Software For Technological Patent Intelligence

e4
e4
Software for Technological Patent Intelligence

“What are the main functions used by professionals working in patent analysis? How
much importance do users attach to these functions? What software is available for
patent analysis and which software meets user requirements most satisfactorily?
Software for
This pioneering report surveys the needs of intellectual property (IP) professionals,
who exploit patents to produce intelligence, and surveys software product Technological Patent
Intelligence
capabilitites.
Patents are a valuable source of information which, if analyzed, can help to generate
knowledge about the relative positions of the different players or establish the state
2006
of the art in a given field. The report describes how patent professionals exploit and
utilize software packages and it compares to the features of the evaluated software Evaluation of softwares
packages. It also shows the value attached to the characteristics provided by the
producers. We think that this report, unique in his work, offers a framework for
and technological intelligence needs
those working with intellectual property”
Juan Carlos Vergara

Alessandro Comai
Joaquín Tena Millán
A unique survey of patent analysis software, detailing process steps and
examining software features in the context of user need... also potentially
useful for future software developers.
Martha Matteo, Ph.D.

Dr. Matteo is the former director of competitive technical intelligence at Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (ret.) and currently serves as the vice president for the
Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP).
Vergara, Comai y Tena
EMECOM Ediciones in collaboration with

PUZZLE - Revista Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva
ISBN-10 84-935178-0-1 EMECOM PUZZLE - Revista Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva
Eng - Cubierta Estudio.indd 1 11/07/2006, 12:28

Software for Technological
Patent Intelligence
Evaluation of software
and technological intelligence needs.
Juan Carlos Vergara

Alessandro Comai
Software for Technological Patent Intelligence
Evaluation of software and technological intelligence needs.
Vergara, Juan Carlos; Comai, Alessandro and Tena Millán, Joaquín
Published by:
PUZZLE - Revista Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva (www.revista-puzzle.com).
EMECOM Consultores, S.L.

Llacuna, 162
08018 Barcelona - Spain
Teléfono +34 93 401 98 01
info@emecom-ediciones.com
http://www.emecom-ediciones.com
National book catalogue number: B-35363-2006
ISBN-10 84-935178-0-1
Printed in Spain
© Copyright 2006: Juan Carlos Vergara, Alessandro Comai and Joaquín Tena Millán.
No part of this publication, including cover design, may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronically or optically, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- vi -
- vii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents vii

Presentation and Acknowledgements xi
1. Main Findings 15
2. Introduction 19
3. Methodology 25
3.1 Definition of Application Characteristics 25
3.2 Analysis of supply 31
3.3 Definition of demand: use, relative needs and value
attached to the applications 33
4. Results of the study: demand, user 41
4.1 Profession 41
4.2 Sectors represented 41
4.3 Experience 42
4.4 Searching and Downloading 42
4.5 Filtering and Value adding 44
4.6 Local Analysis and Exploitation 48
4.7 Graphic Generation 48
4.8 Dissemination and Workgroup 50
4.9 Management of Tool 52
4.10 Importance 52
5. Comparison of Software: Supply 59
5.1 Program evaluated: Matheo Analyzer v3.0 61
5.2 Program evaluated: Matheo Patent v7.1 73
- viii - Software for Technological Patent Intelligence
5.3 Program evaluated: PatentLabII v1.41 83

5.4 Program evaluated: PM Manager v1.4.0.3 93
5.5 Program evaluated: Vantage Point v4.0 105
5.6 Programs not evaluated 115
6. Conclusion and discussion 139
6.1 Results of comparison 139
6.2 Final thoughts 145
7. References and Autors 151
8. Annexes 157
8.1 Annex 1: Letter of invitation sent to software-
producing companies 157
8.2 Annex 2: Letter of Invitation sent to professional
individuals 159
8.3 Annex 3: 3rd. Letter of Invitation sent to
professional individuals 160
individuals (in Spanish) 161
8.5 Annex 5: Functions Table 163
8.6 Annex 6: Questionnaire 165
8.7 Annex 7: List of IP Organizations 175
PRESENTATION AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-x-
- xi -
PRESENTATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank all those individuals and companies who have taken
part in our research, completing the questionnaire and attending to our
requests for information. We would like to express our gratitude also to all
the other individuals and companies we contacted in the course of this study,
for the attention and time they have given us and for the interest they have
shown.
We would also like to thank PUZZLE Magazine for providing us with the
space and resources with which to prepare and carry out the poll.
- xii -
SECTION ONE
Main Findings
- 14 -
- 15 -
1. MAIN FINDINGS
Five companies took part and allowed us access to their patent analysis
software, which we were then able to evaluate.
In order to evaluate the main functions and characteristics of patent analysis

software, we prepared a model specifying the concepts into which said
functions can be divided.
The model was applied to both supply and demand; in other words, our
research looked, on the one hand, to experts in patent analysis for their
evaluation of the functions and characteristics specified in the model, whilst
on the other hand, we also assessed, according to the same model, the software
created by individuals or companies to which we had access.
We worked on the supposition that the software assessed was representative

of the software being offered on the market, although we accepted that our
sample was limited and also biased by the eagerness of manufacturers to be
included in our study.
We concluded that, of all the groups of functions, the section “Searching

and Downloading” is the one which adapts least well, in general, to user
demand. This weakness is also accentuated by the fact that users gave
relative importance a higher rating than patent information searching and
downloading compared to the other groups.
Only a few functions within this group, such as “Ability to import patent
records” for instance, adapt to demand.
The group of functions which by and large lives up to user expectations is

“Filtering and Value Adding”. In other words, the supply of functions slightly
exceeds the use made of them.
According to the results of the study, “Local Analysis abd Exploitation” is a

group of functions which does not meet user demand. The results obtained
- 16 - Software for Technological Patent Intelligence
show that only two of the five software programs cover 50% of these
functions.
“Graphic generation” shows positive global results, although there are several
areas which are not dealt with quite as persistently as, for instance, graphic
and statistical exploitation of the searches carried out. “Space or topographic
representation of a patent collection – text mining analysis” or “Ability to
use local databases to integrate new data and complete the patent analysis”
are hence barely covered by the software studied, when they are in fact used
relatively frequently.
“Dissemination and Workgroup” is another group of functions which is not

given much space in the software analyzed in this study. Alerts, for instance,
are not adequately covered despite the fact they are the functions most used
by users.
There is a major weakness in “Management of Tool”. None of the software

included in the study covers the seven functions described for this group
in any satisfactory way. This low rating could be due to the fact that the
professional individuals who replied are not application administrators (also
referred to as webmaster). It is for this reason perhaps, that both the use, as
well as the importance, of these functions has a relatively low rating.
Overall we have reached the following general conclusions:
- No patent-monitoring software fully covers the functions one would

expect to find in software of this kind.
- Although existing patent-monitoring software meets user demands,
there are major gaps in many functions.
SECTION TWO
Introduction
- 18 -
- 19 -
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Patent Analysis Software: a review of the situation
A bibliographical review of patent analysis software shows that no specialized

work has been carried out as regards the evaluation of supply and demand of
computer applications for patent analysis. An interesting work was proposed
by Trippe 2003, who explored the added value of patent tools available in the
market. Up until now, all that existed were a few reports dealing with issues
relating mainly to copyright in general (“Patent Tools Survey”)1. Other minor
work has focused on preparing lists of tools available in the market2.
The applications included in this study are used to obtain more advanced
knowledge relating to copyright and they are used in Technological Watch
or Competitive Technological Intelligence activities. In other words, patents
are a valuable source of information which, if analyzed as a group, can help
to generate the basic knowledge for creating theories on the relative positions
of the different players in a given field. At the same time, the historical study
of patents allows future projections to be made, by means of quantitative
or statistical tools, or the trends within a sector or a specific company to be
identified. Paap (2002) considers, for instance, that the following can be
obtained from patent analysis:
- The main players - competitors and current and potential

collaborators - and their focal areas.
- Movement in the interest of the aforementioned players to evaluate
the greater or lesser importance given to a technology or a line of
research and development.
- Organization of the technical endeavors and movement of personnel
in time between departments.
- Patent strategies used by participants and the opportunities provided
and threats posed by the strategies “surrounding the patents”.
A number of studies and articles in this field have shown the importance and
benefits of carrying out more or less sophisticated patent analysis (Vergara,
2004; Rodriguez, 2003; Lozano, 2003). Other work has focused on tackling
patent exploitation (Paap, 2002; Adams, 2006) or how to organize a systematic
collection process using patents as a primary source.
As we mentioned earlier, computer applications make the job of statistical
analysis or the preparation of patent maps far simpler, thus giving rise to
Competitive Technological Intelligence (CTI). It has been shown that
computer applications can have a very large number of characteristics and
functions aiding the work of experts in this area. For this reason, it is currently
highly important that we be aware that applications do exist in the market
and that we know which of them can best meet the needs of professional
individuals working in CTI.
2.2 Software analysis studies for Competitive Technological

Intelligence (CTI)
Competitive Technological Intelligence is a practice which specializes in
scientific and technological tasks including several types of operations.
Generally speaking, the basic process can be compared to the process used by
Competitive Intelligence (CI). However, since the emphasis in this context
is on technology, CTI uses specialized activities such as Patent Analysis3 (PA).
We should emphasize that it is perhaps due to this, that the software
designed currently for CI (see for instance: Bouthiller and Shearer, 2003;
Nikkel, 2003; Fuld&Company, 2004)4 do not yet include patent analysis,
since this is a specialist area belonging to the department of R&D.
2.3 Purpose of the Study

This report looks at the supply and demand of software aimed at exploiting
patent systems. As we saw earlier in the bibliographical review, no study has
been made of how patent users exploit and utilize software packages. In this
report, we made our assessment on the basis of two separate studies using the
same base structure.
Our motives for carrying out this pioneering study can be summarized as
follows:
- Non-existence of exhaustive studies comparing computer applications

for PA.
Introduction - 21 -
- The lack of studies on the demand for software for patent analysis.
That is, the lack of awareness regarding the use of and the value
attached to the characteristics provided by the producers of this type
of computer application.
- Non-existence of any comparison of applications together with a
need expressed by users of said products.
- To obtain an assessment of the magnitude and growth of the supply.
We recorded over 21 applications existing in the market5, which in
our opinion, is an extensive supply for this specialized field. Another
trend which stands out is the increase, if only marginal, in the
number of this type of application.
- We are dealing with a wide range of available computer applications
for PA. An application can have a very large number of functions.
However, applications currently existing in the market include
different groups of functions and it is, as a result, hard to make any
kind of partial comparison of them. For this reason, we believe that
it is necessary to standardize or have a uniform approach to the study
of these applications in order to make the comparison valid.
All of this has led us to formulate several research questions:
1. Which are the main characteristics or functions used by professional

individuals working in PA?
2. How much importance do PA users attach to each group of
functions?
3. Which software is available for patent PA?
4. Which software meets PA requirements most satisfactorily?
The answers to these key questions are given in the following chapters.
**********************************
Footnotes
1
See: “PatentCafe’s Patent Software Tools survey” (http://tinyurl.com/96mja)
[Consulted on August 11, 2005].
2
See for instance Paap, J. (2002). Using technical intelligence to drive innovation and
technical decisions. Workshop given at the Annual International SCIP conference in
Cincinati, USA.
3
It can be observed that the difference between CI and CTI does not occur only
in patent analysis. CTI also uses primary and secondary sources specializing in
recovering technological information.
4
See Assessing Competitive Intelligence Software by Bouthiller and Shearer (2003),
Software Report 2004-2005 published by Fuld&Company (2004) (http://
www.fuld.com/Products/ISR2004/HomePage.html) or How can We Determine which
Competitive Intelligence Software Is Most Effective? By Nikkel (2003, p.163). Full
references can be obtained at the end of the book (see page 151-152).
5
See summary table 1.
SECTION THREE
Methodology
- 24 -
- 25 -
3. METHODOLOGY
In order to answer the research questions posed above, two separate sections of
the study were developed, using and integrating them in a joint framework.
a) Study of the patent CTI software available: this study focused on

assessing the different application functions.
b) Study of the demand for patent CTI software: this study focused on
assessing the subjective needs of users in terms of use and importance
attached to the different application functions.
Both sections used the same framework for studying the application functions.
In other words, the same groups of functions were studied from both a
demand as well as a supply viewpoint (see the following section on this).
The study of supply was made separately - that is, it was “blind” - with
no knowledge of the results of the study on demand. In this way, we tried to
avoid any bias in the judgments made in both sections of the study.
3.1 Definition of Application Characteristics

