onduct patent portfolio analysis using comparative Topic Maps · using comparative Topic Maps July...

Conduct patent portfolio analysis using comparative Topic Maps

July 2013

Copyright © 2013, INDUS TechInnovations, All rights reserved.

Conduct patent portfolio analysis using comparative Topic Maps 2

Introduction

Patent analysts, in their search for relevant patents in specific domains, constantly strive to go beyond

simple keyword search. They aim to grasp the core ideas that each patent invention addresses and

understand how they are related.

Concepts are particularly useful to focus on all the relevant patents [See Ref. 1] addressing a specific

technology. In fact, the relevant patents may have been filed in different application areas as against the

one being studied. As various technologies develop, older patent inventions could find use in completely

new areas. Also, the terminologies used in disparate application areas, may be different. Hence, a keyword

search—in all probability—will not yield all the relevant patents. A search around patent concepts has a

better chance of unearthing such relevant patents.

Topic Maps in Relecura, enable the creation of visual landscapes of the key concepts and class codes within

a portfolio. They help understand the prevalence as well as proximity of several concepts and class codes.

At a practical level, understanding the relation of the various concepts and class codes aids in the

formulation of a comprehensive search strategy. At a higher level, Topic Maps help visualize technology

landscapes and compare the technology emphasis of different portfolios. Additionally, these maps can

enable organizations to determine the strengths of their individual patent portfolios as well as identify

potential areas for in-licensing or patent acquisitions.

Topic Maps help visualize the topics covered by a portfolio, the number of patents in each topic, and the

relative proximity of the topics. You can also get insights into the portfolio and organize the patents into

coherent groups or buckets to target specific licensees or buyers.

Background

The entire patent database is first processed to extract the key concepts from each patent document.

These concepts are then provided as an additional facet to search for relevant patents. We further process

the patent database to determine the relation of the various extracted concepts and class codes (US

classes, IPC and CPC codes) [Ref. 1].

The above concept and class code relationships are made available in Relecura via the Landscape feature.

In contrast, Topic Maps help visualize the connections between the concepts and class codes for individual

result sets. You can also use Topic Maps to view a comparison across multiple portfolios.

Case study

We have applied the Topic Map methodology to study patent landscape for Carbon Capture and

Sequestration technologies [Ref. 2]. Carbon dioxide is trapped in the flue gases produced in power

generation and other industrial processes such as manufacturing of cement and steel. Carbon Capture and

Sequestration is one proposed solution to reduce the emission of these greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere. The process involves extraction and transportation of carbon dioxide, and its subsequent

storage in underground reservoirs.



Methodology

1. We first identify a superset of patents related to Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the main

patent geographies using appropriate keywords and IPC codes. While carrying out this search, we

select keywords and IPC codes that cover the various sub-technologies within Carbon Capture.

Further, we analyse these sets to obtain various facets of the patent landscape.

2. We remove patents with filing dates prior to 1993. We then group the resulting set by application

number.

3. We identify the top patent holders in Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies from the

superset of relevant patents.

4. Portfolio Comparison - Initially, we create a Comparative Topic Map of patent portfolios of the

top three players, to understand their relative strengths.

5. White space analysis - We then create a Comparative Topic Map of the patent portfolio of Calera

Corporation and the superset is created. This clearly indicates the specific sub-technologies

addressed by Calera's portfolio and the ones where it lacks coverage.

6. We use Topic Maps of both concepts and CPC codes in the analysis.

Notes:

Patent counts shown are indicative. A more comprehensive search is required to confirm the

number of patent assets held by the various entities.

The analysis is solely based on published patent applications with the various patent authorities,

assignments recorded at the USPTO, and other data in the public domain.

Figure 1. Key patent holders in Carbon Capture technologies

The above chart indicates that the top patent holders in this technology include General Electric,

Mitsubishi, followed by ExxonMobil Research. The patent portfolios of these companies are further

analyzed using Comparative Topic Maps.



Compare portfolios using Topic Maps

Figure 2 displays a Comparative Topic Map featuring concepts of portfolios of the top three patent holders

in Carbon Capture technologies. The concepts displayed give an indication of the specific sub-technologies

addressed by each portfolio. And the size of each bubble indicates the total number of patents across the

portfolios. The colored sectors in each bubble denote the relative number of patents held by each

company.

Figure 2. Comparative Topic Map for concepts comparing portfolios of ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi, and General Electric

addressing Carbon Capture technologies

The graph visually represents the following information:

General Electric holds patent assets in diverse sub-technologies in the area of Carbon Capture.

Mitsubishi’s patent holdings mainly address chemical processes and heat transfer associated with

Carbon Capture (for example the use of Amines for CO2 removal, and the use of the Sorption

technique for CO2 separation).

