Patent Landscape Report on Blockchain by PatSeer Pro

Using Patseer to Search & Analyze Patents on Blockchain


This patent landscape report on Blockchain takes a look at the Intellectual property trends and filings being done by companies and institutions active in this technology area. All charts and analysis in this report have been prepared using PatSeer Pro.

This report analyzes research trends of blockchain with a focus on Constructive Technologies, Common Standards, Protocols, Cryptographic Methods and Applications.

To read the complete analysis visit:  Patent Landscape Report on Blockchain by PatSeer Pro

Filing Trends

The chart below shows number of filings for Blockchain during the last 10 years. Trend analysis based on filing of priority application indicates a gradual increase in number of applications being filed. Maximum number of patent applications (191) taking/having priority were filed during 2014.

A sudden rise in patent filing activity in the domain of blockchain during years 2013-14 indicates widespread interest in the given technology domain.

It’s clear the current activity around these technologies is likely to continue seeing more innovation in the near future.


PatSeer Search Recall TM feature

Top Companies

The chart below represents top companies active in blockchain technology, with a single representation from each family.


PatSeer Search Recall TM feature


Research activity around the world

The below map represents the geographical filing relating to Blockchain. The map helps provide an indication of where innovation in this area is originating.

United States is the leading country in this field with 409 families followed by China (251) and Korea (120). The strength of the coloring represents the proportion of patent applications

Research Activity around the world Blockchain


Technology Landscape for Blockchain

The patent landscape map below represents key concepts for different companies across generated across title, abstract and claims. Themes are collection of prominent topics extracted from the patent data and grouped under relevant parent tags.

Clusters for Signature, Public Key, Private Key and Card Purchase Structure are close to each other as there is high degree of relevance between the records present in those types of methods


Report Includes

  • Correlation Map for top companies across different Themes
  • Inventor groups of key companies in Blockchain
  • Citations for Bitcoin
  • Key Company Analysis
  • Key Companies activity across Applications
  • Key Companies activity across Common Standards
  • Summary

To download the report in pdf format :Email Us


Patent Landscape Report on Biochips


This blog categorizes and graphically analyzes biochips from various perspectives such as the fabrication techniques, methods involved, biochip types and applications and highlights the key companies involved.

IP Analysis

This Patent Landscape/Analysis Report on Biochips will showcase the publication trend,  top companies, research activity around the world, company activity across application, biochip types vs methods, technology landscape for methods and much more can be found on Patent iNSIGHT Pro website reports section.

Publication Trend

What has been the publication trend for biochips?

Innovation around biochips and resulting patent publications started to show up from 1986 with a spike in 2002. It’s clear the current activity around these technologies is likely to continue seeing more innovation in the near future.

Patent Publication Trend for Biochips

Top Companies

Top Companies researching in Biochip

The top companies in biochips are:



The complete Assignee table is available in the Excel file here.

Research activity around the world

The table below ranks top priority countries and helps provide an indication of where innovation in this area is originating. It shows perfect indication of where innovation is taking place. It can be seen China has 1201 filings (INPADOC Families) followed by US and Korea with 629 and 565 filings respectively. The strength of the colouring represents the proportion of patent publications.

ResearchActivityAround The world for Biochips

Company activity across Applications

  • The chart below shows research activity of companies across different applications
  • Merck leads the research around Biomarkers and Organic Semiconductors
  • Rosetta Genomics leads the research for diagnosis of cancer using biochips, it also leads the record count for Hybridization
  • Nucleotides and Gene Diagnosis are the application areas wherein most of the companies are present

Company activity across Applications for Biochips

Biochip – Types vs Methods

In the map, different types and methods are connected through links whose thickness and color intensity is directly proportional to the number of records relating them. The number (in red) next to each line represents the number of records present in the respective category. It can be that Gene Expression and Electrophoresis are the methods where DNA chips are used the most.

Also, ELISA followed by Gene Expression is more often used by Protein Chip for diagnostic purposes. Similarly, Thin Layer Chromatography and Magnetism are exclusive to Protein Chip and DNA Chip.

Biochip Types vs Methods


Technology Landscape for Methods

The contour map below represents key concepts for different companies across various methods where biochips are used.

Clusters for Internal Radioimmunoassay, Immunohistochemical and Immunofluorescence are close to each other as there is high degree of relevance between the records present in those types of methods. The patents represented by dots were coloured by company.

Contour Map for Biochips
The entire report is available for download here: Patent Landscaping – Biochips



Overview and use of Correlation Maps

We recently introduced a new method to display network mode maps in VizMAP and this blog focuses on discussing details of this map.

First, a recap on network mode maps.  Let us look at a very simple table of 5 companies vs IPC Main classes on a random sample of patents an applications on antivirus. The data in the tabular format is shown below.


If we represent that in network mode of VizMAP it appears as:


Key IPCs in the map are automatically placed in the center and company portfolios are organized around the Assignee-IPC relationship. The patents (smaller dots) are colored by Assignee and shading demarcates individual company portfolios.

Clicking on HO4L IPC Node will highlight all records that fall under this category:

As you can see few records of each Company are classified under the H04L. Now we could also shade the portfolios by IPC but that would overlap with the existing companywise shading and make the map complicated. So if you wanted to quickly see a similar correlation between all IPC codes and all Assignees without having to click on each node? That’s where the correlation map comes in. The correlation map for the same data is shown below:



The map clearly shows how many records relate two nodes and the thickness of the line is also proportional to the number of correlating records. In addition to the data in the matrix the display also shows correlation between different IPC nodes. You can restrict the map to only the type of correlations you want to see and in the process bring out a visual that perhaps best represents the matrix data.

The correlation dosent need to be just Number of common records. We can have a co-citation map in the same display where the correlation is based on Number of common citing records. For example in the Fuel Additives patent set that we created for one of our Technology Insight Reports on Fuel Additives , a co-citation map for the Top-10 companies is shown below.


The map clearly shows that research on Fuel Additives happening at Chevron Corp and BASF AG is strongly related.

Focusing on core and managing research data efficiently during IP analysis

For IP professionals working in a patent law firm, a R&D driven company, research facility or even in a service provider, managing patent research process is plagued with inefficiencies.  With consumers of research information asking for faster turnaround times albeit with higher accuracies every professional must look into his/her research workflow and locate inefficiencies that are delaying the overall analysis process.
Based on our experience of working with researchers across a diverse set of organizations, we have split the overall activities performed by researchers into various core activities.
Core Activities Tools needed to speed up execution
Devising the search strategy Database to allow quick checking and refining of the search as the search made more precise.
Consolidating multiple searches into a common portfolio
Claims Analysis, Review and Rating, Narrowing down Generating Claims comparison charts
Claims Tree generation
Similarity search and tools to conduct advanced search (proximity/left-truncation etc) on claims
Tagging or scoring tools to mark important records as you come across them
Independent Claims exporting
Different patent text export formats including export of face pages for rapid review and scanning in a team environment
Categorizing and bucketing records Auto-Categorization to discover unique concepts and clusters present in the set
Tools to easily and efficiently create buckets and bucketise patents as you review them
Advanced search tools to dig through the data efficiently
Generating  charts, comparisons and dashboards that capture the insight you want to give Grouping and efficient slice-dice tools to accelerate the analysis process
Efficient matrix generators that allows you to compare 2, 3 or more properties at a time
Automated charting tools to convert filtered data quickly into a chart
Ready to use dashboards that allow you to gain insights and generate common analysis charts quickly
An IP research and analysis solution  can provide  IP professionals, tools to leverage at each stage of core activity execution so that they can focus on core activities without getting slowed down by procedures.
Working with IP data is characterized by working with a large input data sources and a large number of output data sources. To carry out what should be a well-researched analysis in a technology space would involve a patent database, several patent documents, patent text files, spreadsheets, working files, charts and reports. A lot of this becomes overwhelming when working only with spreadsheets. For example, the outputs alone would involve working with several spreadsheets let alone the spreadsheets which actually hold the source information and the working / analysis.  There are just too many files and data sheets to work with in different places and that’s often what makes the process difficult.
In addition to provision different analytic tools, an efficient analytics platform can also consolidate and organize these multiple files and data sheets into a single location so as to simplify management of the process.
Consolidation has been a key ingredient of the technology architecture of the Patent iNSIGHT Pro that also functions as an IP knowledge management software. From bringing together various patent databases and data sources to creating single view reporting dashboards for easy reviewing of outputs having all your data within reach from a single system alone improves the speed at which you can access IP intelligence.  It eliminates the need to navigate through several instances of Excel spreadsheets, various tabs with different data sources and multiple files across the desktop and allows you to manage everything through one interface. As a step torwards consolidating different analytics into a single view, the 360° series of reports one of the newer features on Patent iNSIGHT Pro for example, consolidates a number of report outputs into a single page dashboard view which is quicker and simpler to present and review as compared to a dozen output spreadsheet printouts which can take longer to comprehend.
If you find your IP research and associated information management process overwhelming with multiple files and data sheets across too many locations …consolidate! You will find things can become a lot quicker and far simpler.