In order to evaluate both demand as well as supply, we used a list of software
characteristics or functions defined on the basis of:
- A review of literature in this field (Ashton y Klavans, 1997; APQC,

2001; Paap, 2002; Trippe, 2003; Dou, et al., 2005; Adamas, 2006).
- Analysis of the software available on the market.
- and the personal experience of the authors.
The functions identified in this way (41 in total) were divided into 6 groups,
as shown in the following table1:
1.- Searching and Downloading

Ability to search in a set of online patent databases
Ability to search in other technical/grey literature online databases
Ability to search in local (intranet) databases
Ability to import patent records
Ability to import other records (not patents)
Ability to launch simultaneous searches in multiple databases
Ability to save search strategies
Ability to Schedule repetitive searches
Downloading and integration of patent legal status
Downloading and integration of graphics
Downloading and integration of pdf documents
2.- Filtering and Value Adding

Automatic duplicate detection and removal
Automatic grouping of patent families
Automatic generation of field indexes
Ability to define and build new indexes
Wizard for grouping and cleaning terms of indexes
Patent pertinence (user filled field)
Annotation of patents (user filled field)
Ability to define and edit patent groups
Links to other related documents
Taxonomies creation and edition
3.- Local Analysis and Exploitation

Automatic extraction of main keywords from patents
Automatic abstracts
Automatic clustering of patents
Automatic classification of patents using semantic filters
Full text searching capabilities
Semantic searching capabilities
Methodology - 27 -
4.- Graphic Generation

Cite Analysis (cited and citing patents in relation to a known patent)
Rankings - Analysis of one field.
Matrix or Bar graphs – Two field’s co-occurrence analysis
Network relations analysis – Two fields co-occurrence analysis
Space or topographic representation of a patent collection – text mining
analysis
Ability to use local databases to integrate new data and complete the patent
analysis
5.- Dissemination and Workgroup

Ability to publish the contents in the intranet / internet
Personalised alerts
Alerts to detect changes in the legal status of a patent
Automatic reports using templates
Ability to export data
Ability to create a poll and link a patent to a poll
Ability to link a patent to a forum
Ability to link a patent to an event in a shared agenda
6.- Management of Tool

Users access rights management
Multi-user access and edition
Access and search interface customisation
Multilanguage interface
Document collections access rights management
System utilisation statistics
Table 1 - Definition of Application Functions.
The following is a more detailed list of the functions.

3.1.1 Searching and Downloading
This section assesses all the characteristics relating to the process of information
collection and its automation.
The environment in which a typical user currently carries out his or her
work might include access to patent databases as well as access to other
bibliographical databases that are normally scientific and technological and
which usually complement one another.
In addition to this, these databases can be located in a local network (in a
private database for instance or in a commercial CDROM-based database) as
well as in a website, which means that changes must be implemented in the
program in order to allow access to each of these options.
Wherever the program included an interface for information searching in
a website, we also considered the option for saving the search strategy and for
programming its periodic implementation, since these are basic tasks for the
Technological Observation function.
Another very basic characteristic is the ability to import the results of the
searches carried out in any information source, normally in csv format (comma
separated values), in text format delimited by fields or in XML format.
Lastly, the ability to integrate other information relating to patents in
order to add to their value was also assessed. This information is normally
in the form of graphics or .pdf documents, but it can also be, for instance:
legal information which could increase or remove the value of a patent, or
economic information relating to a company or a technology.
3.1.2 Filtering and Value Adding
This section covers a whole list of tasks all of which have in common the
fact that, when they are carried out, the information becomes far cleaner and
better organized and assessed, making subsequent analysis far easier and, in
addition, resulting in much firmer conclusions.
In patent analysis, it is important to define the information “unit” to be
analyzed. Generally speaking, analysts work with “patent families” which
group together in one single record all the documents generated from the
same priority number. The deletion of duplicate patents and the grouping of
patents by families is a task which should be carried out either prior to loading
the information into the software or once it has been loaded.
Automatic generation of indexes, the ability to easily generate new indexes
from elements contained in different information fields (for instance terms
Methodology - 29 -
included in the title), is also examined.

Once the indexes have been created, the data included therein must be
checked for any possible errors and, if necessary, these must be corrected,
so that the analyses are correct. The most typical example is the name of an
inventor or a company, which may vary where abbreviations are used.
Lastly, it is important for users to be able to assess the contents of the
patents as they read them. In this way, new information fields are generated
which can be analyzed subsequently, such as groups based on specific user
interests, links with other valuable documents, or comments on the contents
of each patent. Each of these operations adds value to the group of patents
to be analyzed, making group work and the making of a final decision on a
group of patents easier.
3.1.3 Local Analysis and Exploitation
In this section, we assess the basic abilities of the software to manage the
information accumulated (filters and advanced searches, classification of
results by different criteria, etc.).
Other more advanced abilities are also assessed, such as the generation of
automatic abstracts for each patent, the extraction of the most representative
concepts of each document, the automated “clustering” of the patents into
different categories or semantic searching. These abilities already have some
relation to text mining.
3.1.4 Graphic Generation
This section itemizes the graphics most used by current applications. In

general, they can be divided into the following types:
- Single-dimension ratings or classifications, normally represented by a

line or by bar charts showing one single variable (terms which appear
in one field).
- Bar graphs or matrixes showing the relationship between two
variables (two analyzed fields). These graphics show the number of
times two terms appear simultaneously (co-occurrences), each in one
information field.
- Relationship networks: this graphic allows a fair number of variants.
Generally speaking, each term appears as a node in a bi-dimensional
space, with lines leading to other terms to which the initial term
is related. These links can be shown in a way which is more or less

vivid or using different colors or associated numbers according to
the number of co-occurrences existing between both terms. In
addition to this, each node can be larger or smaller or a different
color depending on the total number of patents in which it appears.
Each node can also be associated to a different icon according to
other parameters. Lastly, the position of the nodes in this space and
their close proximity to each other may be set by the software in
accordance with specific algorithms or they may just float, allowing
the user to move them around resulting in a clearer image.
- Topographic representations: images in 2 or 3 dimensions which
can be complemented by different color tones, showing the more
representative concepts, the main classifications or the most
important companies in a group of patents. They provide an intuitive
vision of the information available in said group and allow analysis
to be focused on specific sections of said topographic representation.
- Cite analysis: a special kind of representation of relationships between
patents, in which the links express the existence of a cite between one
patent and another previous one.
3.1.5 Dissemination and Workgroup
This section includes a list of the different tasks and functions which can be
automated in order to reinforce collaborative work. Firstly, the initial idea is
that each user should have his, or her, own information profile and receive
any alerts corresponding to said profile. From here, the ability of each user to
generate reports using predefined templates in his or her specialty is assessed.
In addition, the aim is to generate new knowledge among different
individuals by means of discussion and joint analysis of different
multidisciplinary issues dealing with said shared information. The possibilities
for group work considered were: the generation of polls, the generation of
forum discussion and the existence of a shared agenda for the work to be
carried out.
Several options for exporting information to standard formats, allowing
their use in other software, were also listed.
Methodology - 31 -
3.1.6 Management of Tool
This section cites a group of functions that assess the ease with which
the software adapts to the requirements of different users (for instance:
different languages) with different rights (edition or creation, for instance),
simultaneous work or whether or not the information can be published in an
intranet.
The ability to generate system use statistics is included, so that an
assessment can be made as to how the use of the software is developing and in
short, as to how efficient it is.
3.2 Analysis of supply

A review of applications available on the market allowed an initial approach to
be put forward with regard to specialized software for patent analysis.
3.2.1 Criteria and selection of patent analysis software
The initial software selection was carried out using the following criteria:
- the software carries out some kind of analysis.

- the supplier is available to deliver a complete copy for assessment.
- it must be possible to install the software in the client company’s
server.2
- we received a positive answer to our suggestion regarding participation
in the study.
The following table summarizes the selection criteria, organized in such a

way that each criterion eliminates a specific number of applications from our
study.
Criterion Calculation Selection Criteria Number of

Order Softwares
1 + Analysis of existing software open to 33

study
2 - Those which do not carry out any kind 12
of analysis
3 = Those which can be assessed and 21

installed in a server for testing
4 - Those which did not receive an 2
invitation from us
5 - Those which decided not to join the 2
study
6 - Do not confer software license and 1
prefer to bring documentation
7 - Those which did not reply to our 11
invitation to take part in the study
8 = Assessed software 5
Table 3 – Selection of Patent Analysis Softwares and results

of invitation process.
By way of an example, we would like to cite two packages which were

discarded and which were on the initial list of patent analysis software (see
point 1 of the previous table):
- BizInt – This package only reformats records obtained from very

specific patent databases (Dialog or Questel, for instance). That is, it
creates tables and repositions the fields in tables, but it does not carry
out any kind of analysis. We did not include this application because
the assessment would be pretty well invalid in almost all sections.
- Kaliwatch (Pro and Server) is a generic technological observation
tool. It has some interesting functions for cooperation between users
but it does not focus on analysis, and even less on patent analysis (it
does not even mention patents as an information source).
Methodology - 33 -
We did not, therefore, think it appropriate to include this software program

in our list.
3.2.2 Invitation to participate
On the basis of prior analysis, 21 companies were identified as being suitable

to partake in the study. They were invited to do so by electronic mail during
the first week of July, 2005. The follow-up subsequent to the invitation was
carried out by telephone.
All of the messages were sent with an acknowledgement of receipt. Very
few of these were returned to us and we received a reply stating that the
message had been deleted. In addition, the MAPIT mail server produced an
error and was not therefore included in our research. Despite the fact that
the number of acknowledgements was low, we assumed that a total of 19
companies received our invitation correctly.
3.3 Definition of demand: use, relative needs and value

attached to the applications
In order to evaluate the situation as regards demand in relation to the
characteristics or functions of the software, we carried out a poll among IP
professional individuals and users interested in monitoring and analyzing
patents and also copyright in general. The questions for which this part of the
study hopes to find answers are:
1. Which characteristics or functions do professional individuals use

mainly?
2. How much importance do they attach to each group of functions?
These two questions establish a starting point for patent analysis software
demand. In other words, we wish to identify the potential needs of patent
users, without actually specifically defining the real current and future needs
of professional individuals.
Having carefully pondered the possibilities for studying user needs, we
came up with a simple and representative approach. In effect, the approach we
suggest in our study focuses on the “use” of the functions described in Table
1 of our poll.
In addition, we introduced a section in which we assess the degree of
relative importance attached by users to the different functions. This exercise

allowed us to determine:
1. The degree to which each function is used.

2. The importance attached to each group of functions4.
The main focus of our study is the situation as regards software currently
available and whether this software lives up to user expectations. The
assessment of user needs and the definition of the future of the software or
the determination of the “value” attached to each function incorporated in
existing software and included in our sample are not the main focus of this
study.
Reality does not always match the wishes of users. Despite the fact that a
user may wish for a function and value it highly, as long as he has no software
program which offers said function, he will have to reply in the questionnaire
that he does not use this function. This gives rise to a simplification of the
questions.
3.3.1 Instrument
The instrument used to collect data was an online questionnaire, accessible on

a webpage specializing in information gathering and data processing5.
The questionnaire included 41 functions divided into 6 sections and an
additional page where groups were assessed separately (see Annex 8.6).
3.3.2 Assessment of use and relative importance of functions
The assessment of the use of the 41 functions (items) divided into 6 groups
described in the questionnaire was carried out by requesting information on
the following aspects (see Annex 8.5 or page 26):
1. Function use - The degree of use was assessed using a 7-point Likert
scale.
2. Relative importance of functions - It was suggested to those
responding to the questionnaire that they use an evaluation system in
which they awarded 1 point to the factor which was least important to
them when compared with the other factors. This method allowed us
to define which groups of functions users consider most important6.
3.3.3 Sample
Methodology - 35 -
In our study of demand, we used two databases containing data on professional

individuals and patent users. There are currently two main sources amassing
the vast majority of professional individuals involved in patent and copyright
issues. We discarded other distribution lists such as those originating in the
east (see Annex 8.7, for instance) since this project is focused mainly on
western populations. These two databases allowed us to reach a significant
number of professional individuals. A detailed list of these is given below:
- The association PIUG has approximately 600 active members,

according to its web page (http://www.piug.org), from 22 countries
including the United States of America. The majority of members are
from the United States, Europe and Japan. The professional profile of
the members includes lawyers specializing in patents, patent agents,
people who grant licenses, patent information researchers, patent
information salespeople and experts in patent information and
documentation.
- The mailing list “EPO Mailing List” (http://www.european-patent-
office.org/mail.htm).
The total number of individuals to be studied is approximately 600 + 800.

