Tag Archives: Boliven

UK research not applying for enough patents?

As I understand it, patent and copyright regimes were instituted to stimulate innovation by guaranteeing that an inventor or a ‘creative’ would receive compensation for a particular piece of work during a limited period of time. It was not intended to limit competition or provide funds in perpetuity for either the corporations that happen to hold the copyright or patent or for the inventor’s or creator’s descendents as seems to be the case these days. (I wrote extensively about patents being used to limit competition in my Oct. 31, 2011 posting titled, Patents as weapons and obstacles.)

To be very clear, I am not arguing against patent and copyright regimes but I am suggesting that the excesses of today’s regimes are strangling innovation. Given my particular take on the situation, I read the Dec. 16, 2011 news item on Nanowerk with mixed feelings. From the news item,

As the UK government invests into supporting graphene research, the patent activity of UK universities lags behind that of their global peers according to research by CambridgeIP [intellectual property] published in Nature Materials (“Exploiting carbon flatland” [public access as of Dec. 17, 2011]). [emphasis mine]

“Since 2007 there has been a rapid increase in the rate of global patent filings around graphene. And patents are central to business models and business strategies in many key application sectors for graphene developments, such as semiconductors and biotech.” said Quentin Tannock (Chairman, CambridgeIP) “Despite playing host to Nobel Prize-winning graphene researchers, UK academic institutions hold far fewer graphene patents than their peers in China, South Korea and the USA. This raises the serious question of how ‘UK plc’ will reap commercial returns on its significant cash investments into academic research into graphene.” [emphasis mine]

It’s understandable that they (UK) would want to reap the rewards of their research and the investments in that research. It does, however, get a little confusing for me here (from the news item),

“One of the striking features of the graphene patent landscape is what is not present. Andre Geim, one of the two winners of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics “for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene” is not listed as an inventor on any published graphene patent application. The University of Manchester has applied for significantly fewer patents than its global peers in graphene research.” [emphases mine]

I’m not sure why only Andre Gheim is mentioned as the inventor since he shared the 2010 Nobel prize with Konstantin Novoselov. Also, does one need to mention the inventor in a patent? Is one  still required to reference Alexander Graham Bell for a patent on a phone of some sort?

I got curious about CambridgeIP since the author of the article in Nature Materials, Quentin Tannock is Chairman of the company. Here’s the company’s mission statement (from the CambridgeIP website),

CambridgeIP’s mission is to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of valuable technologies.
We achieve this by working with our clients in the public and private sectors to create and deliver winning technology and IP strategies, and by developing thought leadership in technology and innovation.
We help them build and monetize intellectual assets, develop commercial and R&D strategies and roadmaps, and deploy technologies to maximum impact. We also provide our clients with resources including global-leading access to patent data, science literature, analysis tools and evidence-based insights drawn from our extensive technology and IP strategy experience. [emphasis mine]

I gather CambridgeIP provides patent data and other resources through a company called Boliven which is possibly a CambridgeIP spinoff or affiliate. (Both CambridgeIP and Boliven are listed as sources for the news item.) The About page on the Boliven website does not make the nature of the relationship explicit although it’s existence is obvious,

Boliven is a leading online information portal for IP, R&D and business development professionals in science and technology intensive industries.

With over 100 million peer-reviewed documents spanning patents, journal articles, press releases and other data sources, Boliven enables professionals to rapidly identify novel technologies, clients, partners, commercialisation opportunities and ideas.

Boliven has developed a robust set of free search, analytics, and export tools to help you capitalize on our 100+ million public records and peer-reviewed documents.

For example, Boliven offers members access to one of the world’s largest free patent search engines, with over 60 million records from around the world. Our analytics tools help you detect patterns and relationships in the data through easy-to-understand visualizations, charts, and graphs. Our exporting tools help you take your analysis in-house, through Word of Excel or other productivity applications. Our company profiles section provides a snapshot of the latest research, business and legal activity by the world’s leading technology companies

Many of our best ideas come from our members, so feel free to offer your recommendations on things you’d like to see on Boliven. Contact us on boliven@cambridgeip.com. [emphases mine]

Herein is the source of my mixed feelings regarding the news item. As I noted earlier in this posting, there should be a return on investment (ROI) but this news item and the article it refers to certainly seem self-serving given that CambridgeIP and Boliven market their services to the very people/institutions they feel should be applying for more patents.