectives and are often targeted to a particular set of audience. Such analysis with very specific objective and directed to a particular set of audience cannot be termed as landscape report. Patent landscapes should be created with broad strategic objectives in mind. To create a high impact patent landscape report, analysts should look into ancillary data to complement the patent analysis. Landscape charts should complement the study by representing the analysis and the findings of the study
Myth7: An endless presentation with lots charts will please the end user
Reality: Bibliographic data of subject patents is the key to understand technology trends. There are more than thirty quantitative parameters that could be used to address a wide variety of business objectives. These parameters could then be co-related to create an endless list of analysis charts. However, one must evaluate the relevance of each and every chart presented in the analysis.
Action Step: Each chart should address at least one predefined objective of the study. One chart with an insightful message is better than a hundred charts without any objectives. It may not be useful or even feasible for the end user to go through hundreds of charts to find answers to his key questions. The analysis should be concise and solution oriented. An endless presentation with lots of useless charts can ultimately confuse the end user
Myth8: Automated patent analysis can provide usable insights
Reality:There are lots of automated and “cool” patent analytics tool available in the market. In my view, they are really useful when the researcher is looking for a general overview on a certain technology. However, they may not be equally suitable for making key strategic moves
Action Step:Normally, automated tools rely on artificial intelligence to explore the area of interest. They may provide useful insights on the subject field. However, artificial intelligence, no matter how precise it claims to be, cannot replace human judgment and intelligence in presenting a meaningful analysis.
Myth 9: Organization of underlying data is not important
Reality: Landscapes do not provide magical answers to the questions instantly and definitively. Organization of data and in-depth analysis of extracted data is the key to conduct a meaningful landscape study. In certain cases, the underlying data is overlooked and not organized properly, leading to flawed inferences. For effective usage of landscape reports, it is essential that end users refer to the underlying data to validate the findings.
Action Step: A landscape report should be accompanied with user friendly and well organized reference data. End users must thoroughly understand the criteria and/or assumptions for data organization and data analysis. If patents were categorized in certain categories, tandem to address the objective, it must be understood clearly. It is also important to understand the factors considered while normalizing key bibliographic data such as assignee and inventors.
Myth 10: Patent landscape is an hourly based activity
Reality: Patent landscapes are generally planned by estimating the number of effort hours rather than by gauging the overall objective of the study. In certain cases, to fit the study within the time frame of planned hours, efforts in technical analysis are reduced or search criterion is restricted. This approach may be counterproductive for the study and may not provide optimum returns on investments.
Action Step:Landscape studies should be objective driven and must be constantly monitored and questioned to track the progress of the study. Patent landscape studies tend to deviate by size of data or by complexity of the technology. However, an adept analyst should be careful and aware of such deviations and situations while planning and executing a landscape study
I hope you will like the article. Please feel free to post your comments and views on these myths.
In my previous posts in this series, I tried to expose the myths related to the usage of patent landscape studies. In this post, I will explore prevalent myths related to the execution of landscape studies. This post can be useful to analysts and managers with responsibilities to conduct and/or commission patent landscape studies.
Download entire Article (Click Here)
Please download entire article from above link. The article discusses realities and action steps on below mentioned Myths.
Myth 6: Any patent analysis with charts is landscaping
Reality: Contrary to popular belief, any patent analysis with charts does not constitute a patent landscape. One chart can speak a thousand words, but mere inclusion of charts does not suffice a thorough analysis. A chart is a nice way of representation of the analysis; however, mere inclusion of chart without any specific objective may not qualify a study for a landscape. Unlike other patent analysis studies, patent landscapes have broader business perspectives and can be used by a diverse set of audience. A competitive patent intelligence cannot be deemed to be complete if it does not relate hard market facts with patent trends. There is a very thin line demarcating patent intelligence and patent mining from patent landscape projects.
Action Step: Landscape insights can cater to a vast and diverse set of audiences, such as strategists, technology managers, and attorneys. On the other hand, other patent analysis studies such as FTO and Patentability assessment have very narrow and specific objectives and are often targeted to a particular set of audience. Such analysis with very specific objective and directed to a particular set of audience cannot be termed as landscape report. Patent landscapes should be created with broad strategic objectives in mind. To create a high impact patent landscape report, analysts should look into ancillary data to complement the patent analysis. Landscape charts should complement the study by representing the analysis and the findings of the study
Myth7: An endless presentation with lots charts will please the end user
Reality: Bibliographic data of subject patents is the key to understand technology trends. There are more than thirty quantitative parameters that could be used to address a wide variety of business objectives. These parameters could then be co-related to create an endless list of analysis charts. However, one must evaluate the relevance of each and every chart presented in the analysis.
Action Step: Each chart should address at least one predefined objective of the study. One chart with an insightful message is better than a hundred charts without any objectives. It may not be useful or even feasible for the end user to go through hundreds of charts to find answers to his key questions. The analysis should be concise and solution oriented. An endless presentation with lots of useless charts can ultimately confuse the end user
Myth8: Automated patent analysis can provide usable insights
Reality:There are lots of automated and “cool” patent analytics tool available in the market. In my view, they are really useful when the researcher is looking for a general overview on a certain technology. However, they may not be equally suitable for making key strategic moves
Action Step:Normally, automated tools rely on artificial intelligence to explore the area of interest. They may provide useful insights on the subject field. However, artificial intelligence, no matter how precise it claims to be, cannot replace human judgment and intelligence in presenting a meaningful analysis.
Myth 9: Organization of underlying data is not important
Reality: Landscapes do not provide magical answers to the questions instantly and definitively. Organization of data and in-depth analysis of extracted data is the key to conduct a meaningful landscape study. In certain cases, the underlying data is overlooked and not organized properly, leading to flawed inferences. For effective usage of landscape reports, it is essential that end users refer to the underlying data to validate the findings.
Action Step: A landscape report should be accompanied with user friendly and well organized reference data. End users must thoroughly understand the criteria and/or assumptions for data organization and data analysis. If patents were categorized in certain categories, tandem to address the objective, it must be understood clearly. It is also important to understand the factors considered while normalizing key bibliographic data such as assignee and inventors.
Myth 10: Patent landscape is an hourly based activity
Reality: Patent landscapes are generally planned by estimating the number of effort hours rather than by gauging the overall objective of the study. In certain cases, to fit the study within the time frame of planned hours, efforts in technical analysis are reduced or search criterion is restricted. This approach may be counterproductive for the study and may not provide optimum returns on investments.
Action Step:Landscape studies should be objective driven and must be constantly monitored and questioned to track the progress of the study. Patent landscape studies tend to deviate by size of data or by complexity of the technology. However, an adept analyst should be careful and aware of such deviations and situations while planning and executing a landscape study
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment