Nanotech Patent Landscape in the UK 2009 : Nanotechnology Patents May be Declining

The Nanotechnology e-News Bulletin of April 30, 2009 in FREE REPORT: IPO produce UK Innovation Nanotechnology Patent Landscape Analysis 2009 refers to a free report (80 pdf pages) just issued on the nanotechnology patent landscape in the United Kingdom 2009:

"The UK Intellectual Property Office has compiled a nanotechnology patent landscape for the UK. This reports on UK patent data and reflects on UK innovation in the field of nanotechnology...."

UK innovation nanotechnology patent landscape analysis April 2009
Intellectual Property Office
IPO Patent Informatics Project Report: UK innovation nanotechnology patent landscape analysis Customer: Nanotechnology KTN
Customer Contact: Dr Toby Gill
IPO Contact: Ben Buchanan, Patent Informatics Manager, IPO
e: ben.buchanan@ipo.gov.uk phone: (01633) 814742
Date prepared: 16 April 2009

The report comes to the following Conclusions:

"The peak of activity of UK-based nanotechnology patent activity has been in recent years, from 2000-2003 and may exhibit a genuine decline since then. The most prolific classification relates to medicinal preparations and cyclodextrins, whilst other classifications relating to medicinal, topical or cosmetic preparations occupy seven of the top ten places.

Looking at sheer patent volumes, the main industrial filers are Tioxide, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Philips. Cancer Research Campaign and QinetiQ are in the top five. Cambridge University is also ranked in the top five applicants but 67% of activity is from the commercial sector. However, the fact that 14% of activity is from universities is a significant point to note. Furthermore, much of this activity is very recent (post-1999) indicating that research is still ongoing. Cambridge, Oxford, and Glasgow were the top three universities.

Commercial activity overall continues up until 2003 with a subsequent sharp tail off which is likely due at least in part to publication delay. The top commercial applicant, Tioxide, has a peak year in 1995 but activity is zero beyond 1997. The second commercial applicant, Cancer Research Campaign, had a peak year in 1993 and appear to be active up to the present day. QinetiQ had a peak year in 1999 and their activity also appears to continue up to the present. A narrowing down of the temporal range could identify more recent UK based activity and provide further evidence for current specialisms.

In terms of the general categories used, "applications of nanotechnology" is the most prolific. This grouping was frequently applied in conjunction with others (e.g. an application of bionanotechnology would invite double grouping). The transition of science-base to technical application is often regarded as an indication of emergence and gaining maturity. The smallest technology grouping was that of nanofiltration/separation, but many such techniques may exist in the working up of the nanosystems prepared. Nanotoxicity, even on a global scale, provides a small dataset, but further work on precisely defining this category could provide more insights. Nanomaterials / nanostructures, bionanotechnology, and nanometrology have decreased more readily in recent years than applications of nanotechnology, electronic applications. Government applicants are overrepresented in the field of nanomaterials / nanostructures. Cambridge University is a top applicant in the areas of nanomaterials, electronic applications and nanometrology.

The patent holdings profile for nanotechnology shows that the field still appears to have significant amounts of research ongoing, with a relatively small number of established applicants having large portfolios. Given that the dataset covers the whole of nanotechnology, time spent further studying separate research areas could provide evidence for emergent technologies, as the large volumes of patents seems to obscure indicators of such areas. In comparison with EP data, the UK data shows more activity in pharmaceutical fields, whereas thin films and related fields appear more significant in the EP data.

Overall there appear to be aspects of UK nanotechnology activity which are fertile sources of patentable technology, however, in the current dataset they appear to be somewhat obscured by areas of previous activity, such that they cannot necessarily be identified as emerging or emergent areas. Further work in this area could address this."

See the whole report, including the final Recommendations.