Upload
cambridgeip-ltd
View
2.953
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
CambridgeIP presentation to the \"Licensing Executives Society\" Annual Meeting 2008. We identified the need for creative IP management and royalty sharing model to meet the renewable energy technology transfer needs in coming years
Citation preview
© 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Technology Transfer in the Renewable Energy Space: Key Challenges and Opportunities for the Technology Licensing Community
Ilian Iliev (CEO) , CambridgeIP Ltd
To: Licensing Executives Society Annual Meeting
2nd July, 2008
2 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
5 Year Growth of Technology Field and Share of All Biosensors Field
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The
rmom
etr
ic
Surf
ace
Acou
stic W
ave
Bio
mim
etic
Para
magnetic
Ra
man
Spe
ctr
oscopy
Flu
ore
scence
Poly
mera
se
Ch
ain
Reaction
Optical
Photo
acoustic
Ele
ctr
oche
mic
al
Pie
zo
ele
ctr
ic
Py
roly
sis
Pa
ten
ts F
ile
d in
las
t 5 Y
ears
as
% o
f T
ota
l
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Tec
hn
olo
gy F
ield
as %
of
All
Bio
se
nso
r P
ate
nts
% of Patents in Last 5 years
% of All Patents in Field
CambridgeIP is an innovative and cost-effective provider of:
• Actionable IP intelligence
• To the technology sector
• In the UK and internationally
We are not a legal service provider:
• IP Lawyers are our clients too
We have offices in Cambridge and London, and representation in Boston, USA
CambridgeIP Snapshot
Number of New Patent Applications by Year
166
32 3426
43
2738 37
45
75 71
97
76 71
102
228
204
140149
82
61
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Development over Time of the Relevant Industry Segments
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A61N 7/00 A61K 9/50 C12N
CambridgeIP has developed a comprehensive capability in deploying actionable IP-based business intelligence
Patent Distribution: Top 5 IPCs
H01R 12/00, 5.8%
H01R 13/22, 5.4%
H01R 13/24, 5.3%
H01R 11/11, 5.1%
H01R 11/28, 4.5%
Other: 74%
© 2007
Precise definition of your technology space & key patent ranking
Related Industrial applications
Number of New Patent Applications by Year
1 1 3 2 4 2 5 6 716
6
32 3426
43
2738 37
45
75 71
97
76 7 1
102
228
204
140149
82
61
0
5 0
1 00
1 5 0
200
25 0
1973
1974
1976
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
History and trends
Top 10 Assignees and Number of Patents65
55
45
40
30
26
20 19 1816
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Assignee 1 Assignee 2 Assignee 3 Assignee 4 Assignee 5 Assignee 6 Assignee 7 Assignee 8 Assignee 9 Assignee
10
`
Top Inventors & Top Assignees
Selected Assignees: Patent Portfolio Key NumbersRank by
# of
Patents
in S.2
Assignee Name #Assignee
Patents in
Search 2A
Year of 1st
Patent
Application in
Search 2
Total Patents in
Client
Industry*
Total #
Patents by
Assignee
Search 2A
Patents
After 2000
1 ASSIGNEE 1 124 1981 2,568 501,746 23
2 ASSIGNEE 2 50 1978 3,857 676,142 6
3 ASSIGNEE 3 46 1975 3,164 720,028 6
4 ASSIGNEE 4 36 1979 3,413 727,743 11
5 ASSIGNEE 5 14 1977 2,659 155,148 3
Selected Assignees: Patent Portfolio Key RatiosRank by
# of
Patents
in S.2
Assignee Name Assignee
Patents as %
of all Patents
in Search 2A
Search 2A
Patents as % of
All Assignee
Patents in Client
Industry*
Search 2A
Patents as % of
Assignee All
Patents
Overall
Importance
of Client
Industry* for
Assignee
Search 2A
Patents:
Growth
2000-6
1 ASSIGNEE 1 14% 4.8% 0.025% 0.51% 18.5%
2 ASSIGNEE 2 6% 1.3% 0.007% 0.57% 12.0%
3 ASSIGNEE 3 5% 1.5% 0.006% 0.44% 13.0%
4 ASSIGNEE 4 4% 1.1% 0.005% 0.47% 30.6%10 ASSIGNEE 5 2% 0.5% 0.009% 1.71% 21.4%
Deep Analysis of Corporate IP Portfolios
Inventor Network Analysis
Patent Ranking: Score Distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Patent number
Score
© 2007
Keywords Weighting Weight
Tech. descriptor 1 2
Tech. descriptor 2 2
Tech. descriptor 3 2
Tech. descriptor 4 2
Tech. descriptor 5 2
Tech. descriptor 6 10
Tech. descriptor 7 10
Tech. descriptor 8 8
Tech. descriptor 9 8
Tech. descriptor 10 10
Tech. descriptor 11 10
VISIT WWW.CAMBRIDGEIP.COM
4 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Example: Assignee & Inventor Network Analysis
We discover inventor networks relevant to a client’s technology space
That enables clients to identify more licensing opportunities, and develop an approach strategy
© 2008© 2008
Legend
Blue Bubble: Inventor
Red Bubble: Patent Owner (Assignee)
Bubble Size: # of Patents
Line Thickness: # of joint patents
5 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Our work in the renewable space
A sample of projects in the past year:
R&D portfolio of major corporate players Clean Coal Technology
Licensing strategy development & competitor monitoring
Air Supply Systems to Fuel-Cells
Identify key developing economy world playersBioMass Electricity
Identify value chain changesPhoto-Voltaics
ID incumbents’ R&D strategyAlternative Refrigeration Technologies
Key QuestionsFocus Area
We are also working with Climate Strategies to identify technology transfer trends in the renewable space
6 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Renewable Energy: The Broader Context
• We are in the early stages of a transition to a low-carbon economy– The last time we did this was in the industrialisation era
(electricity, rail, steam)– We are now doing it in a 20-30 year span
