swot analysis sample - actionablepatents

Patent SWOT Analysis Report

My company

Created on 2016/03/30


2 ActionablePatents.com

This document provided by Wisdomain only serves as a referential document under specific conditions agreed by the purchaser. Wisdomain does not warrant this document to be error-free, nor imply or express any other warranties. In no event shall Wisdomain be liable for any consequential damages of any kind in association with this document. The source of patent data used for the analysis is the patent authorities. Patent information used in this document for analysis is updated weekly in conjunction with patent authorities. - This document may include hyperlinks to Wisdomain’s online database to appropriately reference additional information. - Hyperlinks that connect to Wisdomain’s online database will expire after one year from the date of this document purchase.

Disclaimer

http://www.actionablepatents.com




Wisdomain's Patent SWOT Report helps to identify the strength, weakness, opportunities and threats of your patent portfolios as they relate to the competition. The scope of the analysis is to look closely at key technology segments, evaluate portfolio strengths and examine IP positions against competitors to help uncover intellectual property information that may affect the intended business objectives.


I. Major Technology Sectors

II. Technology Strength Score Comparison by Company

III. Technology Strength Score Comparison by Major Sectors

IV. Strengths

V. Weakness

VI. Opportunities

1. Growing Sectors

2. Forward Citation Analysis

3. International Markets

VII. Threats

1. Declining Sectors

2. Backward Citation Analysis

3. International Markets

4. Technology Sector with Most Patent Litigations

VIII.SWOT Summary

Appendix: How patent quality is measured

Contents



My company

Competitors

[Fig.1] outlines [My company’s] portfolios’ major technology sectors using International Patent Classification codes and last five years of patent records. Each sector is highlighted with technology strength score and R&D focus level to help examine current IP strengths and how each sector aligns with the intended research objectives.

I. Major Technology Sectors

[Fig. 1] Major Technology Sectors

CAMERA

R&D Focus 14%

Technology Strength Score(TSS) 1,202

OPTICS MECHANIS

R&D Focus 16%

Technology Strength Score(TSS) 556

PICTORIAL COMMU

R&D Focus 19%


PHOTOENGRAVING

R&D Focus 14%


Technology Strength Score (TSS) Technology strength score measures the company's R&D capacity as well as the quality of patents. R&D capacity refers to the range of technology coverage areas and resource sufficiency for new inventive activities. R&D capacity is measurable with portfolio size, portfolio coverage and the number of in-house inventors. The quality refers to patent's certainty and clarity of rights. Together, a score is computed to determine the technology strength of a company. Refer to Appendix for details on how patent quality is measured. R&D Focus R&D Focus is the proportion of a particular sector’s patent applications and grants from the company’s total applications and grants.




II. Technology Strength Score Comparison by Company

[Fig.2] compares technology competitiveness between [My company] and competitors by TSS.

[Fig. 2] TSS Comparison by Company

[Fig. 3] TSS Comparison by Year (Last 5 Years)

My Company

My Company

2012 2013 2014 2015 2011




[Fig.4] compares technology competitiveness within major technology sectors by TSS .

III. Technology Strength Score Comparison by Major Sector

[Fig. 4] TSS Comparison by Major Technology Sectors (Last 5 Years)

■ SECTOR : PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION(Television/Digital Camera/Projector)

My Company

My Company

2012 2013 2014 2015 2011





■ SECTOR : OPTICS MECHANISM

2012 2013 2014 2015 2011

My Company

My Company





■ SECTOR : PHOTOENGRAVING

My Company

My Company




[Fig. 4] TSS Comparison by Major Technology Sector s (Last 5 Years)

■ SECTOR : CAMERA

My Company

My Company




The following quadrant maps depict technology positions of companies per major technology sector. The quadrant map analysis is accomplished by plotting granted patents count and average patent quality evaluation score on a single graph. The vertical axis represents patent quantity while the horizontal axis illustrates average patent evaluation score. By plotting the coordinates of patent quantity and score, each company is visualized with an attribute to its technology position per major technology sector.