Boost your in-house IP research capabilities while cutting down on overall cost !

My previous blogpost (Corporate IP Practitioner’s need for flexibility and transparency ) had mentioned that a combination of a patent analysis platform such as Patent iNSIGHT Pro with a patent database can make a powerful and yet cost-effective solution to your needs for flexibility and transparency while accelerating activities that usually eat up most of your time. Let me elaborate on that here.

With the current downturn in economy, chances are that you would be dealing with IP or R&D budgets cuts and your key concern today is to ensure that Intellectual Property research and analytics activities continue to deliver greater value to the management, the R&D and Licensing/Business Development while addressing the increasing needs posted by M&A, Litigation and Open innovation during these cuts.

Due to the variety of Intellectual Property research tools and databases in the market, its difficult to understand what tools would fit your need. Most experienced researchers say that since each tool has been designed from a different perspective, there isn’t one database or tool that can help address all your needs. So when trying to optimize your IP tools expenditure the question that arises is: Which tool or tools meet most of your needs ?

Now while your top-level analysis projects may be Infringement analysis, Freedom-to-Operate, White-Space & Gap Analysis, Portfolio mapping or Competitive Landscaping, they all boil down to unique IP procedural needs. Here is a quick IP research and analysis process need checklist that you can use to map out your needs:

  1. When searching, I want to quickly search across a wide set of patent offices
  2. I want to setup alerts on key interest areas, companies, classifications or inventors.
  3. I want to organize my results according to folders of my choice and need full flexibility in grouping, filtering, categorizing the records
  4. I want to generate highly flexible tabular and descriptive reports in Office documents such as Word and Excel so that I can customize them further
  5. I want to size up the results quickly to understand key patent biblio. parameters such as Assignees, Inventors, IPC/UPC spread, citations and their trends across the years
  6. I would like to keep one record per family for some analyses and treat all family members as individual records for other
  7. I want to categorize technology result sets into my company’s internal categories and then use that for further trend analysis in combination with other parameters
  8. I want to leverage text-mining tools such as clustering and fine-tune it to generate meaningful clusters/topic from the text of patents
  9. I want to analyze not only at cluster/topic level but also at “Keyword” level so as not to miss out even a single technology term
  10. I want to analyze related content such as legal status, family information, litigation history along with patent data
  11. I want to generate customizable charts and graphs with ease and would prefer interactivity such as drilling down within a chart
  12. I want to assign my own internal ratings (such as commercial importance, legal threat, technology relevance, business risk) to the patents and then use the for further mining and analyses
  13. I want to leverage algorithmically pre- calculated metrics for a quick sizing up the portfolio. (E.g., of such metrics are Portfolio Age, Technology maturity, Citation index, Science index)
  14. I want advanced interactive visualizations such as 2D landscapes, Heatmaps, Treemaps, Citation trees, Family trees and other newer ways to represent complex informational relationships
  15. I want to combine external data such as financial information, commercial information, technologies-up-for-sale information in my analyses

If you have checked more than four of the items above then your needs extend beyond patent searching, and you have three main options available in the market today:

Solution 1: An offline analysis solution (such as Patent iNSIGHT Pro) with capability to automatically integrate data from free online sources and commercial sources
Solution 2: An integrated analytics driven database
Solution 3: A database + offline analysis solution

Solution 1 – An Offline analysis solution

Pros: Flexibility, Comprehensiveness, Customizability, Cost Effective
Cons: No alerts, Needs time to build your analysis portfolio, No pre-calculated metrics

This option is good if you do not require instant analytics results since preparing your analysis portfolio can take a couple of hours or more depending on the whether you are working on hundreds or thousands of patents. With such an analytic solution you may not have alerts since the analysis is conducted over your result set. As a result, this option meets 75-80% of the needs listed above.