• This transition will be characterised by technology development and technology deployment on a massive scale– Trillions of dollars of investment in R&D & deployment– Strong role for Government in funding, regulatory frameworks
and market creation
As a professional community we need to take into account the institutional framework which is
emerging: and how that impacts IP management options for our clients
7 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Renewable are already mainstream: Example PV Space
JFE Steel 5,156 2
Selected EU cell manufacturers
Würth Solar - DE 4 EU
SollandSolar -Nl 228 nil or n/a nil or n/a
Solterra - Swiss 0 0 EU
Selected Jp cell manufacturers
Kaneka Solartech 4,927 295 Japan
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 7,545 30 Japan
Fuji Electric 56,841 82 Japan
Selected US cell manufacturers
GE Energy 76 nil or n/a US
Solar Power Ind. 77 15 US
Ebara Solar 129 12 US
SunPower 313 25
Source: Own research
PV Competitive Space: Key Players' IP Portfolios
Company name The total number of
patents held by the
company
# of PV patents held
by the company
Country
Top 10 cell manufacturers
Sharp 140,836 433 Japan
Sanyo 143,645 276 Japan
Kyocera 36,108 63 Japan
BP Solar 99 15 EU
Shell Solar 51 14 US
Schott Solar 56 11 EU
Mitsubishi Electric 248,251 8 Japan
Japanese Conglomerates dominate the patenting space
The Oil majors are also entering this space
8 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
What is the impact on the business of IP professionals?
We are already seeing the impact in the composition of our deal flow:
• AIM has been a major destination for alternative energy start-ups
• Increased VC investment in alternative energy start-ups
• Boom in activity by established corporations
• Increased deal flow from University TTOs
• Government funding into research (KTNs, Carbon Trust, NESTA, etc.)
So far, this has been a patent-intensive field, combining complex multi-disciplinary technologies
So far, so good…
9 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Policy Framework & Economic Context
Policy Framework
• The UN Climate Change Conference and the Bali Action Plan (2007) are setting the framework:– All countries are jointly responsible for emissions reductions
– Have to pursue measurable, reportable and verifiable actions
– Developed countries have obligations to support developing countries through, among other things, technology transfer
It is now recognised that the key problem for Climate Change strategies is carbon emissions from high-growth developing economies, such as India & China
The majority of energy infrastructure investment in the next 20-30 years will be in India and China combined: it is the growth opportunity
Already major corporate players are expressing fears about protection of IP by selling & co-developing technology in these markets
10 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
There are long-term challenges to how IP Management is practiced
Two elements to a successful and rapid transition to a low-carbon economy
1. Rapid development of new technologies
2. Rapid deployment and diffusion of these technologies
Herein lies a paradox:
• Patents provide the incentives for private actors to innovate
• But a strong patent regime may also discourage and slow down the deployment of new technologies
11 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
Tensions in the current system may build up…
If the current patent system and licensing practices are seen as a barrier to innovation and technology diffusion of low carbon technologies, you may see:– NGO action to ‘force open’ the IP portfolios
– Government action to go around IP rights
– Attachment of ‘open sourcing’ conditions to R&D funding
It has happened before!!!
12 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
There is a lot that we can do to lead the debate!
The licensing professionals community is in a unique position to pro-activelyidentify the IP licensing regime most conducive which will incentivise both – R&D Investment & collaborative innovation
– and Technology diffusion/deployment
Past examples of innovative industry-level licensing models
Differentiated pricing for drugs according to an economy’s level of development
Pharma: AIDS drugs
Intel, Cisco, Samsung, Sprint, Alcatel: joint licensing of WiMax patents to limit Royalties costs
WiMax
Symbian: formed 1998 in partnership with Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Psion
Royalty-free access for mobile app. developers
Mobile Phone Operating System
ModelIndustry
13 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
In Conclusion: Some Questions to Consider
• What are the innovative IP licensing regimes we have seen in the past that could be applied?
• How can we balance the interests of incumbents, new entrants and consumers?
• What differentiated pricing regimes between different countries can be implemented?
• What mechanisms do we have for licensing revenue administration in pooled IP portfolio?
• How can we increase transparency? E.g. licensing reporting framework, benchmarking, valuation principles…
14 © 2008 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved..
…and finally…
Feel free to discuss your specific IP Intelligence requirements with us
Sign up to our Newsletter and visit our blog to get regular IP Intelligence insights
Thank You !
Ilian Iliev
(CEO and Founder)
www.cambridgeip.com
Tel: 01223 370 098