IV. Strengths

[Fig. 5] Technology Positioning by Major Sectors - stronghold

■ SECTOR : CAMERA

Diverse Technology group

Highly Competitive group

Laggards Specialized Technology group

Company No. of Patents APES Company No. of Patents APES

My company 1,624 73.74

SHARP CORP 65 58.73

CANON KK 2,341 56.99

OLYMPUS CORP 250 55.30

SONY CORP 564 55.22

My Company

High number of patents but with lower APES Vigorous and diverse R&D activities

Small number of patents but with higher APES. Specialized technologies without diversity.

High number of patents with high APES. Vigorous R&D activities with competitive technology.

Small number of patents with low APES. Lacks technology recognition.







Laggards Specialized Technology group


My company 177 61.36

CANON KK 281 53.88

SONY CORP 79 45.29

SHARP CORP 57 43.82


My Company





[Fig. 5] Technology Positioning by Major Sectors - stronghold




V. Weakness


Diverse Technology

group


Specialized Technology group

Laggards



CANON KK 1,907 57.08

SONY CORP 674 56.27

SHARP CORP 254 53.62


My Company





[Fig. 6] Technology Positioning by Major Sectors – weak spot







Specialized Technology group

Laggards


SONY CORP 6,021 58.24

CANON KK 5,566 55.26


SHARP CORP 770 46.74


My Company





[Fig. 6] Technology Positioning by Major Sectors – weak spot




In this analysis, the market is defined as a particular technology space where the patent is currently enforceable. The total market size is determined by aggregating all market players' patents that share the same International Patent Classification code. Utilizing publicly available financial data, the model then computes all patent owners’ revenues to estimate the total market size and compare with previous years to determine the growth or decline.

VI. Opportunities

[Fig. 7] Major Technology Sectors Showing Growth


CAGR Last 4 Years

12.33%


CAGR Last 4 Years

3.60%


CAGR Last 4 Years

2.08%

2012 2013 2014 2015

2012 2013 2014 2015

2012 2013 2014 2015

[Fig.7] depicts major technology sector(s) that show growth. The growth may be triggered by unfulfilled needs, new technology arrival, or loosening of regulations. [My company] should further examine the sector(s) and align its IP strategy accordingly.

(1) Growing Sector(s)




[Fig. 8] Top 5 Companies Citing [My Company]'s patents

Forward citation indicates that the patent has been cited as prior art for other patents. The notion is that patents with a high number of forward citations is likely to be fundamental in some ways and that citing entities are likely to be building something around the patented technology. In many cases, frequently cited patents are licensed by the citing organization to gain freedom to operate, or out-right purchased for strategic purposes. [My company] should further examine these patents for potential monetization opportunities.

VI. Opportunities

Rank Patent No. No. of Cited Sector

1 195 CAMERA

2 157 CAMERA

3 148 Board Game Apparatus

4 113 PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION(Television/Digital Camera/Projector)

5 106 CAMERA


7 97 ELECTRIC DISCHARGE TUBES

8 97 CAMERA


10 94 OPTICS MECHANISM

Click Patent No. to view details.

US7210XXX

US6961XXX

US7332XXX

US7539XXX

US5753XXX

US7446XXX

US7038XXX

US6320XXX

US6730XXX

US6339XXX

The list below shows [My Company's] top 10 patents by number of forward citation count.

(2) Forward Citation Analysis

http://www.actionablepatents.com/



Regions highlighted in yellow indicate copresence of [My company] and competitors in comparison. Regions highlighted in green indicate [My company] presence without competitors in comparison.