ExxonMobil holds patents related to adsorption.

The process patents held by General Electric and ExxonMobil relate to the diffusion process for

CO2 separation.

All three companies hold patents addressing the combustion method of CO2 separation.

The patents held by General Electric and Mitsubishi relate to CO2 removal from the gases

produced by turbines and in power generation, with General Electric having a greater number of

such patents.



The emphasis of ExxonMobil’s patents are towards CO2 removal from the gases produced in oil

refining and petroleum extraction.

Figure 3 displays a Comparative Topic map using CPC codes for the same three portfolios. Just as in the

case of the Concept Topic Map, related CPC codes are grouped in closer proximity to each other indicating

greater relatedness. We can easily identify the main CPC codes representing the various sub-technologies.

These are listed in Table 1.

Figure 3. Topic Map for CPC codes comparing portfolios of ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi, and General Electric addressing

Carbon Capture technologies

Table 1. Main CPC codes connected with the various sub-domains of Carbon Capture technologies

CPC Code Description

Y02C 10/06 CO2 Capture by absorption

B01D 2257/504 Removal of CO2

B01D 53/1475 Removing carbon dioxide by absorption

Y02E 20/18 REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES [GHG] EMISSION in Integrated gasification combined cycle

B01D 53/62 Removing carbon oxides by diffusion

Y02E 20/16 REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES [GHG] EMISSION in Combined cycle power plant [CCPP], or combined cycle gas turbine

Y02C 10/08 CO2 Capture by adsorption

F02C 3/34 Gas-turbine plants characterised by the use of combustion products as the working fluid and with recycling of part of the working fluid

Y02C 10/10 CO2 Capture by membranes or diffusion




F23J 2215/50 Preventing Carbon dioxide emissions

C01B 2203/0475 composition of CO2 as impurity in the production of hydrogen or Synthesis gas

B01D 53/1462 Removing mixtures of hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide by absorption

B01D 53/02 Separation of gases or vapours by adsorption

B01D 2258/0283 Flue gases

B01D 2253/108 Zeolites used in separation treatment of gases and vapours

F23J 15/006 Layout of treatment plant for treating smoke or fumes

F02C 6/18 Using the waste heat of gas-turbine plants outside the plants themselves

B01D 53/0423 construction details of adsorbing systems for separation of gases

F05D 2260/61 Removal of CO2

C01B 2203/84 Energy production using production of hydrogen or synthesis gas

B01D 2252/204 Amines for Gas absorption

C01B 3/16 production of hydrogen or of gaseous mixtures containing hydrogen using catalysts

C01B 2203/0415 purification step for the hydrogen or the synthesis gas by absorption in liquids

B01D 53/22 Separation of gases or vapours by diffusion

F23J 2219/40 Sorption with wet devices, e.g. scrubbers

B01D 53/0462 controlling adsorption for separation of gases

B01D 53/228 Multiple stage diffusion for separation of gases or vapours

C01B 2203/0283 Integrated processes for the production of hydrogen or synthesis gas by decomposition containing a CO-shift step

C10L 3/10 Working-up natural gas or synthetic natural gas

F02C 3/22 Gas-turbine plants characterised by the use of combustion products as the working fluid and the fuel or oxidant being gaseous at standard temperature and pressure

B01D 53/1406 multiple stage absorption for separation of gases or vapours

Y02C 10/12 CO2 Capture by rectification and condensation

Y02C 10/04 CO2 Capture by chemical separation

Find white spaces

White space analysis is carried out to identify the gaps in a company’s portfolio. Comparative Topic Maps

offer an efficient means to such an analysis.

Figure 4 displays a Comparative Topic Map of concepts for the portfolio of Carbon Capture patents held

by Calera Corporations versus the superset of all Carbon Capture patents. The Topic Map on the left (in

Figure 4) shows this comparison. The small portions in blue indicate the sub-technologies addressed by

Calera’s patent holdings. The different portfolios displayed in a Comparative Topic Map may be turned

on/off using the appropriate check-boxes. Turning off the superset of Carbon Capture patents displays a

Topic Map with only Calera patents (indicated in blue). The concepts without bubbles denote sub-

technologies not addressed by Calera’s portfolio. These are referred to as the white spaces or the gaps in

the portfolio.



Figure 4. Calera Corporation - White space analysis to identify gaps in the portfolio using concepts

We can replicate the same exercise by using CPC codes (as shown in Figure 5). The sub-technologies related

to Carbon Capture and addressed by Calera's portfolio are highlighted in blue. The picture on the left shows

the specific sub-technologies addressed by Calera's portfolio (represented by CPC codes) and the gaps

(CPC codes without bubbles) indicating areas where Calera's portfolio lacks patent coverage. The picture

on the right compares Calera's portfolio with the universe of Carbon Capture patents.