It should be remembered, that these figures are not exact due to the fact that
these distribution lists are voluntary and free and may therefore fluctuate
considerably over time7. In addition, it was impossible to obtain any
demographic information on subscribers from either PIUG or EPO since
they are anonymous lists open to all8.
3.3.4 Sending of the invitation
The invitation to participate in this initial study was sent by electronic mail.
A total of three invitations were sent:
1. On July 11, 2005, the official invitation9 to participate in the

poll was sent. This invitation resulted in around 35 replies to the
questionnaire. In view of the relatively poor result, we decided to
send a second invitation.
2. On July 18, 2005, a second invitation was sent. This produced 53
additional questionnaires.
3. On July 27, 2005, the third and final invitation was sent, the result
of which was a total of 102 replies. This final call set a deadline at
July 31, 2005.
Despite the fact that a major increase was observed in the number of replies
obtained each time a new invitation was sent, we considered that three
invitations gave a sufficiently satisfactory result.
3.3.5 Results
The end results of the poll were 102 valid questionnaires. The following table
summarizes the results of the PIUG and EPO listing.
Ref. Operation Action Number %

1 + Invitations sent 1400 10
100
2 - Mail deleted 1 -
3 - Unread mail 1 -
4 = Results: net invitations 1398 99.99
5 - Did not reply 1296 92.72
6 = Questionnaires opened 102 7.28
7 - Incomplete questionnaires 0 0
8 = People who replied 102 7.2811
Table 4 – People involved and final sample of users.
*******************************************
Footnotes
1
This characteristic is not a selection criteria but it did significantly reduce the
number of applications assessed.
2
The profile of those polled and of how the sample was chosen is described in later
sections.
3
This part of the poll is relatively simplified. We have taken a simple approach,
however, since an assessment of the relevant functions would have become excessively
complex otherwise.
4
The scale was as follows: “Not at all”, “Very little”, “Little”, “Sometimes”, “Often”,
“Almost every time”, “Always”. “Not Applicable (N/A)” was also added.
5
For further information on the provider used, see Surveymonkey.com (http://
Methodology - 37 -
www.surveymonkey.com).
6
Personal comunication; Juan Manel Batista (ESADE, Barcelona, Spain). To see an
application which uses this method, see Comai, A (2005) “Factores y Contingencias
en la Inteligencia Competitiva: Resultado en un estudio piloto,” PUZZLE - Revista
Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva, 4(18):12-15. (see http://www.revista-
puzzle.com/puzzle_sum_18.htm).
7
By way of an example, it can be observed that the total number of confirmations of
having read or rejections of the invitations we sent by electronic mail exceeded 230.
It should also be noted that these readings were made long after the questionnaire
expired.
8
We contacted both PIUG as well as EPO in order to obtain this information. The
replies, however, were negative. In other words, they had no information on the
subject. For PIUG, see “http://piug.org/list.html#Majordomo%20Commands%20-
%20How%20to%20Join%20the%20Discussion%20List” and for EPO see “http://
www.european-patent-office.org/mail.htm”.
9
See Annex 8.1
10
Estimation (see section Sample, page 35).
11
Approximation (see section Sample, page 35).
- 38 -
SECTION FOUR
Results of the study: demand, users
- 40 -
- 41 -
4. RESULTS OF THE STUDY: DEMAND, USERS
This chapter gives the results in detail of the poll carried out among patent
users.
Social and demographic information

This section provides a general overview of the 102 responses we had to
the questionnaire. As we mentioned earlier, neither the PIUG nor the EPO
list contains any social or demographic information and we have therefore
considered it appropriate to include a profile of the IP experts polled.
4.1 Profession
There is some variety in the profession of those polled. The questionnaire
included three clusters or groups of activity: R+D Manager (6.3%), Librarian
(5.3%), and technicians (10.5%). These three activities accounted for less than
23% of the total number of individuals polled but constitute an important
minority. The professions identified as most common were “Patent specialist
or searcher” (18/102) “Patent attorney” (12/102) and “Copyright manager”
(7/102). Nevertheless, lawyers, patent experts and company directors also
completed the questionnaire (see Figure 1).
4.2 Sectors represented

The sectors represented in this sample are also very varied (see Figure 2).
However, with regard to profession, it can be observed that 56% of those
polled come from the pharmaceutical, chemical, electronics, computer and
engineering and mechanics sectors. There is also a certain homogeneity
within this group in which, excepting electronics, the four remaining sectors
account for very similar percentages (between 10.3% and 14.4%).
In the rest of the sample (43.3%) several sectors are represented, including
consumer goods, biotechnology, cosmetics, software design, as well as
consultants, the government and universities. The consultancy group contains
16 companies.1
4.3 Experience
We inferred from the sample, that the patent experts have notably extensive
experience in everything relating to their work. Despite the fact that we did
not specifically ask in the questionnaire whether their experience related
exclusively to patents or whether it was wider-ranging, we are inclined to
think that their experience in the former is very extensive. In fact, the vast
majority of the sample (75.5%) reports having 6 years experience and 53.1%,
over 11 years. Figure 3 gives a breakdown of the sample in terms of experience
in the field of patents.
These results support those obtained for our research, due to the fact
that extensive experience in the field of patent analysis is very relevant to an
adequate response to our questionnaire.
Information on the functions by area of interest

This section discusses the results relating to the functions included in the 6
key characteristics of patent analysis software plus a final section analyzing the
relative importance of said characteristics.
4.4 Searching and Downloading

This characteristic assembles the main patent searching functions in both
commercial as well as in private databases. The functions relating to patent
downloading/import or search strategy recording in this characteristic were
considered at the same time (see Table 5).
Results of the Study: demand, users - 43 -
Figure 1 – Professions of those polled.
Figure 2 – Sectors represented in the sample.
Figure 3 – Years of experience in patent analysis

of professional individuals polled.
1. Searching in complementary technical / grey literature online databases

2. Searching in local (intranet) databases
3. Importing patent records from other software
4. Launching simultaneous searches in multiple databases
5. Saving search strategies
6. Scheduling repetitive searches
7. Downloading and integration of patent legal status
8. Downloading and integration of graphics
9. Downloading and linking of pdf documents
Table 5 – Searching and Downloading functions.
Of these functions, the one which is most used (frequent use)2 or which has
obtained the highest average rating is “Saving search strategies”. This function
stands out from the others due to the fact that around 30% of those polled
maintain that they always use it.
Other functions obtained similar average ratings, such as “Downloading
and linking of pdf documents”, “Launching simultaneous searches in
multiple databases” or “Downloading and integration of patent legal status”,
for instance, which are used with a frequency very close to “often”.
In a second group not far behind the first, we find less frequently used
functions. For instance, “Scheduling repetitive searches”, “Searching in
complementary technical / grey literature online databases”, “Searching in local
(intranet) databases”, “Downloading and integration of patent legal status”,
“Importing patent records from other software” are used “Sometimes”.
It should be observed, however, that the data for each function is somewhat
dispersed. That is, users make quite different use of the functions. A maximum
of 32 cases and a minimum of 5 users per type of use were recorded for all
functions. Figure 4 shows this distribution.
4.5 Filtering and Value Adding

This group of functions, under the heading filters and value adding, allows
patents to be managed in a very different way once they have been captured
and filed in the company’s database. The functions included in this section
are as follows:
Almost every time

Almost every time
Sometimes
40
Often
Sometimes
Always
% 30
Often
Very little
Not at all
Always
Not at all
Very little
20
Little
Little
10
N/A
N/A
0
1. Searching in complementary 2. Searching in local (intranet)

technical/grey literature online databases
databases
40
% 30
20
10
0
3. Importing patent records from 4. Launching simultaneous

other software searches in multiple databases
40
% 30
20
10
0
5. Saving search strategies 6. Scheduling repetitive searches
40
% 30
20
10
0
7. Downloading and integration of 8. Downloading and integration of

patent legal status graphics
40
% 30
20
10
0
9. Downloading and linking of pdf

documents
Figure 4 – Searching and Downloading.

1. Automatic patent duplicate detection and removal

2. Automatic grouping of patent families
3. Automatic generation of field indexes
4. Definition and building of additional indexes
5. Grouping and cleaning of index terms
6. Evaluation of pertinence (user filled field)
7. Annotation of patents (user filled field)
8. Definition and edition of patent groups
9. Linking to other related documents
10. Creation and edition of taxonomies
Table 6 – Filtering and Value Adding functions.
The results of the poll show that there is some difference in the way in which
these functions are used.
Firstly, it should be observed that the most frequently used functions are
“Automatic grouping of patent families” and “Automatic patent duplicate
detection and removal”. The use associated with these two functions is “often”
(4.88 and 4.73 respectively). In addition, 18 and 20 experts in each case stated
that they “always” use these functions.
On the other hand, the function which is least used is “Creation and
edition of taxonomies”. Half of all users of this function report using it “little”
(2.46).
Other functions, such as “Automatic generation of field indexes” (3.76),
“Evaluation of pertinence” (3.70), “Annotation of patents” (3.64) or “Linking
to other related documents” (3.60), for instance, have an average use ranging
between “sometimes” and “often”, whilst use of the remaining functions, such
as “Definition and building of additional indexes” (3.31), “Definition and
edition of patent groups” (3.29), or “Grouping and cleaning of index terms”
(3.26) appears to be closer to “sometimes”.
It should be emphasized, however, that although some functions obtained
a specific average rating, responses were also extremely wide ranging. In other
words, there are as many experts “always” using a specific function as those
“never” using that same function. There are clear differences in the use by
experts of function 3) “Automatic generation of field indexes”, shown by the
fact that a sizeable number of experts in all use groups appeared on the scale
of 7 points we established in the questionnaire. These findings can be seen in
figure 5.
Figure 5 – Filtering and Value Adding.

4.6 Local Analysis and Exploitation

This group of functions is characterized by its ability to analyze and use
patents in accordance with the concepts stated in the following table:
1. Automatic extraction of main keywords from patents

2. Automatic abstracts
3. Automatic clustering of patents
4. Automatic classification of patents in pre-defined categories
5. Full text indexing/searching
6. Semantic indexing/searching
7. Ability to use local databases to integrate new data and complete the patent
analysis
Table 7 – Local Analysis and Exploitation functions.
The results of the study show that the function which stands out most is “Full
text indexing/searching” of patents, having ascertained that experts use this
function “often”. It should be observed that almost 25% of experts (of the
total 82 who answered this question) always use this function.
A second group includes the remaining functions with relatively similar
ratings, an average use of between “little” and “sometimes). The function
in this group which is most used is the obtaining of “Automatic abstracts”
(3.73) and the least used is “Automatic classification of patents in pre-defined
categories”. The other functions are situated between these two extremes (see
Figure 6).
4.7 Graphic Generation

The applications used in patent analysis can show the information they
are processing in graphic form, allowing an additional, visual exploitation
which is somehow far more vivid than in the cases described above. The five
functions for which information was requested in this study are as follows:
Almost every time

Almost every time
40
Not at all
Sometimes
Not at all
% 30
Sometimes
Always
Often
Very little
Very little
Often
Always
20
Little
Little
N/A
N/A
10
0
1. Automatic extraction of main 2. Automatic abstracts

keywords from patents
40
% 30
20
10
0
3. Automatic clustering of patents 4. Automatic classification of

patents in pre-defined categories
40
% 30
20
10
0
5. Full text indexing/searching 6. Semantic indexing/searching
40
% 30
20
10
0
7. Ability to use local databases to

integrate new data and complete
the patent analysis
Figure 6 – Local Analysis and Exploitation.