Solution 2 – An integrated analytics driven Database

Pros: Quick Analytics; Pre-calculated metrics can be helpful on occasions (esp. for valuation studies)
Cons: High Cost, Coverage may not be as good as a specialized searching database; Pre-calculated metrics can be highly objective and non-transparent, lesser flexibility for those who want to drive the analysis process as per their needs

The definite advantage here is being able to search and quickly view pre-calculated analytics over the search results. If you are looking for answers at a relatively broad level and especially if you are considering analytics towards portfolio valuation or rapid portfolio evaluation then this is an option worth considering. These solutions may loose out on the flexibility you need and on occasions you may have export values to Excel and then pivot out to the exact answer you want. As a result, this option again meets 75-80% of the needs listed above.

Solution 3 – A Database + Offline analysis solution

Pros: Quick Analytics, Cost Effective, Coverage, Flexibility, Comprehensiveness, Customizability
Cons: Lesser number of Pre-calculated metrics

This option may not provide as many pre-calculated metrics but by using a specialized search database you capitalize upon extensive worldwide coverage and all the tools you need to build the right search set. You can then export these results quickly into an offline analysis tool for detailed and dully-flexible analysis. Some pre-calculated metrics may not be present but if you do not rely or require these then this option offers you the maximum amount of features and meets 90-95% of the needs listed above.


And finally the cost…
Per prevailing market rates for IP products and databases Option 1 can cost you between 2500-8000 USD depending upon product and its capabilities. Option 2 can start from 12000 USD and can go upto 50000 USD while option three gives you maximum capabilities and still costs you between 8000-12000 USD again depending upon the type of database and analysis tool.

To sum up, doing a thorough research on the possibilities and capabilities of different solutions and understanding their price-points can help you increase the depth, quality and efficiency of your IP operations and yet reduce your overall IP tools cost.

White Space Analysis using Patent iNSIGHT Pro

White-spaces are gaps in a technology landscape that have potential for attaining exclusivity. Many Technology and IP managers today look at white-space analysis as one of the key methods for strategic product innovation. Using white-space analysis they:

  • Refine research direction by finding new areas for innovation and exclusivity
  • Enhance product-patent portfolio. Broaden scope of existing patents by locating spaces around your patent positions which should perhaps be included in your claim coverage

In Patent iNSIGHT Pro you can use a combination of user defined categories and co-ocurrency analysis to conduct detailed white space analysis.

To start with, you should be clear along which lines or dimensions you are looking for gaps. Such as – By Product, ByMarket, By Method of Use, by Capabilities or By Application or Business Area and define the exact categories within the dimension.

The white space analysis activity proceeds in five steps:

1. Conduct a broad search and create a set of patents

2. Generate keywords (terms/tokens) from the claims of patents. Use the stop-word customization and keyword generation feature to generate a comprehensive set of keywords from the claims of the patents.

3. Cleanup keywords and assignees using various tools in the software. The raw lists of keywords and Assignees can be cleaned using multiple tools such as Fuzzy matching or by applying a thesaurus.

4. Categorize (Bucket/Group) patents along the dimensions decided for the analysis. In Patent iNSIGHT Pro we call them user defined categories or UDC for short. Depending on the dimension the method of categorization will differ. For large sets of patents manual categorization will take a lot time and there are ways by which you can automate the process.

  •  For instance if the dimension is more functional you can map the categories to the IPC/USPC classes and assign the patents in each class to the category. (Using Portfolio Cluster Engine in Patent iNSIGHT Pro)
  •  As a second example, if categories can be distinguished by the use of a particular keyword in claims then you can use iterative Boolean searching to assign patents to their categories. (Using Advanced Boolean searching)

5. Look for gaps and patterns by generating the following analysis matrices:

  • UDC vs IPC/USPC : Detect whether a particular classification which may represent a method of use or a class of compounds etc have not been applied to any of the categories you have defined.
  • UDC vs Keywords : See what combinations of keywords have appeared in concordance with the categories. Keywords usually are a good choice since they comprehensively cover all terms, many of which you may not have thought of, and the absence of a relevant keyword in a related category is the early signs of a white-space. For instance if your dimension is by Method of Use, then such a matrix will highlight how different terms from the claims occur in various methods of Use.
  • Keyword vs Keyword : For fine grained pattern and gap detection.

