Many Patent use landscape analysis studies, including company executives, university administration, IP attorneys, and R&D teams. Additionally, each of them has a unique set of needs. For instance, a business executive might hire an R&D team to look into options for research and development, such as technology alternatives, before deciding on the market potential for a product.
A patent landscape aims to assist consumers in achieving their objectives, such as finding solutions or deriving practical insights. To do this, one must create an individual output based on the customer’s needs.
Why unique?
Because a patent landscape analysis also demonstrates that “One size doesn’t fit all.”
Most evaluations, however, need to consider the consumer’s objective or working environment. As a result, neither the study’s goal nor any insights may pick up by the end user.
After working in the business for many years, providing hundreds of landscape studies, and reviewing almost a thousand studies carried out by our competitors in the IP sector, we discovered that more than half of patent landscapes do not benefit the consumer in any manner.
Over 50% of patent landscapes are ineffective regarding the consumer.
That can be changed, though, by keeping a laser-like focus on a client’s goal throughout the analysis. The technology must be understood and investigated to suit the consumer’s needs. Additionally, the end goal should serve as the foundation for technological categorisation, patent bucketing, data collection, and the analysis’s insights.
Imagine that a business executive and a researcher are both getting a landscape analysis in the same technical field. In this case, the former wants in-depth technical insights, whilst the latter seeks information to help them make better business decisions.
Will both of them respond well to the same analysis?
I’ll respond to that later in this piece, though. Let’s first talk about the situation:
A businessperson can inquire, “How can he grow his business?” From the investigation, he learns that “next-generation solar cells are primarily developed using hybrid organic-inorganic lead or tin halide-based Perovskite material.”
Consider a decent taxonomy (a hierarchical description of technology) for “drilling in the oil and gas sector” to make the point more transparent. I created these taxonomies with the help of two distinct consumer groups: business leaders and the R&D team.
The taxonomy of the business perspective highlights the issues in the field. Since likely, a corporate executive won’t be familiar with the technical intricacies of the oil and gas business; It is complete. Furthermore, the taxonomy above can better respond to the business executive’s questions by considering his work environment.
The taxonomy’s level II nodes, which include non-productive time, tool life expectancy, operational dangers, and environmental hazards, address issues specific to the drilling sector. A business leader can create more suitable solutions for business development and expansion by including these in the landscape. Additionally, he might decide based on how a specific difficulty will impact his organisation’s commercial objectives and revenue ambitions.
The details get more objective-oriented as we delve deeper into the taxonomy, as shown in the taxonomy below:
As I mentioned, the R&D man is also searching for in-depth technological insights. He seeks technological innovations or better options in the oil and gas industry. He prefers to know specifics about parts, mixtures, methods, procedures, alternative technologies, etc.
These two taxonomies represent the same tech domain. They are, however, as dissimilar as chalk and cheese. Also resolved by this is the query: Can the same landscape analysis be used for both?
Not at all, no.
Why?
Since their areas of business and expertise vary, so should the analyses and methods used to carry out the research.
Conclusion
To get the most out of a landscape analysis as a consumer, you must decide what you want. No matter your position, if it isn’t occurring, you are wasting your money and are accountable for it.
When the market struggles with the “One size fits all syndrome,” you choose your best output. Also, would the outcome be beneficial if a method is not original? I don’t believe so. How do you feel?
Case Study: How Watchmakers Might Have Predicted the Smartwatch Boom Using Patent Landscape Analysis