1. Cite analysis (cited and citing patents in relation to a known patent)

2. Rankings – Analysis of one field
3. Matrix or bar graphs – Two fields co-occurrence analysis
4. Network relations analysis - Two fields co-occurrence analysis
5. Space or topographic representation of a patent collection – text mining
analysis
Table 8 – Graphic Generation functions.
The two most used functions are “Rankings – Analysis of one field” and “Cite
analysis”, with (4.03 and 3.97)2 respectively, suggesting that they are used
“sometimes”.
These are followed by “Matrix or bar graphs – Two fields co-occurrence
analysis” which is used from “little” to “sometimes” (3.59) and “Network
relations analysis - Two fields co-occurrence analysis” which is used slightly
more than “little” (3.19).
Lastly, “Space or topographic representation of a patent collection – text
mining analysis” is seldom used, given that the majority of the responses we
received fell into the categories “very little” and “little” (2.70) (see Figure 7).
4.8 Dissemination and Workgroup

This group contains the following functions:
1. Publish the contents in the intranet / internet.

2. Customized alerts.
3. Alerts with changes on the legal status.
4. Automatic reports using templates.
5. Export all the fields: .csv, .txt, xml, etc
6. Link a patent to a poll with a key question.
7. Link a patent to a forum and begin discussion.
8. Link a patent to an event with a shared agenda.
Table 9 – Dissemination and Workgroup function.
The function “Customized alerts” (3.99)2 is used “often”. In second place,

somewhere between “sometimes” and “often” comes “Export all the fields”
and “Publish the contents in the intranet / internet” with 3.69 and 3.57
respectively.
Two functions, “Alerts with changes on the legal status” and “Automatic
Figure 7 – Graphic Generation.

reports using templates”, were identified as being used “sometimes”.

Lastly, another three functions are used “little”. It should be noted that
these functions “Link a patent to an event with a shared agenda”, “Link a
patent to a poll with a key question” and “Link a patent to a forum and begin
discussion” are the ones which were rated lowest in this group, since over 50%
of those polled (83) said that they do not use these functions (see Figure 8).
4.9. Management of Tool

This group contains the following functions:
1. Management of users access rights

2. Management of Document collections access rights
3. Simultaneous multi-user access and edition
4. Customization of access and search interface
5. Multilanguage interface
6. System utilization statistics
Table 10 – Management of Tool functions.
The functions above refer to the ability of the software to manage the
applications in such a way that user needs are met. It should be emphasized
that the overall results obtained in this section are among the lowest in the
poll.
As is shown in figure 9, user responses are fairly similar for all functions,
with an average use which is close to “sometimes”. Although the responses are
quite varied, the one which appears most frequently (from 24% to 38%) is
“never”. The function which stands out as being least used is “Multilanguage
interface”.
4.10. Importance
The importance attached to each of the functions included in this section is
a relevant estimate of how highly they are rated. This is how we distinguish
frequency of use from the relative value each user considers has been added to
his work by each group of functions.
Figure 8 –Dissemination and Workgroup.

Figure 9 – Management of Tool.
In order to assess this aspect of the software, we have used an approach

which relates all the functions to the one given the lowest rating by users3.
In this way, a comparison between all the functions can be established on a
qualitative basis which is appropriate for our study4.
A total of 79 experts completed this section. In order to make the
evaluation process easier, the questionnaire suggested an assessment scale of 1
to 3 with intervals of 0.25 points.
The results of the average user ratings obtained are shown in table 11. The
table shows the average of the results obtained and the correction carried out
in order to obtain the relative value.
Groups Average Correction5

1. Searching and Downloading 2.65 2.25
2. Filtering and Value Adding 2.27 1.87
3. Local Analysis and Exploitation 1.86 1.46
4. Graphic Generation 1.59 1.19
5. Dissemination and Workgroup 1.59 1.19
6. Management of Tool 1.40 1
Table 11 – Relative importance of functions.
Firstly, “Searching and Downloading” is the characteristic most appreciated by

users for analyzing patents. This group was rated highest, with results which
reflect the fact that those polled attach an importance to it which is more than
twice that attributed to “Management of Tool”. In addition to this, more than
65% of those polled gave this type of function maximum rating.
The second item, “Filtering and value adding” also stands out as
being appreciated almost twice as much by those polled as the reference
characteristic. This means that the functions associated with this characteristic
rank highly among users. Nevertheless, only 28% of those polled expressed an
opinion on this concept and so it definitely has less of an impact than in the
case of the previous concept (“Searching”).
“Local Analysis and Exploitation” was rated at 1.46. Lastly, another two
characteristics were given a similar degree of importance. Those polled rated
“Graphic Generation” and “Dissemination and Workgroup” only just above
“Management Tool”.
The data obtained allows priorities to be established, emanating from the
opinions of users regarding which functions require more attention in terms
of design and the improvement of the type of software being studied.
********************************************************
Footnotes
1
For instance: legal, copyright management consultants, analysis and assessment of the
financial risk in copyright, lawyers and consultants or IP consultants.
2
The scale used was: (1) Not at all, (2) Very little, (3) Little, (4) Sometimes (5) Often, (6)
Almost every time, (7) Always y (0) N/A.
3
Method suggested by Juan Manel Batista of ESADE Business School (Personal
Communication).
4
The questionnaire contains the following explanation for users interviewed: - NOTE: Assign
“1” to the least important group of methods/techniques and rate ALL the others groups
against it. 6 If you rate “1” it means that the group of methods are equivalent to the one
being compared with. If you rate 1.5 then it means that the group of methods are 50% more
important to the one being compared with. If you rate 2, that means that it is one time more
important or dobble and if you rate 3 it is two time more important and so on... -
5
The correction was carried out as follows: The lowest average rating was identified. In the
case of “Software Management” it is 1.40. Since the system takes 1 as the lowest rating, we
made the lowest rating the reference rating. That is, reducing 1.4 by 0.4. In this case, “Software
Management” became the reference and thus took on the rating 1. The ratings of other items
were reduced by the same amount in order to study the incremental ratings in terms of
importance, in accordance with the evaluation system used in the questionnaire.
SECTION FIVE
Comparison of Software: Supply
- 58 -
- 59 -
5. COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE: SUPPLY
In this section the technical specifications for five of the softwares will be
evaluated in depth in this study. However, information will also be added on
a further ten softwares which have not been fully evaluated. The partial or
complete description of the programs is carried out using the format below:
- Name of the program and the company’s details.

- Evaluation table summarising feature according to the system adopted
by this study.
- Description and details of the program’s features in six key areas.
The technical details of each program are presented in the following section
in alphabetical order.
- 60 -
- 61 -
5.1 Program evaluated: Matheo Analyzer v3.0

Producer: IMCS
8 rue Crillon
13005 Marseille, France
Telephone: +33 (0)491 082 882
Fax: +33 (0) 491 783 906
E-mail: info@imcsline.com
Website: http://www.matheo-software.com
Evaluation Table1
MATHEO ANALYZER v3.0 Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5

Ability to search in a set of online patent
databases
Ability to search in other technical/grey
literature online databases
Ability to search in local (intranet)
databases
Ability to import other records (not
patents)
Ability to launch simultaneous searches in
multiple databases
Downloading and integration of patent
legal status
Downloading and integration of pdf
documents

Wizard for grouping and cleaning terms of
indexes

Automatic extraction of main keywords
from patents
Automatic abstracts
Automatic classification of patents using
semantic filters

Cite Analysis (cited and citing patents in
relation to a known patent)
Matrix or Bar graphs – Two field’s co-
occurrence analysis.
Network relations analysis – Two fields co-
occurrence analysis
Comparison of Software: Supply - Matheo Analyzer v3.0 - 63 -
Space or topographic representation of a

patent collection – text mining analysis
Ability to use local databases to integrate
new data and complete the patent analysis

Ability to publish the contents in the
intranet / internet
Personalised alerts
Alerts to detect changes in the legal status
of a patent
Ability to create a poll and link a patent to
a poll
Ability to link a patent to an event in a
shared agenda

Management of users access right
Management of Document collections
access rights
Simultaneous multi-user access and edition
Customization of access and search
interface
System utilization statistic
Table 12 – Benchmark for the “Matheo Analyzer v3.0”.
5.1.1 Definition of the software
Matheo Analyzer is a tool specialising in graphically visualising and analysing

information retrieved from bibliographic databases. The purpose is to
analyse all types of bibliographic references, retrieve this information from its
respective fields and give it the appropriate bibliometric treatment.
Figure 10 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” main screen.
5.1.2 Comments on the features studied
1) Searching and Downloading

Connection to databases: Matheo Analyzer does not have modules for
carrying out database searches. Its starting points are the lists in text form
which contain registers obtained from databases or other applications. For
instance, it can use data accessed from exported Matheo Patent bibliographic
files.
Matheo Analyzer contains an assistant to take the inexperienced user
step-by-step through the importation of a list of files. When the process has
finished, the correct steps for importing from such a source can be saved for
later reference and use.
Matheo Analyzer allows the user to carry out various types of importation
at any time: for a given project new fields, which had not been imported
previously, may be entered. In addition,
The program can import new records differentially (records with “key”
fields differing from those already loaded can be imported).
Matheo Analyzer is not designed to import or manage either graphics or
attached pdf documents.
Figure 11 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” importation.
2) Filtering and Value Adding

Identification of duplicates: Matheo Analyzer detects duplicated patents by
identifying a “key” field which cannot be copied.
Working with fields: Matheo Analyzer can create new subfields from
existing ones and can create new linked indices. This operation is generally
carried out in order to work later with subgroups of special interest; for
example, the 10 main patentees of the first 5 classifications.
The selection of the terms which a user wishes to incorporate into a new
subfield may be defined using various criteria: range of frequency, search using
key terms, or direct selection from an index.
Standardisation and cleaning of indices: Matheo Analyzer automatically
generates as many indices as there are fields defined in the importation
process. The user may search through these and examine the patents classified
with each term. All fields can be edited.
There are two methods to facilitate the creation of a particular field:
- Reference table (filtered): This consists of a tool for automatically

deleting all the unwanted terms in a particular field. It is made up of
a list of terms (or common expressions). This table is of interest for
cleaning an index in two very different ways:

a) As a positive filter, if we are only interested in working with
specified terms.
b) As a negative filter, if we are interested in deleting specified
terms. In this case, the reference table acts as a list of empty
words.
The reference table can either be entered by hand or by selecting a text file
with a list of the terms (one per line).
- Correspondence table: this consists of a tool used for automatically

“standardising” terms in a particular field. The mechanism used is
that of search and automatic substitution based on a double list
of terms. The first list indicates the “non-standard” term while the
second indicates the “standard” one which should substitute it.
This table can be loaded and edited manually but the user can also
create a text file, with a pair of terms on each line, and then load it
automatically.
In both cases, the user can create as many crossed or reference tables (crossed
tables) as they wish.
Figure 12 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” reference table.

Thesaurus: Matheo Analyzer does not contain a thesaurus to establish

equivalence among terms.
Text-mining: Matheo Analyzer is not equipped with text-mining
technology. Text fields, along with the title, a summary or various search
requests, can be loaded, analysed or removed using the reference tables, but
they are not analysed using semantic algorhythms.
User classification: Matheo Analyzer is not designed so that the user
can classify information. It is assumed that this task has been carried out
previously.
3) Local Analysis and Exploitation

Matheo Analyzer contains three basic elements for exploiting information
effectively:
- Forms: By selecting a field, the index in that field is displayed with all
the terms contained within, and their frequency. This index forms
the basis for carrying out other operations.
- Pairs: By selecting any two fields, an index with all combinations of
pairs of terms and their frequency of co-occurrence is shown.
FFigure 13 – A “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” cluster.
- Clusters: By selecting a field (which, in most cases, will be a complex

text field with several classifications or descriptors) an analysis based

on the K-means algorhythm is carried out. This classifies the patents
into groups sharing certain features, which, in turn, differentiate
them from the rest of the groups.
4) Graphic Generation
Matheo Analyzer 3.0 can create the following graph types:
Histograms:
- Frequency histogram: this analyses the content of a field. The height
of each bar represents the number of patents corresponding to each
term. This is the most commonly used type.
- Range histogram: this analyses the frequency of the terms used in
a particular field. The height of each bar represents the number of
terms in this field with a determined frequency.
- Indexing depth histogram: this analyses the lists with a defined
number of terms in a particular field. It indicates to what extent
this field is wide-ranging (many terms used to define this field) or
extremely concentrated (very few terms used to define this field).
Figure 14 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” frequency histogram.
In all three cases a previous condition can be created (based on text, frequency
or selected terms from the index) linked to any field.