6. Finally, once a white-space is detected, you must conduct a targeted search across patent databases and undertake critical manual review of the patents around it to confirm the existence of a white-space.

Co-occurrence Matrix – Beyond just a chart generator..

I have been asked by many researchers on how an Excel pivot table is different from the co-occurrence matrix that we provide in Patent iNSIGHT Pro since both are primarily used to generate charts and trends between two or three analysis points.

While Efficiency, Ease-of-use, direct integration between unstructured and structures fields, are perhaps obvious reasons, I feel two key capabilities make Patent iNSIGHT Pro co-occurrence analyzer a lot more powerful for the end researcher:

1) Capability to Drill Down, quickly read-through and analyze patents behind the numbers in the matrix

Consider the sample matrix shown below:

When you are analyzing a matrix like the one above your first instinct is – What are the patents behind a particular cell?

Researchers I speak to tell me that they would like to quickly jump to the Bibl. & abstract or Claims of patents behind a cell. This capability to quickly go through patents in context of an analyzed segment makes a big difference to the quality of interpretation made. In Patent iNSIGHT Pro all you need to do is right click and select “View records”.

2) Capability to create subsets from the matrix and slice the subset further by a different dimension

Lets say if your question was “In a particular space, which companies were most active at the peak of the technology lifecycle and at that time what countries did they focus on for protecting their inventions?”

For this, one would first look at the Assignee-Filing Year spread and see which year(s) saw the peak filing activity. Then only for those patents in the peak years, analyze the coverage (Assignee – Family Countries).

So what you intend to do is pick up a subset of patents from the results of one relationship and apply another relationship to the subset. In Patent iNSIGHT Pro you can select a couple of cells in the Assignee- Filing Year relationship, right-click to group the patents and then jump to the Assignee-Family Coverage relationship for the subgroup all within 4-5 clicks.  I will leave it to you on how one could achieve that in Excel.

In sum, if you think of it, both the capabilities appear as must-have if you think of a co-occurence matrix as a powerful analysis tool to manipulate, slice-dice and dig through the patent data and not just as a precursor to generating a chart.

Visual Patent Analysis – What and Why ?

For companies it is critical to detect white-spaces and patent minefields early in the R&D cycle each of which can perhaps generate or save millions of dollars at a later stage. Traditional graphs and charts are good for displaying the results of an analysis activity but not for quickening and improving the analysis process.

An increasingly used mechanism is visual analysis of patents that involves 2-Dimensional spatial patent visualization and leverages the capability of the human visual system to identify patterns and anomalies. The key advantages of visual patent analysis are that you can drastically reduce the time-to-insights and explore IP-congested technology spaces in a swift but efficient fashion.

The ease of use and intuitive nature of visual analysis tools makes it easy for even business and R&D teams to use for their analysis needs. (Usually in organizations, the R&D, the patent information team, the legal team, the marketing cum business strategy team and the licensing team are involved in various parts of the IP strategy driving a product.)

Other important benefits which visual patent analysis provides:

  • Ease of navigation across relationships- Can be used for exploring through networks of relationship between companies, inventors and their research or you can also explore semantic relationships between patent content.
  • Quick interpretation – 2-Dimensional spatial mapping of technology clusters remains as one of most comprehensible ways to represent a landscape and can be easily interpreted
  • The Peripheral vision advantage – You can benefit from being cognizant of the clusters around your focus area. In some case these “peripheral clusters” may contain the golden nugget you seek.
  • Powerful highlighting, search and dissection tools combined with a rich intuitive display makes is easy to detect patterns and irregularities within the patent landscape. Such capabilities make the visualization many times more powerful. For instance Google Maps would’t be as powerful without it’s built in geographical search, highlighting and other navigational options.
  • Clusters that are co-located based on semantic similarity are very useful when conducting infringement analysis. (Ofcourse, visual analysis tools must allow for clusters to be generated specifically from the claims section for undertaking infringement analysis)

To sum up, visual analysis is a powerful method to address challenges posed by patent information overload.