Rejection relationship analysis contents map
As an example, Apple, Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass) technology field and Apple's Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass) technology field are provided for technology trend contents utilizing PatentPia GoldenCompass. If you click on the chain (link) marks that are attached to each item in the above utilization map, the example page will open in a new window.
Kinds of inputs in rejection relationship analysis
PatentPia provides different rejection analysis contents for single and compound item inputs. Single items include i) organizations such as companies/universities/research institutes, ii) technology fields(technology categories, keyword patent classifications (IPC/CPC)), and iii) inventors. Compound items have a company's technology field and an inventor's technology field.
Below is an analysis of the No. of rejecting subsequent patents rejected by preceding patents in possession, for each company that has a patent in this technology field, given the technology field of “Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)”.
From the above analysis data, we can see that the company with the strongest technology leadership in the field of “Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)” is MS, and the companies with the fastest growing technology leadership (relatively) are Magic Leap and LG Electronics.
Kinds of output in rejection relationship analysis
In rejection relationship analysis, the outputs are i) a series of trends for the input, ii) a series of inventors affiliated with the input, and iii) a series of companies and related inventors related to the input.
The example below analyzes inventors who have invented patents related to field 'Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)' and have a high No. of rejecting subsequent patents for their invented patents.
Inventors who invented patents with a high No. of rejecting subsequent patents may be key targets for recruitment in this field. On the one hand, that inventor's organization may need to take steps to prevent turnover of these key researchers.
On the other hand, the example below analyzes a company (e.g., Apple) that has a large number of preceding patents in possession that have been rejected by a particular company (e.g., Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)). Among these companies, competing companies, large companies, NPEs, etc. can be a source of risk, while small companies can be business opportunities such as M&A/investment targets, etc.
On the other hand, the example below analyzes inventors with a number of preceding patents in possession that have been rejected by a preceding company (e.g., Apple) for patents related to field (e.g., Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)). These inventors could be a source of turnover risk for the company, while inventors from other companies could be an HR business opportunity, such as targets for recruiting.
Kinds of output information
The information in the rejection analysis contents includes i) Count (e.g., No. of rejecting subsequent patents, etc.), ii) Count per patent (e.g., No. of rejecting subsequent patents per patent), iii) Share of count (e.g., Share of rejecting subsequent patents, coming soon), iv) Reason for rejection (lack of novelty, non-obviousness), and v) Independent claim relatedness.
Of these, the count per patent series is an index of density or strength. There are companies or inventors with a small number of patents in possession or invented patents with a small number of rejecting subsequent patents per patent. These can be key targets for M&A/investments or recruiting.
The example below analyzes rejected subsequent patents in possession in a specific field (e.g., Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)), but there are strong companies with a high No. of rejected subsequent patents per patent. These companies can be targets for M&A/investments or open innovation business opportunities.
Trends in rejection by input
Entering technology field
When entering a technology field, the key is to analyze/identify i) rejection related key companies and ii) rejection related key researchers. Rejection related key can be analyzed by i) various counts, ii) No. of patents, and iii) various networks.
Entering company(with/without technology field)
When entering companies (with/without technology field), you can analyze i) No. of rejected subsequent patents in possession, ii) No. of rejected preceding patents in possession, iii) No. of rejected preceding patents inventors.
Entering inventor
On the other hand, when entering inventors, it is important to analyze companies with rejecting subsequent patents in possession of invented patents.
The example below is the analysis contents for Meier Peter, an inventor who has many rejected preceding patents related to field (e.g., Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)) of a certain company (e.g., Apple). The No. of rejected subsequent patents in possession by companies whose invented patents were rejected by this inventor. These analysis data can play an important role in Apple's HR work. Furthermore, such analysis data can be utilized as recruiting data for companies with subsequent patents in possession.
Features of PatentPia rejection analysis contents
Rejection contents based on collective input
PatentPia GoldenCompass citation contents go beyond individual patent units to provide rejection contents based on patent set criteria. Patent set criteria has patent sets corresponding to i) company, ii) keyword, iii) technology field/patent classification, iv) researcher , v) keyword/technology field/patent classification of company, vi) keyword/technology field/patent classification of researcher. Rejection contents based on patent set criteria is an innovative data service from a global view, and has a wide range of utilization.
Segmented rejection contents
PatentPia GoldenCompass rejection contents are segmented by i) rejection stage, such as first rejection vs. final rejection, ii) claim division, such as independent claim vs. total claims, iii) nonself rejection vs. self rejection, iv) total rejections vs. rejections per patent (density), v) total rejections vs. in bound (input patent and rejection relationship patent exist within the same technology) rejections, etc. See example below.