In this case, the histogram (from any field) will only analyse the terms
within the limits of that previous condition.
Network: a two-dimensional cartographic diagram of differing elements
(network nodes) and the relationships among them (links among nodes).
Each element usually has an associated number indicating its frequency, and
may also have links to any other element. In this case, the two elements form a
“pair”. This pair also has an associated number indicating the frequency of the
relationship between the two elements. By way of a contextual menu, every
node in the network allows the visualisation of the patents included within it,
as well as allowing the insertion of commentaries in these lists. There are four
kinds of network graphics:
- Symmetric network: this corresponds with the analysis of the

terms in a particular field (for instance, analysis of the co-operative
relationship between companies or authors).
- Asymmetric network: this corresponds with the analysis of the terms
from two fields (for instance, analysis of the relationship between
companies and technical fields).
Figure 15 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” asymmetric network.
- Condorcet network: this corresponds with the analysis of the

relationships among a group of patents, as they share a group of
terms from a particular field (for example, analysis of the relationships

among various groups of patents).
- Propagation network: This corresponds to the maximum deployment
of the Relationships among terms in the same field, based on one
or more recognised terms (for example, the relationships among
inventors, from “Li Ming” onwards).
Figure 16 – “Matheo analyzer v3.0” propagation network.
Matrix: This carries out an analysis of co-occurrences between two lists of

terms. The result is a matrix of cells in which the number of co-occurrences
appearing for each one is given. The greater the number of co-occurrences,
the darker coloured the cells. They can be of two kinds:
- Simple: These can be binary, condorcet, symmetric and asymmetric.

They consist of tables whose rows and columns contain the terms in
each field or subfield (see figure 17).
- Evolved (MetaMatrix): This type of matrix contains the terms of a
field or subfield in its columns, but in its rows it contains groups of
terms (see figure 18).
5) Dissemination and Workgroup

Matheo Analyzer software is for individual use and does not permit groups
of users to interact. Neither is it possible to publish information on the web
for other users to search for information from another computer. Matheo
Analyzer can export matrices to a csv (comma separated values) formatted

text document readable by any spreadsheet or database software.
Figure 17 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” asymmetric matrix.

Figure 18 – “Matheo Analyzer v3.0” meta-matrix.

6) Management of Tool
The functions described in this section are applicable to software utilised by
various people. These functions are not available in Matheo Analyzer.
Comparison of Software: Supply - Matheo Patent v7.1 - 73 -
5.2 Program evaluated: Matheo Patent v7.1

Producer: IMCS
8 rue Crillon
13005 Marseille, France
Telephone: +33 (0)491 082 882
Fax: +33 (0) 491 783 906
E-mail: info@imcsline.com
Website: http://www.matheo-software.com
MATHEO PATENT v.7.1 Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5

databases
databases
patents)
multiple databases
Downloading and integration of patent legal
status
documents

indexes

from patents
Automatic abstracts
semantic filters

occurrence analysis


intranet / internet
Personalised alerts
of a patent
a poll
shared agenda

Management of users access rights
access rights
interface
System utilization statistics
Table 13 – “Matheo Patent v7.1” Benchmark.
5.2.1. Definition of the software
Matheo Patent is a tool specifically designed for Technological Supervision

and Management of Industrial Property, which allows the automization of the
use of various sources of patents (Espacenet, USPTO requests and USPTO
concessions). In addition, it manages the publishing, annotation, grouping
and consultation of patents found, as well as updating them. Finally, it is

capable of analysing patents from a variety of viewpoints, generating matrices,
histograms or relationship mapping.
Figure 19 – “Matheo Patent v7.1” main screen.
5.2.2. Comments on the features studied

CDatabase connections: Matheo Patent contains a module/interface to carry
out searches in Espacenet and USPTO. Matheo Patent breaks down the
searches into time periods: year to year or even month to month. Thus, even
with wide search strategies, it does not go beyond the visualisation limit of
500 patents imposed by Espacenet. It is therefore capable of retrieving all
existing information. It can also download all the fields available for each
patent (bibliographic file summary, search requests, graphics, first page and
even a PDF file with the whole patent document). These fields can then be
stored in a local database.
Matheo Patent also allows the user to carry out various complementary
search strategies in various phases given that, once a particular set of search
results has been downloaded, a new question can be asked and new patents
can be downloaded. Patents already downloaded from an earlier search will
not be repeated. It also permits the selective loading of a specific list of patents
of interest. At any given moment and for any patent, Matheo Patent permits
the download of those fields which were not initially done so.
Figure 20 – Search form for “Matheo Patent v7.1”.
At any given moment, the user may carry out any of the above search
strategies for the project and download the new patents published concerning
that subject. Matheo Publisher detects the date on which this search was last
run and runs the search only from that date onwards. All new patents are
assigned an icon indicating that this information is pending revision.

Identifying duplicates: Matheo Patent detects duplicated patents and does not
download them.
Working with fields: Matheo Patent cannot create new fields based on existing
ones. Neither can it create new indices.
Matheo Patent has an internal engine allowing it to carry out advanced
searches in all fields using Boolean Logic. This function facilitates the
identification of patents fulfilling certain conditions and thus permits the
creation of groups.
Standardizing and cleaning indices: Matheo Patent automatically generates
9 indices (inventor, applicant, year of priority, year of publication, number of

family members, group, 4-digit IPC classification, complete IPC classification
and ECLA classification) making them available to users so they may check
them and examine the patents classified within each term.
Fields with information downloaded from the databases cannot be edited,
except for ‘inventor’ and ‘applicant’.
There is no help facility for editing inventors and applicants. If a user wishes
to purge an index, the non-standard entries must be corrected manually.
Figure 21 – “Matheo Patent v7.1” index.
Thesaurus: Matheo Patent doe not permit the creation

of lists of key words, a thesaurus or lists of empty words.
Text-mining: Matheo Patent does not dispose of text-mining technology.
The title, summary and queries can be loaded but may not be analysed.
User classification: The user can give value to the information by adding
notes to any patent. To do this, the “comments” field is used. It is also possible to
evaluate a patent’s relevance (on a scale of 1 to 8) and create customized groups.
Users cannot create a link between each patent and its pdf document
format, although the patent’s first page can be linked with the “mosaic” page,
which contains the most representative graphics and diagrams.

Matheo Patent includes the “Report” function which creates a new document
in MS word, with a variety of options to choose from:

- Quick Report: creates a document with the project title, the number
of families, the number of patents, the search strategies used and a
range of calculations for each of the most significant fields.
- Global Report: this may include the following sections at the user’s
discretion:
General: overall data on the project.
Details (histograms): Main inventors, applicants, 4-digit IPC
classifications, 7-digit CPIs, complete Consumer Price Indices
and ECLA classifications.
Statistics (main co-occurrences): Inventors/applicants,
inventors/4-digit Consumer Price Indices (from now on, CPIs),
applicants/4-digit IPCs.
User information: Histogram with the number of patents per
group and lists of the number of patents included in each
group.
- IPC Report: Includes analysis focused on the IPC field:
General: Overall project data.
Details (histograms): 4-digit CPI, 7-digit CPI, complete CPI.
Statistics (main matches): 4-digit CPI/Applicant, 4-digit CPI/
Year of publication, 7-digit CPI/Applicant, 7-digit CPI/Year of
publication, 7-digit CPI/7-digit CPI, complete CPI/ complete
CPI.
Matrices (tables): 4-digit CPI/Applicant, 4-digit CPI/Year
of publication, 7-digit CPI/Applicant, 7-digit CPI/Year of
publication.
- List: There are four kinds of lists:
Inventors: list of inventors with their frequency.
IPC Class 4 digits: lists the 4-digit CPI classifications and their
frequency.
IPC Class all digits: lists the 4-digit CPI classifications and their
frequency.
Patent assignee: lists the patentees and their frequency.
- Patent Assignee Report: includes analysis focused on the applicant
field:
Details: Histogram with main applicants and lists of all
applicants by frequency.
Statistics (main matches): Applicants/7-digit CPIs, applicants/
complete CPIs, applicants/year of publication.

- Short Report: Includes the following analysis:
Statistics (main matches): Applicants/year, applicants/4-
digit CPIs, applicants/complete CPIs, 4-digit CPIs/year of
publication, complete CPI/year of publication.
Matheo Patent can create the following types of graphs:
Chart (histogram): Corresponds to the analysis of a field’s content. The
vertical axis. Represents the number of patents which correspond to each
term. The graph can easily be set to limit the minimum frequency of each
term.
Figure 22 - “Matheo Patent v7.1” chart.
Matriice (Matrix): Carries out analysis of matches in two fields. The fields
which can be used for this analysis are: inventor, applicant, year of priority, year
of publication, number of family members, group, 4-diit CPI classification,
complete IPC classification and ECLA classification.
The result is a matrix of cells in which the match number appears for
each one. The cells’ colour becomes more intense the higher the number of
matches.
Figure 23 – The “Matheo Patent v7.1” matrix.
Network: This is a 2-dimensional map diagram of the main elements in two

fields and the relationship between them.
- Each element is shown as a coloured rectangle with its name.

- Each element has a number indicating its frequency (the number of
patents in which it appears).
Every element can have a link to another one in another field. In this case, they
form a “pair”. This pair has a reference number indicating its co-occurrence
(the number of patents in which the two terms appear).
The user can create a network from one field (for instance, to analyse the
relationship between inventors) or from two. In the latter case, the relationship
between companies and the groups of patents they have created are shown.
Figure 24 – “Matheo Patent v7.1” network.

Matheo Patent is designed for personal use and does not have at its disposal
functions enabling various users to interact. Neither is it possible to publish
information through the web in order for others to perform a search for that
information from other terminals.
Matheo Patent can, however, export any group of patents to MS Word,
indicating the fields which a user wants to include. Bibliographical references
can also be exported in text format (indicating the information about each
field with a label) or in .xml format, so that they can be incorporated into
another application on an intranet.
The functions mentioned in this section refer to software accessed by various
users at once. Matheo Patent does not have these functions.
Comparison of Software: Supply - PatentLabII v1.41 - 83 -
5.3 Program evaluated: PatentLabII v1.41

Producer: Wisdomain Inc.
2300 North Barrington Road, Suite 400
Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
Tel: 1.847.490.5310
Fax: 1.847.885.7965
Website: www.wisdomain.com
PATENTLAB II v1.41.0 + LaaMerger Evaluation

+ LabViewer
1 2 3 4 5

databases
databases
patents)
multiple databases
legal status
documents

indexes

from patents
Automatic abstracts
semantic filters

occurrence analysis
occurrence analysis


intranet / internet
Personalised alerts
of a patent
a poll
shared agenda

access rights
interface
Table 13 – “PatentLabIIv1.4l” Benchmark.
5.3.1. Definition of Software
PatentLab is a tool used for the statistical analysis and visualisation of registry
details from patents obtained through the Delphion patent search service.
This site offers the following collections of patents: PCT, European (request
& concession), North American (request and concession), German, Japanese
and Inpadoc.
5.3.2. Comments on the features studied

Connection to databases: PatentLabII does not contain modules to connect
and carry out searches in Delphion. When a search has been undertaken
in Delphion, the results to be analysed have to be downloaded to a file
(regardless of the number of registers) in “.laa” format in order to be used by
this software.
If the user wishes to combine several “.laa” files obtained through various
searches and then carry out an analysis on that group of patents, they need
to use the LaaMerger/LabViewer program, allowing the merger of two “.laa”
files.
Figure 25 – Laa Merger in “PatentLabIIv1.41”.
PPatentLab cannot connect to Delphion to check or complete the

information. PatentLabII can load the majority of fields with text information
from Delphion but is unable to load the graphics connected to each registry.