VI. Opportunities

[Fig.9] [My company’s] International Markets

Copresence of [MY company] and competitors

[My company] presence only

Country No. of Applications Status Country No. of Applications Status

United States 57,573

Japan 53,961

China 14,707

Germany 9,158

Korea (South) 6,668

Australia 2,532

Taiwan 1,460

Austria 965

Russian Federation 743

Canada 731

Great Britain (UK) 644

France 477

Spain 421

New Zealand (Aotearoa) 8

Slovenia 8

Finland 5

Greece 5

Netherlands 5

Egypt 4

Indonesia 4

Latvia 4

Poland 4

USSR (former) 4

Ukraine 4

Croatia (Hrvatska) 3

Hungary 3

(3) [My company] international markets without selected competitors’ presence




[Fig.10] depicts major technology sectors that show decline. The decline may be triggered by irrational exuberance in technologies, market saturation, economical replacements or heightened regulation. [My company] should further examine these sectors and align its IP strategy accordingly.

VII. Threats

[Fig. 10] Major Technology Sectors Showing Decline

No data to display

(1) Declining sector(s) In this analysis, the market is defined as a particular technology space where the patent is currently enforceable. The total market size is determined by aggregating all market players' patents that share the same International Patent Classification code. Utilizing publicly available financial data, the model then computes all patent owners’ revenues to estimate the total market size and compare with previous years to determine the growth or decline.




[Fig. 11] Top 5 companies cited by [My company]

The list below shows [My Company's] top 10 patents by number of backward citation count. Backward citation indicates that the patent has cited other patents for prior art. The notion is that patents with a high number of backward citations are likely to mean there is plenty more relevant prior art, and that the patent may have gone through a number of examinations to limit the scope of protection, and thus the invention may lack novelty. [My company] should further examine these patents, identify at-risk patents and adjust investment strategy accordingly.

VII. Threats

Rank Patent No. No. of Citing Sector

1 446 CAMERA

2 339 CAMERA

3 330 PHOTOENGRAVING

4 318 CAMERA

5 288 CAMERA

6 276 CAMERA

7 257 CAMERA

8 254 CAMERA

9 249 CAMERA

10 236 MATERIAL ANALYSIS

Click Patent No. to view details.

US7210XXX

US6961XXX

US7332XXX

US7539XXX

US5753XXX

US7446XXX

US7038XXX

US6320XXX

US6730XXX

US6339XXX

(2) Backward Citation Analysis




Regions highlighted in yellow indicate copresence of [My company] and competitors. Regions highlighted in red indicate competitors' presence without [My company].

VII. Threats

(3) Competitors’ international markets without [My company] presence

[Fig. 12] [My company’s] International Markets


Competitors’ presence only

Country Competitor(s) Status

Algeria CANON KK

Belgium SONY CORP

Bulgaria SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Chile CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SONY CORP

Costa Rica SONY CORP

Croatia (Hrvatska) CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Cuba SONY CORP

Cyprus CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Czech Republic CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Ecuador SONY CORP

Egypt CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Estonia SONY CORP

Finland CANON KK , SONY CORP

Greece CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP







Guatemala SONY CORP

Honduras SONY CORP

Hungary CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Iceland CANON KK

Indonesia CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Ireland CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Italy CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Latvia CANON KK

Lithuania CANON KK

Morocco SONY CORP

Norway CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Peru OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Philippines CANON KK , SONY CORP

Romania SONY CORP

San Marino SONY CORP

Serbia SONY CORP

Serbia and Montenegro CANON KK , SONY CORP

Slovakia SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Slovenia CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

South Africa CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Sweden CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Switzerland SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Turkey CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Ukraine CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Uruguay SONY CORP

USSR (former) CANON KK , SONY CORP

Yugoslavia (former) CANON KK , SONY CORP

Zimbabwe SONY CORP

Argentina CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Australia CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP





Austria CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Brazil CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Canada CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

China CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Colombia SONY CORP

Denmark CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

France CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Germany CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Great Britain (UK) CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Hong Kong CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

India CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Israel CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Japan CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Korea (South) CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Malaysia CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Mexico CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Netherlands CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

New Zealand (Aotearoa) CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Poland CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Portugal CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Russian Federation CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Singapore CANON KK , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Spain CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

Taiwan CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP

United States CANON KK , OLYMPUS CORP , SHARP CORP , SONY CORP






VII. Threats

(4) Technology sectors with most patent litigations

[Fig.13] visualizes a technology sector with most patent related litigations for the last five years. For future R&D outputs for the sector further investigation may be necessary as the severity of litigation, prior rulings, and ongoing proceedings may bring a negative impact on intended business objectives.