Additionally, PatentPia Analytics allows you to analyze rejections by special patents.
Below is an analysis of rejections of preceding patents in possession related to field (e.g., Augmented Reality (AR; AR glass)) by a particular company (e.g., Apple).
Business-oriented rejection contents
By utilizing PatentPia GoldenCompass rejection contents,
i) Comparison of technology (technology leadership) between companies using rejection data, the most objective data for technology comparison,
ii) Identify M&A/investment/collaboration targets in a specific field, such as companies with a large number of (special/important) patents in possession of self/competing companies/market leaders, companies with recent rejected preceding patents, or companies with a large number of rejecting subsequent patents per patent, etc.
iii) HR/Collaboration/open innovation targeting researchers who invented many/recently rejected preceding patents in possession of (special/important) patents held by themselves/competing researchers/market leaders in a particular field, or researchers with many rejecting subsequent patents per invented patent, etc.
iv) Patent purchase/licensing in-target discovery of targeted patent purchases/licensing in-targeted researchers who have invented (special/important) patents in possession of themselves/competitors/market leaders in a particular field, or who have many preceding patents in possession with recent rejections, etc.
etc., to uncover technology/patent business opportunities.
v) On the other hand, through self-rejection, core patents of competitors/market leaders can be systematically discovered. Furthermore, by utilizing the rejection relationship well, it may be possible to explore and analyze the structural vulnerabilities of the discovered core patents (three).
Risk management-oriented rejection contents
By utilizing PatentPia GoldenCompass rejection contents,
i) Patent risk recognition centered on companies (especially NPEs) with preceding patents in possession that have a high total amount of rejections, spikes in rejections, or rejections per patent in a particular field is possible.
Framework for analysis of rejection relationship
Understanding the analysis framework of rejection relationship
A rejection relationship has i) two rejection directions and ii) two targets for analysis in each direction. The rejection directions are based on the input (self), i) the direction of rejecting subsequent patents rejected by the input (self) patent set, and ii) the direction of rejecting preceding patents rejecting the company patent set. In each direction, there are i) analyzing the self (input) patent set, and ii) analyzing the target patent set rejected by the self (input) patent set, or rejecting the self (input) patent set.
Accordingly, the rejection relationship analysis is i) #1: analysis of subsequent patents rejected by the input (self) patent set, ii) #2: analysis of the input (self) patent set used to reject subsequent patents, iii) #3: analysis of the preceding patent set used to reject the input (self) patent set, and iv) #4: analysis of the input (self) patent set rejected by the preceding patent set.
Key points of the rejection relationship analysis
#1 : Analysis of rejecting subsequent patents rejected by input(self) patent set
#1 The key point of the rejection relationship analysis is the time series (including increase and decrease) of the No. of patents rejected by the targeted subsequent companies. In particular, the analysis of companies with subsequent patents rejected due to lack of novelty and companies with subsequent patents with independent claims rejected is important, especially if these subsequent companies are market leaders or competing companies. Furthermore, rejections of specialty patents by market leaders or competitors are even more important. Furthermore, breaking down the subsequent patent set by market leader or competitor's segmented technology (keyword, technology classification, CPC, etc.) field will provide even deeper market/competitive intelligence.
#2 : Key points of analysis of input (self) patent set used to reject subsequent patents
#2 The key point of rejection relationship analysis is to discover i) patents in possession/invented patents, or ii) key researchers who have rejected patents of (latest/special/important technology field) of market leaders or competitors #2 Rejection relationship analysis can be utilized to discover various patent/technology business opportunities.
#3 : Key points of analysis of preceding patents used for rejection of input(self) patent set
#3 The key point of rejection relationship analysis is to find out the target preceding i) by company, ii) by researchers (inventors), iii) by technology field, iv) patents that rejected the input(self) patentset.
#4 : Key points of analysis of input patent set rejected by preceding patents
#4 The key point of rejection relationship analysis is to discover the segment of the input(self) patent set that is exposed to patent risk, especially if the preceding patents are special patents or the right holder of the preceding patents is i) a competitor, ii) an NPE (patent monster, non-practicing entity). On the other hand, patent risk is also high if the input (self) patent set is a special patent.
#4 Rejection relationships are risky, but on the other hand, they can also be business opportunities. If the preceding company in possession of the preceding patents is a SME/venture company, the company may be a candidate for M&A/investment/license in. The preceding researchers who invented the preceding patents, especially if they are SME/venture companies or researchers at universities/research institutes, may be a target for HR or collaboration. The preceding patents with a large number of rejections of the input (self) patent set or rejecting an important input (self) patent set may be a target for purchase or license in.