Identification of duplicates: LaaMerger has a system for detecting duplicated
patents from several “.laa” files. PatentLabII does not provide any system for
detecting duplicated patents, nor for grouping patents from the same family in
a single registry. These operations should be undertaken before downloading

the collection of patents.
Working with fields: PatentLabII cannot create new fields from existing
ones, nor can it create new indices. The majority of the information in each
registry can be edited. PatenLabIIv1.41 does not permit the search for and
consequent editing of particular registers. It only allows searches which are
part of the filtering process taking place before the analysis is carried out.
Standardization and cleaning of indices: PatentLabII has a feature which
allows the detection of patentees with identical names. Furthermore, it
permits the cutting and pasting of one name on top of another, considering
this action as a “Non-normalized variant”.
Figure 26 – “PatentLabIIv1.41” edit assignee.
Thesaurus: PatentLabII does not allow the creation of lists of key words,
thesauruses, empty words, etc.
Text-mining: PatentLabII does not have text-mining technology. The title,
summary and enquiries can be loaded in PatentLabII but cannot be analysed.
User Classifications: There are four fields into which the user can download
information of his choice. However, there is no tool to ease this task or to
guarantee that the classifications are added without errors.
Figure 27 – Editing a registry-1 in “PatentLabIIv1.41”.
Figure 28 – Editing a registry-2 in “PatentLabIIv1.41”.
PatentLabII does not have specific fields for making notes, nor for the
evaluation of a patent’s importance. However, the “fields defined by the user”
can be used for this purpose. It is also not possible to include a link for each
patent to its corresponding .pdf document.

PatentLabII v.1.41 has an assistant to create the most common matrices and
graphics. This assistant does not offer the full range of combinations of fields.
Nevertheless, it is capable of creating matrices and graphics manually selecting
any pair of fields.
- The LabViewer facility allows the user to visualize all the registers
from the database sequentially. It does not permit a search but allows
the listing of the fields of most interest from a group of marked
registers.
- There is a “report” function with various standard options:
- Overall Summary: Creates tables with an analysis of the following
fields: patentee, Inventor, country, year and classification, showing
the most significant ones.
- Assignee Summary: Creates the following tables: patentee-year,
patentee-country, Patentee-country-year, patentee-classification and
patentee-main inventor.
- Assignee Detail – Patent Classification: Creates the following tables:
Main Classification-patentee, main associated classification-patentee
and patentee-original classification-crossed classification.
- Patent Classification Summary: Creates the following tables:
Classification-year and Original classification-crossed classification.
- Country Summary: Creates the following tables: Classification-
country, country-year and country-patentee.
PatentLabII can create graphics in two or three dimensions. The graphics in
two dimensions correspond with the statistical analysis of a field’s content
in which the height of each bar is proportional to the number of patents
corresponding to each term. By clicking twice on each element, the list of
patents corresponding to that term appears.
The three-dimensional graphics correspond to analysis of the co-
occurrences between two fields. The height of the bar is proportional to the
number of co-occurrences existing between each pair of terms. By clicking
twice on each cell, the list of patents corresponding to these terms appears.
Figure 29 – 2-dimensional bar graph, “PatentLabIIv.1.41”.
Figure 30 – 3-dimensional bar graph “PatentLabIIv.1.41”.

Thanks to the existence of personalized fields, PatentLabII allows the creation

of totally personalized graphs and matrices. In this case, the following fields
have been created: risk of infringement of a patent (high/medium/low) and
the difficulty of a technology (high/medium/low), leading to the following
examples below in figures 31 and 32.
Figure 31 – Competitor – Risk of Infringement graph from

“PatentLabIIv.1.41”.
Figure 32 – Technological Difficulty – Risk of Infringement from

“PatentLabIIv.1.41”.

PatentLabII is designed for personal use and does not have functions enabling
various users to interact. Neither is it possible to publish information via the
web in order for others to visualize information from other terminals.
PatentLabII can directly export areas of interest from matrices to MS
Excel and can also generate documents in HTML format, which can then be
published directly on an intranet.
The functions mentioned in this section are of relevance only to those
programs designed for use by several people at once. PatentLabII does not
offer these functions.
Comparison of Software: Supply - PM Manager v1.4.0.3 - 93 -
5.4 Program Evaluated: PM Manager v1.4.0.3

Producer: WIPS Co. Ltd.
93-45 Bookchang-Dong, Joong-Gu,
Seoul 100-080
Republic of Korea
TEL: +82-(0)2-726-1103/1109
FAX: +82-(0)2-726-1001
Email: global@wips.co.kr
Website : www.wipsglobal.com
PM MANAGER v1.4.0.3 Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5

databases
databases
patents)
multiple databases
legal status
documents

indexes

from patents
Automatic abstracts
semantic filters

occurrence analysis


intranet / internet
Personalised alerts
of a patent
a poll
shared agenda

access rights
interface
Table 14 – “PM Manager v1.4.0.3” Benchmark.
5.4.1 Definition and positioning of software
PM Manager has been developed as a complement to the WIPS Global patent

search system. The present global reach of this system is: Patents in Korea,
Japan, China, USA, Pat. Europe, Pat. PCT, Inpadoc and GPAT (Switzerland,
France, Great Britain and Germany).
PM Manager is able to load files obtained from WIPS Global and then,
classify, analyse and process information from patents by applying different
viewpoints. PM Manager’s focus is on giving the user the capacity to modify,
annotate and complete information by adding new personalized fields.
It then allows basic statistical analysis, advanced statistical analysis and
other analysis tailor-made for the personalized fields created by the user.
5.4.2 Comments on the features studied

Connection to databases: PM Manager does not dispose of modules to
connect and run search in WIPS Global. Its starting point is the importation
of a list of already existing registers in “.pmd” format, downloaded from
WIPS Global.
Once a search has been run on WIPS Global the results can be downloaded
(in groups of 200 registers at the most) in “.pmd” format to be treated by the
program.
PM Manager is equipped to connect with WIPS Global to check for new
information (e.g. whether a family of patents has changed).
Figure 33 – Main screen, “PM Manager v1.4.0.3”.

Importation: PM Manager can also import registers in electronic spreadsheet

format (.xls)
PM Manager is able to load an associated graph in each register. If this
information is not available, it can connect to WIPS Global to check whether
a graph is available and if so, download it.

Identification of duplicates: New lists of patents in “.pmd” format may be
added (merged). If there are equivalent patents, the system will detect them
automatically and ask if the user wishes to keep the existing version, substitute
it for the new one or complete the present fields with the new information
obtained.
Families of patents: PM Manager can identify members of the same
family through the priority number.
Working with fields: PM Manager cannot create new fields from
existing ones, nor can it create new indices. Nevertheless, all information
loaded can be edited.
Standardization and cleaning of indices: PM Manager has a feature
allowing the selection of the names of “non-unified” patentee companies
which are, in the user’s judgement, equivalent. The user can then key in the
name “unified”, which is then saved for future use. It is also possible to import
lists of unified companies from previous projects. Thus, the list grows as time
passes.
Figure 34 – Index cleaner, “PM Manager v1.4.0.3”.

Thesaurus: PM Manager does not permit the creation of lists of key words,
thesaurus or empty words.
Text mining: PM Manager does not have text mining technology.
User Classifications: The software allows for the creation of a three-level
thematic classification which can be as extensive as required. In order to
facilitate this task, this structure appears when the user wishes to classify the
content of a patent.
PM Manager also permits the user to define up to 5 kinds of classifications

to evaluate a patent, together with its variables. These classifications can be
whatever the user wishes. As an example, the following can be cited:
- possibility of infraction (high/medium/low).

- price of technology (expensive/mid/low).
- difficulty of technology (complex/normal/simple).
Figure 35 – User classification, “PM Manager v1.4.0.3”.
PM Manager also contains another field to evaluate the importance of the

patent (A/B/C/D), a “memo” field in which notes can be included and a “core
patent” field, used to label a patent as “key”.
Last but not least, with each patent a range of links with documents and
applications can be included.
Figure 36 – Edit key information in “PM Manager v1.4.0.3”.

PM Manager offers several functions to carry out all kinds of analysis:
- The “Create Technology development Map” function highlights one

or several of the technological classifications of interest and indicates
to the user how these technologies have evolved over time, showing
for each year the number of patents, the titles and the patentees of
the technologies (see Figure 37).
- The “Create Key Information List” function automatically creates a
report in MS Word format with all registries of patents marked “key”
including the “purpose of the patent”, the main claim”, “problems
with the state of the previous technique and the “explanation of
the graph”. This report is of value when evaluating and comparing
technologies competing among themselves (see Figure 38).
Figure 37 – Technology Development Map, “PM Manager v1.4.0.3”.
Figure 38 – Key Information List, “PM Manager V1.4.0.3”.
MP Manager can create graphs in two or three dimensions. The two-
dimensional graphs correspond to the statistical analysis of a field’s content, in
which the height is proportional to the number of patents corresponding to

each term. By clicking twice on each element, the list of patents corresponding
to the term appears (see Figure 40).
Figure 39 – 2-dimensional graph, “PM Manager V1.4.0.3”.
Figure 40 – Statistical analysis, “PM Manager V1.4.0.3”.

PM Manager allows for the creation of matrices, using three fields in the
analysis including those created by a user. In this case, PM Manager permits
the running of a co-occurrence analysis in two fields. If this co-occurrence
exists, it shows the value of the third field. The usefulness of this analysis
may be very different depending on the type of content within the two fields
defined by the user.
Figure 41 – Analysis of the possibility of infringing competitors’ patents,

“PM Manager v1.4.0.3”.
Figure 42 – Analysis of the probability of patent infringement in different

technologies, “PM Manager V1.4.0.3”.

PM Manager is designed for individual use and does not have functions
enabling various users to interact. Neither is it possible to publish information
via the web in order for others to visualize information from other terminals.
It can interact with MS Excel and MS Word.
Apart from the report on the “Key Information List”, it can generate files
in MS Excel from practically any analysis which has been carried out.
The functions mentioned in this section are of relevance only to those
programs designed for use by several people at once. PM Manager does not
offer these functions.
Comparison of Software: Supply - Vantage Point v4.0 - 105 -
5.5 Program Evaluated: Vantage Point v4.0

Producer: Search Technology, Inc.
4960 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Suite 230
Norcross, GA 30071-1580 United States
Telephone: +1 (770) 441-1457
Fax: +1 (770) 263-0802
Email: vantagepoint@searchtech.com
Website: http://www.thevantagepoint.com
VANTAGE POINT V.4 Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5
databases
databases
patents)
multiple databases
legal status
documents

indexes

from patents
Automatic abstracts
semantic filters

Rankings - Analysis of one field
occurrence analysis


intranet / internet
Personalised alerts
of a patent
a poll
shared agenda

access rights
interface
Table 15 – Benchmark, “Vantage Point v4.0”.
5.5.1. Brief definition and positioning of Vantage Point
Vantage Point is text mining software specializing in the analysis of (usually)

bibliographical registers obtained from databases. Its purpose is to assist the
user when surfing through large volumes of text-based information and to
offer new perspectives on the most important concepts discovered in that

information.
Vantage Point is able to analyse patents, although its brief is more general.
The most common use of this software is for the analysis of bibliographical
registries in technology-focused databases (technical magazines, patents or
R&D projects).
Figure 43 – Main screen, “Vantage Point v4.0”.

Connection to databases: Vantage Point v4.0 does not contain modules to
connect to and utilize databases. Its starting point is the importation of an
existing list of registers.
Importation: It can import registers in flat text (.dat, .txt, .csv, .trn,
.xml) although it can also directly load files in spreadsheet format (MS Excel).
Vantage Point is able to load one or more associated graphs in each register as
long as these form a part of the list obtained from the original database. The
importation process for registers can be carried out in two ways:
- Advanced users can build and edit import filters for a database
editing the parameters of an “importation engine”. Any register
obtained from any database can be considered as importable from
Vantage Point.
- Elementary users have an assistant at their disposal, which will guide
them during the importation process.
The importation of information fields can be carried out in a standard way or

by creating new fields, obtained through processing in the natural language of
these fields’ content. For instance, it can import the field “title” and also create
two new fields: one with the “words” contained in the title and the other with
the “expressions” contained in the title.
Figure 44 – Module importation, “Vantage Point v4.0”.