■ SECTOR: PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION(Television/Digital Camera/Projector)

[Fig. 13] Patent litigation trend during the last 5 years

- Major Plaintiffs

Litigation Filings by Year

Plaintiff 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

1 HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC 13 55 49 87 204

2 PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION 6 48 1 111

3 TROVER GROUP INC 5 7 30 129

4 QUEST NETTECH CORPORATION 12 10 11 33

5 CANATELO LLC 6 17 7 36

6 INMOTION IMAGERY TECHNOLOGIES LLC 8 6 4 9 33

7 THE SECURITY CENTER INC 5 7 13 25

8 BROADQAST SOLUTIONS LLC 22 22

9 VIDEOSQOPE LLC 22 22

10 CEECOLOR INDUSTRIES LLC 13 7 24

(* ordered by total number of litigations)

Source: U.S. Court and USITC (United States International Trade Commission

sample

203

87

6

6

4

56




VIII. Patent SWOT Analysis

[My company] has the competitive edge in following technology sectors with vigorous R&D activities with high quality patents. Potential 'star' patent(s) may be found here to support strategic business opportunities.

Strengths

- CAMERA

- PHOTOENGRAVING

[My company] is less competitive in following technology sectors with a relatively small number of patents. The company may hold niche technology with limited diversity or less focused in this space lacking technology recognition.

Weaknesses

- OPTICS MECHANISM

- PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION(Television/Digital Camera/Projector)

Threats Opportunities

- PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION(Television/Digital Camera/Projector)

- PHOTOENGRAVING

- OPTICS MECHANISM

(2) [My Company]’s patents that are most cited by others

(3) International presence of [My Company]

(2) Patents that are most cited by [My Company] US7545481 US7081943 US5969441 US6952253

US7199858 US6208407 US7075616 US6778257

US6867844 US7193232

Algeria Belgium Bulgaria

Further investigation may be required as prior rulings may bring a negative impact on sector intended business objectives.

(4) Sector with most patent litigations

- PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION(Television /Digital Camera/Projector)

US7210XXX US6961XXX US7332XXX

US7539XXX US5753XXX

US7446XXX

US7038XXX

US6320XXX

US6730XXX

US6339XXX

Latvia

Below sectors show decline in market size compared to other sectors. The decline may be caused by market saturation, economical replacements or heightened regulation. [My company] should further examine these sectors and align its IP strategy accordingly.

Selected competitors are currently present in these regions without [My company]. They may create a high barrier to entry for [My company].

Selected competitors are currently not present in these regions.




Appendix: How Patent Quality is Measured

Ranking Percentile Grades

Top 1% AA

Within top 1~3% A+

Within top 3~5% A0

Within top 5~10% A-

Within top 10~20% B+

Within top 20~50% B0

Within top 50~60% B-

Below 60% C

Patent Grading by Evaluation Score

The proprietary PatentGrade™ system developed by Wisdomain analyzes following quality attributes to determine patent quality. (1) inventor’s expertise (2) technological significance (3) technology endurance (4) marketability (5) technology focus (6) novelty (7) assignee’s endeavors (8) degree of competitors’ containment (9) breadth of rights (10) completeness of rights Each quality attribute is evaluated for its significance to the target patent. The initial evaluation result is a numerical value which is then applied to a weighted scale to compute a letter grade to represent the patent quality. The same evaluation process is applied to all other patents that share the same technology space to produce the ranking percentile index.


swot analysis sample - actionablepatents

Documents