Patents as Early Indicators of Technology and Investment Trends: Analyzing the Microbiome Space as a Case Study

Abstract

The human microbiome is the collective of microbes living in symbiosis on and within humans. Modulating its composition and function has become an attractive means for the prevention and treatment of a variety of diseases including cancer. Since the initiation of the human microbiome project in 2007, the number of academic publications and active patent families around the microbiome has grown exponentially. Screening patent databases can be useful for the early detection and the tracking of new technology trends. However, it is not sufficient to assess portfolio sizes because emerging players with small but high-quality patent portfolios will be missed within the noise of large but low-quality portfolio owners. Here we used the consolidated database and software tool PatentSight to benchmark patent portfolios, and to analyze key patent owners and innovators in the microbiome space. Our study shows how in-depth patent analyses combining qualitative and quantitative parameters can identify actionable early indicators of technology and investment trends from large patent datasets.

International collaboration generates high quality clusters of pharmaceutical patents

“…The software PatentSight used in the present study [2][3][4] is one of several tools on the market, which combine enhanced patent databases with an advanced quality analysis software [9][10][11]13]. Such tools are useful for investigating large sets of patent documents in order to assess and compare different patent portfolios, or to screen for trends and relationships [5][6][7][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Identifying Emerging Technologies with Smart Patent Indicators: The Example of Smart Houses

“…due to high forward citations¯gures, are inoperable for its owners without active patent family members. This requires to account for patents' legal status instead of only looking at annual ling counts that do not reveal how many¯led patents remain active for the point in time of interest [see also Fankhauser et al (2018)]. Filing year trends are inferior to analyses that incorporate information which patents were active and legally enforceable at which point in time, which may be termed the reporting date.…”

“…granted patents as well as patent applications, as the latter provide a certain level of protection [Ernst and Omland (2011); Stefan (2013)]. In contrast to patent counts that are often based on¯led or granted patents, the portfolio size incorporates information whether these¯led or granted patents remain active [Fankhauser et al (2018)]. This is particularly valuable for longitudinal datasets, as decision-makers become able only to include those patent families in annual values that were active at these speci¯c reporting dates.…”

“…Contrastingly, recent patent indicators, called smart indicators, focus on qualitative patent information [e.g. Ernst and Omland (2011); Ernst (2017); Fankhauser et al (2018)]. These new indicators allow identifying the development of emerging technologies during longer, pre-de¯ned time periods, by incorporating information from multiple points in time and using indicators incorporating technological potential assessments.…”

“…2.2. indicators related to patent quality or patent strength allows decision-makers to identify general growth trends, to detect key players, i.e. those that own valuable portfolios, regardless of portfolio sizes, and to recognize overall developments of technologies [Fankhauser et al (2018)]. Firms that are subject to brisk patent quantity or quality increases may be detected by use of longitudinal data, revealing their emphasis on technological trends.…”