Figure 5. Calera Corporation - White space analysis to identify gaps in the portfolio using CPC codes



Table 2. Key CPC codes displayed in Figure 5 with the CPC codes addressed by Calera’s portfolio highlighted


B01D 2257/504 Removal of Co2

Y02C 10/04 CO2 Capture by chemical separation

Y02C 10/06 CO2 Capture by absorption

B01D 53/62 Removing carbon oxides by diffusion

B01D 53/1475 Removing carbon dioxide by absorption

Y02C 10/08 Co2 Capture by adsorption

Y02E 20/18 REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES [GHG] EMISSION in Integrated gasification combined cycle

Y02E 20/16 REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES [GHG] EMISSION in Combined cycle power plant [CCPP], or combined cycle gas turbine

C01B 2203/0475 composition of co2 as impurity in the production of hydrogen or Synthesis gas

F23J 2215/50 Preventing Carbon dioxide emissions

B01D 2258/0283 Flue gases

Y02C 10/10 CO2 Capture by membranes or diffusion

B01D 53/02 Separation of gases or vapours by adsorption

C01B 2203/0283 Integrated processes for the production of hydrogen or synthesis gas by decomposition containing a CO-shift step

B01D 53/002 Separation of gases or vapours by condensation

Y02C 10/12 CO2 Capture by rectification and condensation

B01D 2256/22 Carbon di oxide as the main component in the product gas stream after treatment

Y02E 20/344 Oxyfuel combustion

C01B 31/20 Carbon Dioxide

Y02C 10/14 Subterranean or submarine CO2 storage

F02C 6/18 Using the waste heat of gas-turbine plants outside the plants themselves

F01K 23/10 Engine delivering power external to the plant, with exhaust fluid of one cycle heating the fluid in another cycle

C01B 2203/0415 purification step for the hydrogen or the synthesis gas by absorption in liquids

F02C 3/28 Gas-turbine plants using a separate gas producer for gasifying the fuel before combustion

B01D 2253/102 Carbons used in separation treatment of gases and vapours

Normalization of results

The size of the bubbles displayed in the Topic Maps are related to the number of patents present in the

portfolios for each concept or class code. Subsequently, the patent count comparison either represents

absolute numbers (by default) or normalized data (by selecting the “Normalize Data” check-box).

Normalizing the patent counts is especially helpful when the sizes of portfolios being compared vary



greatly. It ensures an equitable representation of the concepts and class codes in the various displayed

portfolios, and thus makes the comparison more meaningful

Figure 6. Comparative Topic Map interface showing check-box for normalizing patent counts

Summary

Visual tools such as Topic Maps render Intellectual Property (IP) related analyses simpler and convenient.

On one hand, comparative landscapes of multiple portfolios help in understanding the specific

technologies addressed by a given patent portfolio. On the other hand, these Topic Maps can help you

understand the strengths and gaps of your individual portfolios in comparison to those of competitors.

Topic Maps aid in efficiently executing various IP related analyses and portfolio management workflows

such as landscaping, white space analysis, and patent bucketing.

To understand how we can help take your business forward, visit Relecura.com

References 1. Hariharan R., Lakshmi A., and Koomullil G.; “Technology trend analysis using concept based navigation over patent

databases”; 1st International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy, Mumbai, Feb 2-5, 2012.

2. Carbon sequestration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

3. Relecura Manual - Topic Maps http://manual.relecura.com/wiki/Topic_Maps

http://www.relecura.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

http://manual.relecura.com/wiki/Topic_Maps



About Relecura

Relecura is the flagship product of INDUS TechInnovations. It is a web-based patent and portfolio analysis

platform that uses a knowledge discovery framework to simplify IP analysis for prior art searches and IP

commercialization activities. For more details visit www.relecura.com or write to us at [email protected].

Disclaimer This document is provided for information purposes only and the contents hereof are subject to change

without notice. This document, including the information and analysis and any opinion or

recommendation, is neither legal advice nor intended for investment purposes. This document is not

warranted to be error-free, nor subject to any other warranties or conditions, whether expressed orally or

implied in law, including implied warranties and conditions of merchantability or fitness for a particular

purpose. INDUS TechInnovations specifically disclaims any liability with respect to this document and no

contractual obligations are formed either directly or indirectly by this document.

http://www.relecura.com/

mailto:[email protected]

onduct patent portfolio analysis using comparative Topic Maps · using comparative Topic Maps July...

Documents

Transcript of onduct patent portfolio analysis using comparative Topic Maps · using comparative Topic Maps July...