Identifying duplicates: The user can freely define when he considers that two
registers are identical (for example, if the fields Publication Nº and Priority
Nº are identical). Detection of identical registers is carried out immediately.
Vantage Point has two specific functions to either eliminate duplicated
registers or combine them (e.g. if they have been obtained from different
sources and their contents are complementary).
Families of patents: It is simple to group registers by family. By simply
listing the variants in the Priority field and clicking on an entry, all members
of that family can be seen.
Working with fields: Vantage Point is capable of carrying out a multitude
of operations using field content: copying, merging existing fields to create
new ones, or creating new indices from the contents of a group of terms.
Standardization and index-cleaning: Vantage Point has developed
several diffuse logic programs to minimize the work involved in cleaning
certain information fields. In particular, it is possible to indicate the system
which automatically groups inventors and patentees in line with previously
programd criteria. Furthermore, the user can manually check the indices and
group synonymous terms using the “drag and drop” tool.
Figure 45 – Index-cleaning, “Vantage Point v4.0”.
Thesaurus: Lists of key words can be made, taken from the contents of one
or more fields. They can then be edited or combined. There are also lists of
empty words, used to clean the indices. These lists can be edited.
Text-mining: Vantage Point uses its NLP (Natural Language Processing)
technology to analyse any non-structured text (title, summary, full text) written
in English with the purpose of extracting the most significant concepts. Firstly,
it divides the text into sentences and labels each word as noun, adjective or
verb. It then applies linguistic rules to identify “multiterms” composed of
various words. If the user wishes to analyse text in another language, it can
retrieve the text but cannot recognize verbs or adjectives. Thus, it cannot
identify the “multiterms” made up of several words.

Vantage Point offers several functions to carry out a wide range of analysis. It
has a battery of scripts (programs which automate a determined sequence of
functions) of use for specific purposes. Below are seven examples:
- Carry out sequential searches for fields and create a group with the
results.
- Combine groups.
- Export groups to MS Excel.
- Export part of a matrix to MS Excel and create associated 3-D
graphs.
- Export selected fields from a group of registers to MS Word.
- Create a thesaurus from marked elements in a matrix.
- Detect the terms which have appeared for the first time year after
year and Export them to MS Excel.
If a user wishes to carry out a particular systematic analysis, Vantage Point

offers the option of modifying the existing scripts and creating new ones. In
order to do this, VBScript language must be used for the programming.
Vantage Point can create 2-dimensional matrices or maps. The matrices may
be of various types:
- Co-occurrence matrix: Each cell contains the number of times that

the two terms appear in the same register (see Figure 46).
- Self-correlation matrix: Each cell shows the degree of correlation
between one term and the rest of terms in the same field, using a
decimal number between 0 and 1.
- Cross correlation matrix: Each cell shows the degree of correlation
between one term and those in another field.
- Factor matrix: This shows the result of applying an Analysis of Main
Components to the terms in a list. The rows correspond with the
terms which have been analysed. The columns correspond to the

groups or “factors” which the system has detected. Those terms
displaying an especially high or low number (higher than 0.5 or lower
than -0.5) and a marked similarity between each other form part of
the same “cluster” (groups of terms having a special relationship
among themselves).
Figure 46 – Co-occurrence matrix, “Vantage Point v4.0”.
The maps can be:
- Autocorrelation maps: Maps illustrating the main relationships

among terms in a field.
- Cross-correlation maps: Maps illustrating the main relationships
between terms from two fields (see Figure 47).
- Factor maps: Maps in which the main terms analysed are situated.
The terms may be expressed as codes, company names or concepts
(see Figure 48).
To create these maps, the following technologies are used:
- Main Components Analysis, to group closely related terms.

- Similitude Measurements, based on the correlation between terms.
- Multidimensional Scale, to represent multi-dimensional data in 2
dimensions.
- Algorhythms, for the generation of links based on similarity: to
prioritize certain links in the map over others.
Figure 47 – Cross-correlation map (Companies-IPC),

“Vantage Point v4.0”.
Figure 48 – Factor map-title terms, “Vantage Point v4.0”.

Vantage Point is for individual use and is not designed for various users to
interact. Neither is it possible to publish information via the web for other
users to access that information on other terminals. It can interact with other
Windows programs through VBScript and can export information in various
formats.
The functions outlined in this section are of relevance for multiple-user
software. Vantage Point does not have these functions.
Comparison of Software: Supply - Programs not evaluated - 115 -
5.6 Programs not evaluated
5.6.1 Program (not evaluated): Anacubis Desktop + Intellectual Property

Analysis Add-in
Producer: I2
The Visual Space, Capital Park,
Fulbourne, Cambridge, CB1 5XH, United Kingdom
Tel: 01223-728600
Fax: 01223-728601
info@i2.co.uk
Website: http://www.i2.co.uk/anacubis/
Definition of software
Anacubis Desktop is an application which creates an intuitive visual
representation of information, showing all types of entities (people, companies,
patents, etc.) as icons and indicating their relationships through links.
A differentiating feature of Anacubis is that it permits the users to consult
various sources of information and combine them to instantaneously obtain a
single all-encompassing view.
Anacubis Desktop has a specific complement for the treatment of patents.
Its usefulness lies in that it allows the inexperienced user to carry out advanced
analysis by following the step-by-step instructions of a guide.
Main Features
The main analyses “Anacubis Desktop”, complemented by “Intellectual
Property Analysis Add-in”, can carry out are the following:
Analysis of citations
- A patentee’s citations: Creates an analysis of “who mentions whom”.
It can produce an analysis of all the patentees appearing in a
document or, alternatively, a restricted analysis of several patentees
receiving a minimum number of mentions.
- History of citations: Shows generations of citations, both forward
and backward, based on selected patents.
- Patent citations: Shows who cites or is cited by whom for one or
more key patents.
- Auto-citations: Shows the auto-citations of a patentee.
Analysis of Inventors
- Company inventors: Creates a vision about who invents in a
company.
- Common inventors: From a group of selected companies, it shows
those inventors who have or have had a connection with more than
one of that company.
- Research groups: For a company, this shows “who is working with
whom”.
Analysis of classifications and value

- Classification of patentees: Produces an analysis of the main
classifications Associated with the patents of one or more patentees.
- Indicates the value of a patent: Adds a bar to each patent in a group,
indicating its value. This value can then be transferred to a patentee,
inventor or classification. The value assigned to each patent is based
on a simple measure of number of citations received.
Seasonal analysis
- Patent citations over time: Produces an analysis with all patents that
cite or are cited by one or more key patents in sequential order. Each
patent is linked to the request made for it.
- Citations from patentees over time. This produces a timeline which
illustrates the relationship of citations between one patentee and
others selected by the user.
Merging with economic information

- Anacubis Desktop can be used to merge economic information or
business figures with a patent analysis. This option allows for the
enrichment of information being analysed. Anacubis can be set to
store relevant fields; For example, number of employees, sales, etc.
These fields can be accessed and completed in various ways.
- Manually.
- Using on-line sources of information.
- Using an MS Excel importer.
Figura 49 - Anacubis Desctop. Fuente:
Figure 49 – Anacubis desktop.

Source: http://wwwi2.co.uk/anacubis/anacubisviewer/help/Step2.htm
(visited 24 Nov. 2005).
5.6.2 Program (not evaluated): Aureka v.9.2
Producer: Micropatent LLC (belonging to the Thomson group)

250 Dodge Avenue
East Haven, CT 06512, United States
Tel: +1 (203) 466 5055
Fax: +1 (203) 466 5054
Website: http://www.micropatent.com
Aureka is a wide-ranging program focusing on Industrial property management
within a company. It includes functions for searching for patent information,
options for their validation and evaluation, the capability of adding a user’s
own fields, advanced functions for analysing results (including text-mining)
cartographic representation of groups of patents, management of warnings
and functions for working in groups.
Main features
Since Aurigin (original manufacturer of Aureka) was taken over by
Micropatent, Aureka has become the application used by this company for the
management and analysis of information sourced from its patent databases.
At present, Micropatent offers access to the United States Patent Collection
(requests and concessions), European Patents (requests and concessions),
PCT Patents and patents from Germany, France, Great Britain and Japan.
Local or Distance Mode

Aureka is a client/server application, capable of dealing with interaction
between different members of an organization. It can work either as an
internal server for the company or can be stored in a Micropatent secure
server.
Messaging
The collaboration or working groups functions are based on an e-mail
messaging system among all users of the system. There may be several user
categories (administrator, trainer, expert) and each has its own particular
functions. This system is used for distributing the results of the searches, filters
or analysis among the users.
Notes
Aureka allows each user to make notes on each patent and search notes for all
patents.
Each user’s own fields

Each user can add several personalized fields in order to incorporate internal
data. For instance, classifications of certain technologies or markets, internal
divisions in companies, names of connected companies and clients, degrees of
relevance, dates and data relative to legal status, civil service entrance exams ,
or licences.
Alerts
Each user may define weekly or monthly alerts which can be sent to other
people or groups within the organization.
Technological maps
Aureka has software for the textual analysis of information contained within
a group of patents. The result is the generation of a topographical map in
which the highest peaks represent an accumulation of documents sharing a
particular concept.
The user can specify the fields whose text he wishes to analyse (his own
fields may be included) before the generation of the map. Then, one part of the
map can be selected in order to obtain a more detailed overview. Additionally,
a search for key words can be carried out and the program is able to find the
area of the map where the answers are concentrated.
These maps can be shared among selected groups of users so that they
can comment on and discuss specific areas of interest and reach shared
conclusions.
Citation “trees”
Aureka also has an analysis of citations in which the citing and cited patents
are visualized in their time sequence.
These analyses can be limited through certain key words or by demanding
that patents fulfil certain requirements (including those in own fields).
Aureka allows for colour-coding of patents dependent on, for example, the
patentee or the rate of inflation.
Figure 50 – Eureka. Source: http://www.micropatent.com/static/

advanced.htm (visited 24 Nov. 2005).
5.6.3 Program (not evaluated): ClearForest Analytics – Patent Analysis
Producer: ClearForest Corp.

950 Winter Street, Suite 1900
Waltham, MA 02451, United States
Tel: +1 (781) 250 4300
Fax: +1 (781) 250 4301
Website: http://www.clearforest.com
ClearForest Analytics is text-mining software which converts non-structured
information into structured and clearly related concepts and data. This allows
users to concentrate on their key competencies: analysing data and taking
decisions. The three objectives are:
- Improving the detection of early warning signals: using textual

information to better direct the organizational responses.
- Discovering new perspectives, identifying trends, patterns and
complex relationships in wide-reaching collections of text.
- Creating links to structured data: this allows for improvement in the
Business intelligence process by showing relationships which had
previously been impossible to visualize.
Main features
ClearForest Analytics is part of the ClearForest platform which includes
ClearForest Tag and ClearForest Industry Modules. Once the labels for
ClearForest Tag are entered, ClearForest Analytics extracts relevant concepts
from the tagged terms, permits navigation by concept and detects trends
empirically.
Patent Analysis is a module specifically for professionals working in
the field of Industrial Property. This module has a “rule book” concerning
patents, to extract specific information from patent databases.
It is designed to shorten the time required to take decisions concerning
technology, to carry out more wide-ranging competitive analysis, to obtain
an improved overview of competitors’ R&D activities and to reduce research
costs. By examining patent databases, this module can discover the names of
the principal players, main researchers in a particular field or patents which

appear to be key for a particular field. Its functions are:
- Advanced exploration of data: Permits interactive questioning

concerning previously tagged non-structured content.
- Visualization of relationship maps: Represents collections of
documents in graph form; shows links and connections between
entities from the same or different categories.
- Analysis of indirect links: Identifies relationships between entities or
concepts connected by other entities or concepts.
- Links to documents: Users can always have access to text files. They
have an integrated document viewer which highlights tagged terms
in complete text.
- Tracking of concepts and events over a period of time: Monitors
concepts and their relationships with each other, showing changes
and revealing general trends.
- Reports using assistants: ClearForest Analytics outlines a series of
simple steps to produce reports. It guides the user through use of a
series of questions, facilitating access to information.
- Simultaneous analysis of structured and unstructured data:
ClearForest’s settings allow the user to include structured data from
other Business Intelligence systems.
- Easy integration with other analytical solutions.
- Business Intelligence solutions can be integrated through ClearForest’s
API web services, as those allow easy access to ClearForest Analytics.
It is also possible to use .xml file format to input information on a
relational database or directly to a Business Intelligence application.
5.6.4 Program (not evaluated): Derwent Analytics
Contact: Thomson Scientific – Europe, Middle East and Africa

