Patent landscape report on assistive devices for visually and hearing impaired persons
DIFFERENCES IN IP PROTECTION STRATEGY BY LOCATION
Download 13.52 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 3.7 ACTIVITY BY ECONOMY TYPE
3.6 DIFFERENCES IN IP PROTECTION STRATEGY BY LOCATIONWhile the United States, Japanese, Chinese, German, Russian and South Korean patent activity dominates the landscape in terms of overall numbers of patent applications and granted patents, this volume in itself does not tell the entire story of intellectual property (IP) commercialization. It was mentioned earlier that an applicant chooses where to protect its technology based on markets and where exclusivity is best placed in order to recoup the investment in technology and potentially build commerce around the invention. Individual inventions that are protected in multiple locations reflect two potential positions of the applicant – a) organizations with existing businesses in multiple territories with a need to protect in multiple locations and, b) individual technologies of a higher intrinsic value or robustness that warrant broader geographic protection. As the number of different locations into which an individual invention is protected correlates closely to a large increase in the cost of protection, patent families on average filed in more territories to an extent should be considered of a higher intrinsic quality, or at least likely to be used more extensively by their owner. Figure 15 measures the average level of geographic protection for patents of the major offices of first filing by giving the average size of families originating from the respective jurisdiction. The count of countries used for this calculation excludes filings via the PCT process, as these documents do not themselves produce granted patents; therefore excluding these documents from the metric allows for differentiation of inventions only filed via the PCT route. The primary finding of this chart is that Chinese and Russian based patent applicants generally appear to only protect their IP locally due to their low metric score (1.1). Therefore, visual and hearing device technology from Chinese and Russian applicants appears to be primarily local in nature. Similar levels of protection are also evident for the other Asian territories. Japan for instance also has a relatively low level of international patent protection. Applicants from the EPO, Australia and France are more likely to adopt a more global IP protection strategy due to their larger metric scores. 
Figure 15 - Average Number of Filings Events (Including First Filing) per Major Office of First Filing Location; Excludes PCT Application Filing Events 3.7 ACTIVITY BY ECONOMY TYPEA further view of the landscape is shown in figure 16 by the type of economy from which patent activity is deriving. In this analysis, the offices of first filing locations have been grouped as to whether they are considered developed economies, are members of the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China or South Africa) or are from emerging or developing economies outside of the BRICS grouping. 
Figure 16 - Breakdown of the assistive devices and technologies for visually and hearing impaired persons Patent Landscape by Economy Descriptor; BRICS equals Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa; Timeline of Activity by Economy Category The analysis serves to further represent the trends within the visual and hearing device landscape as there is a recent decline (last 10 years) in filings occurring from developed economies (primarily the United States, Japan and Germany) and large-scale growth (occurring from around 2003) in activity from the BRICS economies (primarily China and Russia). 
Figure 17 - Average Number of Filings Events per Economy Type across Assistive Devices and Technologies for Visually and Hearing Impaired Persons Patent Landscape From a forecasting viewpoint, it would be expected that BRICS related patent activity associated with visual and hearing device technology will likely continue to increase strongly from these developing economies and perhaps even reach or exceed the levels of the developed economies within the next 10 years. Figure 17 summarizes the international or otherwise nature of the patent activity originating from each economic grouping. Activity from the BRICS economies is mostly comprised of Chinese and Russian patents with Brazil, India and South Africa making up a small yet still significant amount. Activity from developed economies is more international in nature. Also evident from this analysis is the activity from the non-BRICS developing economies, which is broader (than BRICS) in its protection regime. Directory: edocs edocs -> Commissioner ajit pai edocs -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D edocs -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D edocs -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D edocs -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D edocs -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D edocs -> Federal Communications Commission fcc 15-77 Before the Federal Communications Commission edocs -> Statement of commissioner ajit pai Download 13.52 Mb. Share with your friends:
|