 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|
| |
| patents - innovation growth | |
| |
| |
| |
|
The analysis of patent filings plays an important role in developing insights into technological developments. This is especially true for emerging markets. When patents are first filed they are assigned one or more internationally agreed classifications. These classifications enable patent attorneys to group similar patents together and to answer the questions — what has already been patented and is it relevant to this application? This classification scheme can also be used as an analytical tool beyond the confines of the patent attorneys.
One particular patent classification — H01L51 — has been used for our first cut analysis of organic semiconductor technology developments. While additional patent classifications may be incorporated into the analysis, and obviously with a corresponding increase in the total number of patents filed, they do not alter too dramatically the overall profile of patent filings. Consequently, H01L51 shall be used as a good proxy for the overall growth of the organic semiconductor industry. In 2002 the total number of patents filed that included H01L51 as part of the classification was in excess of 1150. In the last five years the number of patents filed with either an IPC or EPC of H01l51 accounted for 80% of all such patents — a CARG of 54%. That is a staggering figure. It clearly indicates that there has been a real acceleration in the number of companies involved in the development and commercialisation of organic semiconductor technology. By extending our analysis to include one additional classification code C09K11/06 we conclude that last year there were 1959 patents published that included these as part of their classification. Patent Filings 1982-2002
Total number of patents filed with an IPC or EPC classification of H01l51 
Closer examination of the patents filed last year reveals that most were related to displays. This is not too surprising as Eastman Kodak and Cambridge Display Technology have both held fundamental intellectual property positions in organic light emitting diodes since the late 1980s. Each has a growing licensee base that adds to the number of organisations filing patents on displays. Further, a review of all CDT and Kodak patents reveals that CDT has applied for 233 patents, while Kodak has applied for 288 patents (March 2003) with an IPC or EPC of either H01L51 or C09K11/06. In fact, during 2002 CDT had 41 patents published while Kodak had 48 patents that included these classifications. These represented 18% of all CDT patents and 17% of all Kodak patents. However when combined together CDT and Kodak patents only accounted for 4.5% of the total patents published last year. In 2002 over 200 different assignees (organisations or individuals) were responsible for the patents published in the field of organic semiconductor technology. The majority of patent assignees are likely to be OLED licensors, OLED licensees or providers of complementary OLED technologies. While displays are the majority it is also evident from our analysis that we are beginning to witness the emergence of an increasing number of other components and applications based on organic semiconductor technologies. Technologies and applications such as lighting, memory, chemical and biosensors, transistors, integrated circuits, photovoltaic, diodes and even electronic switches. Companies such as Plastic Logic, HP, Siemens, Infineon, Seiko Epson, Pioneer, CDT and many others are filing these patents. The commercialisation of displays based on organic semiconductor technologies has followed a particular and widely documented development and commercialisation process. Since the early stages of development the key patent holders (CDT and Eastman Kodak) chose to license their technology rather than go it alone. As each new application of the technology begins to evolve it becomes necessary to consider how the next phase of commercialisation will occur. As companies develop and protects their intellectual property they must decide how best to commercialise their know-how and secure a return on their investment. Many questions have to be raised and then answered if the technology currently under development is to be commercialised successfully. These questions can be answered in part by learning from the success and failures that occurred as OLED based displays made their transition from research bench to manufacture. Experience tells us that this will be insufficient to determine the success of each new application area. Each organisation will need to consider a range of strategic and tactical issues that are in many ways unique to each organisation but probably includes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| copyright © cintelliq ltd 2003-2005 | |