Patent Landscapes: Myth Series – II

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.

Patent Landscapes: Myth Series – I

How to use patent landscapes strategically


Download entire Article (Click Here)

In my previous write-ups, I tried to discuss the theoretical importance of patents in the corporate environment. I agree that this is easier said than done. In this myth series, I will explore common pitfalls in landscape studies. This will be useful for managers with responsibilities to create and organize landscape studies and take strategic decisions based upon them.


Please download entire article from above link. The article discusses realities and action steps on below mentioned Myths


Myth 1: A single Patent landscape can address multiple business objectives

Reality: Patent landscapes are highly specialized studies which should address single or limited business objectives. A landscape is a knowledge intensive document. Looking at the knowledge management framework, it is a fact that knowledge evolves from information which comes from data. Data is a raw material for information and adding context to information makes it usable knowledge.

Action Step:Information derived from patent data used in a landscape needs a meaningful objective. Just as it is impossible to shoot multiple targets using a single arrow, a landscape should not be used for addressing multiple business objectives. A well considered landscape report should be prepared in light of a certain business objective. Information should be analyzed to add context which is directly relevant to that business objective.

Myth 2:  Landscaping is just about interpreting charts based on patents

Reality: High value patents are important assets & components in any technology business. However, technologies protected by patents are also affected by market, technology acceptance, business environment, and regulatory frameworks. 

Action Step:It is important to analyze information in light of trends presented by patents in technology/competitive/other landscapes. A patent strategist should evaluate external factors that may influence effective use of patent landscapes. It is advisable to involve marketing/ commercial personnel or complement the patent trends with thorough business and market intelligence.

Myth 3:  Flashy charts make a good patent landscape

Reality:Experts in data visualization, such as Edward Tufte, Stephen Few, etc, have scientifically proven that charts are not about the “Glitz” effect but about the information they present and how easy they are to interpret. A chart with multiple dimensions and 3D effects may not necessarily help in taking business decision. Sure they look great and the presenter may feel proud showing off the charts in boardroom meetings. However, one must see its practical use

Action Step:It is important to use charts, colors and analysis in a practical way rather than like artistic expressions. Sometime the use of tables instead of charts is much more practical. Landscape is all about data in business problem context. Hence, display data as simply and clearly as possible. Use novel representation methods such as Heat maps, bullet graphs, and excel based dashboards while presenting large and complex data.

Myth 4: Patent landscape is a three step process

Reality:It is a common misconception that landscape is all about Searching > Sorting > Charting. A good landscape always starts with a concrete problem statement based on which a thorough analysis is performed. Patent Landscapes must consider all the facets of business as discussed above.

Action Step: A good patent landscape involves multiple steps with a thorough analysis at the end of each milestone. A single mistake can change the face of an entire study. A landscape is about 80% planning and 20% execution. A patent landscape is about finding information that is not visible and apparent from plain charts. For example, a top assignee chart may tell who owns the most patents. However, it may be interesting to see if there is a player somewhere further down the list who out performs in the quality of innovation. Landscape is all about seeing the invisibles.

Myth 5:  A landscape can solve complex business issues

Reality: A landscape is not going to solve your entire problem. It is just a map to cross the often bewildering patent minefield. A manager with only a map may not always be able to solve an IP issue or take strategic decisions. It will show some areas that should be analyzed more deeply or companies who need to be monitored at regular intervals. Analysis without context and deep analysis may not help in finding strategic solutions.

Action Step: A landscape study must be followed by a more in-depth study of the underlying data and spinoff more focused studies which provide a definite fact. Patent claims must be analyzed to see what they protect and what is there in the patent minefield. Underlying data must be questioned and analyzed before any strategic step.

Comments & Suggestions invited. These are my personal opinions not my employer’s