14 Great Queen Street
London WC2B 5DF, Great Britain
Phone: +44 20 7344 2800
Fax: +44 20 7344 2900
Website: http://scientific.thomson.com/products/derwentanalytics/
Derwent Analytics is a software program which is not sold independently but
offered in combination with a subscription to the Derwent World Patents
Index database. This has coverage in 41 countries and patent organizations.
It offers exclusive fields and very high-quality content. The software itself is a
personalized version of Vantage Point (see earlier section) which includes the
programming of several specific macros to fully utilize the database.
Therefore, Derwent Analytics can be defined as text-mining software
specializing in the analysis of registers obtained from the World Patents
Index. Its aim is to analyse these registers to gain new perspectives on the
most important concepts they contain.
Main features
Derwent Analytics does not contain modules to connect to and use databases.
Its starting point is the importation of a list of registers obtained from various
hosts where Derwent WPI is sold by way of previously programd importation
modules.
Working with fields

Derwent Analytics can copy or merge exiting fields to create new ones.
During the import process, it can create new fields with the most significant
concepts from those containing free text (for example, titles or summaries),
identifying “multiterms” made up of several words.
Index cleaning
Inventors and Patentees can be automatically grouped, even though they may
show small variations.
Thesaurus
Lists of key words can be created from the contents of one or more fields.
They may then be edited or combined. The program also has lists of empty
words which can be used to clean the indices. These lists are also editable.
Graphics generation
Derwent Analytics can create 2-dimensional lists, matrices or maps.
Data analysis
Derwent Analytics has 6 specifically programd macros for DWPI, so a variety
of tasks and analyses are automated:
- It secures uniformity as regards the patentee, inventor, IPC and

Derwent Classifications fields.
- It identifies the main patentees and inventors.
- It produces a table characterizing the 20 most important patentees.
- It produces an MS Excel table in which the entire group of current
patentees is displayed.
- It carries out an analysis and produces 7 graphs showing the trends
for a technology over a period of time.
- It analyses the trends in R & D for each of the 10 main patentees.
If a user wishes to carry out a particular analysis systematically, Derwent

Analytics can create a new macro. To do this, it ha to be programd using
VBScript language.
Figure 51 – Derwent Analytics. Source: http://scientific.thomson.com/

products/derwentanalytics/ (visited 24 Nov. 2005).
5.6.5 Program (not evaluated): Goldfire Innovator 2.0
Contact: Invention Machine Corporation

133 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114, United States
Tel: +1 (617) 305-9250
Fax: +1 (617) 305-9255
Email: info@invention-machine.com
Website: http://www.invention-machine.com/prodserv/GFIN.cfm
Definition of Software
Goldfire Innovator uses patent analysis within a structured system aimed at
improving the solving of invention problems.
It facilitates the identification of problems for users and capacitates them
to solve the problem and generate solutions. The software:
- Improves the quantity and quality of ideas generated.

- Improves the conversion rate of ideas into products.
- Achieves improved manufacturing processes.
- Achieves greater speed in access to markets.
- Achieves a greater rate of return on investment in R&D.
- Accelerates corporate growth.
- Ensures a better definition and knowledge of problems.
- Permits an in-depth analysis of the value of existing physical resources
and of production processes.
- Defines and prioritizes engineering problems and solutions.
- Facilitates the capture and sharing of personal and corporate
knowledge, eliminating duplicated effort and promoting the
recycling of ideas.
- Eases competitive analysis, analysis of patents and analysis of
technological trends.
- Generates an earlier and better knowledge of the market in the
product development process.
In processes of new product conception, rectification of faults, designing

modification of features on existing products, identification of technological
trends and development of future products, protection of industrial property
or in the improvement of production processes, Goldfire Innovator improves
and accelerates engineering processes, marketing and production. It
methodically explores and validates system designs which are more efficient,
cheaper more competitive and of higher quality.
Main features
Goldfire Innovator has three modules:
1. The Optimizer Workbench: This specializes in structuring the solution

to invention problems. It focuses on and clarifies the definition of the
problem and the analysis helps to generate innovative ideas as well as
evaluating, validating and prioritizing solutions.
2. Researcher: This is a semantic engine which facilitates accurate
searches, manages knowledge, and offers the capacity to analysis
innovative trends.
3. Innovation intelligence: Offers scientific information on critical
patents. Includes access to more than 15 million patents, a database
with 8,000 scientific findings, and 3,000 scientific websites. This
database helps the entire analytical process: problem definition,
generation of concepts and the prioritization and validation of
solutions.
5.6.6 Program (not evaluated): OmniViz
Contact: OmniViz, Inc.

2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 600
Maynard, MA 01754, United States
Tel: +1 (978) 4611250
Fax: +1 (978) 4611299
Email: support@omniviz.com
Website: http://www.omniviz.com
OmniViz is geared towards “visual intelligence”. That is, the visualization and
analysis of large volumes of structured and unstructured information as an aid
to decision-making. Its purpose is to offer an overall vision which can lead to
rapid identification and interpretation of the most relevant details.
It can analyse numerical, categorical and complete text data (including
patents), all within the same visual layout. It is also able to support the analysis
of chemical structures and genome sequences. This allows the inclusion of all
relevant information when taking decisions.
OmniViz is capable of integrating the analysis of experimental data with
that of scientific literature, patents and marketing data sourced from press
releases. Its fields of application are research, development, testing, control of
processes, marketing, finance or legal information.
Main features
The software is suitable for use as much by beginners or elementary users as
well as experts.
It can import data from any source or format. As well as accepting the
automatic importation of common data types, it also has an interface to create
reusable instructions to analyse other data formats. Additionally, it permits
the creation of tailor-made data importers.
Analysis
The program is flexible with different kinds of analysis. OmniViz can carry
out simple analysis for inexperienced users, those who are not experts in data
processing or in the standardization of data analysis. On the other hand, it
is capable of controlling all analytical parameters and offers a wide range of
advanced tools for the expert user to analyse any problem. Furthermore, new
methods of clustering or grouping data can be added.
Integration
XML can be used to define which data to use, how to carry out analysis and
which visualisation to use. OmniViz can be executed from other interfaces
and therefore, it can be used by those who do not necessarily want or require
advanced parameters. Automated analyses allow end users to see and evaluate
their data rapidly, while still providing a platform which can be exploited by
expert users to carry out further analysis.
OmniViz can share its data with other applications. It may both receive
data and send it to other applications via .xml format. Moreover, data can be
sent in personalized format for other applications.
OmniViz Platinum: Contains six interactive visualizations, designed to
respond to fundamental questions concerning the relationships between
registers and how certain attributes are distributed throughout a group of
registers. The opportunity to analyse and visualize multiple data permits
integrated analysis.
It also contains questioning tools, including dynamic questioning, three-
dimensional graphic tools, various sophisticated statistics packages and many
other unique features.
OmniViz Titanium: This package integrates further advanced modules
such as the Barnard Chemical Information (BCI), the Ward clustering
algorhythm or the Stanford SAM analytical algorhythm. These make possible
the direct identification and grouping of chemical compounds from large
volumes of data, as well as the identification of changes in large amounts of
data.
Figure 52 – OmniViz. Source: http://www.omniviz.com/applications/

omni_viz.htm (visited 24 Nov. 2005).
5.6.7 Program (not evaluated): PatList
Contact: Raytec Co., Ltd.

Hayao Building 3F, 1-4-7,
Kanda-Izumicho Chiyoda-Ku
Tokyo 101-0024, Japan
Website: http://www.raytec.co.jp/EngPages/IndexEng/1.htm
PatList is used for the reformatting and statistical analysis of information on
patents extracted from certain databases.
Main features
Importation: Can import data from bibliographic reference lists taken from
Derwent WPI or from IFI/Claims in the following hosts – Dialog, STN or
Questel-Orbit.
Analysis
This program permits different types of statistical analysis:
- Co-occurrence matrix: Creates a table with a combination of two

fields. In the cells either an identity number for each patent can be
included (patent number, priority, request) or the frequency of co-
occurrences.
- Graphs: Can create various types of graphs (bar, cylinder, tape,
line, circle, radar, portfolio and life-cycle), also based on the co-
occurrences of two fields.
The table contents can be exported in csv format in order to visualize or work
on them in MS Excel.
Figure 53 – PatList. Source: http://www.raytec.co.jp/EngPages/Tour/

WPIpatentMap/html#graph (visited 24 Nov. 2005).
5.6.8 Program (not evaluated): STN-AnaVist
Contact: FIZ-Karlsruhe – HelpDesk

Tel: +49 7247 808 555, Germany
Email: helpdesk@fiz-karlsruhe.de
URL: http://www.cas.org/stnanavist/index.html
STN AnaVist is software used for visualization and interactive analysis which
offers a wide variety of ways of analysing the results of searches in scientific
and patent databases. It also visualizes trends in a research field. STN AnaVist
can help to solve complex questions as well as providing information which
can be used to take faster and better business decisions. STN AnaVist allows
the user to:
- Analyse the competitive environment – determine who, what, where,

when and why.
- Carry out Competitive Intelligence tracking – discover what
competitors are doing.
- Discover new applications for existing technology.
- Determine trends in a research field – localize whether a particular
field of research is gaining significance, remaining stable or in
decline.
- Support the development of strategic planning.
Main features
STN AnaVist offers a unique combination of functions for gathering,
analysing and interpreting information obtained from scientific and STN
patent databases. Its main functions are:
- Flexible creation of groups of results: It is possible to import a

group of registers created by STN Express Discover!™ and Analysis
Edition, or use the search capacity of STN AnaVist.
- Integrating the content of multiple databases. It is possible to search,
analyse and visualize data from diverse sources, including CaplusSM
and the PCT and USA complete text databases.
- Find unique relationships between structured and unstructured data:
in total, nine fields are analysed; For example, companies, inventors,
years and concepts drawn from texts.
- Grouping and cleaning of data: The program has a thesaurus of

company names which groups the large number of variants on
company names before carrying out the analysis. It also allows
the grouping of inventors’ names in order to reuse them at a later
moment.
- Standardization of concepts: The application of CAS vocabulary
standardizes terms among databases, reducing the number of
synonymous terms, thus saving time and providing more significative
results.
- Interactive relationships between data and tables: the visualization
space allows the user to see relationships which intensify the data
during analysis.
- Instant and understandable results: Immediately after the
visualization, understanding of the subject of interest is improved.
Figure 54 – STN. Source: http://www.cas.org/stnanavist/vidual.html

(visited 24 Nov. 2005).
5.6.9 Program (not evaluated): Tetralogie v6.0
Contact: I.R.I.T. / U.P.S. équipe SIG

118, route de Narbonne
31062 Toulouse Cedex 04, France
Tel : (+33) 5.61 55.67.81.
Fax : (+33) 5.61.55.62.58.
Email : dousset@irit.fr
Website : http://atlas.irit.fr
Tetralogie is software aimed at analysis and graphic representation of large
amounts of registers from databases. Its principal field of application is in
Technological Monitoring and Economic Intelligence. Tetralogie is a tool
for:
- Describing the state of the art in a research field.

- Tracking the evolution of a technical, economic or juridical field.
- Evaluating the relative position of an organization, company or
research group.
- Evaluating the connections between a website and the rest of the
internet.
- Evaluation research.
- Detecting experts.
Main features
Tetralogie accesses its material from lists of bibliographical registers of
databases available on-line, CD-ROMs or from any other source. These
registers may be factual or may have fields in complete text. Tetralogie is a
powerful tool in statistical, exploratory analysis and interactive cartography
methods.
After a preliminary phase preparing the data, it carries out analysis of the
information provided as a result of the appearance of focuses and knowledge
which cannot be obtained through reading the information sequentially, such
as:
- Identification of the main protagonists and their workplaces.
- Evaluation of their importance, their relationships and mobility in
time.
- Emergence and evolution of ideas and concepts.
- Most relevant terminology.

- Main thematic areas.
- Detection of key documents.
- Detection of main sources of information.
- Detection of main potential partners with whom co-operation is
possible.
In order to fulfil these aims, Tetralogie has:
- Tools for the manipulation of corpus (data, words, etc.) such as

descriptor databases, descriptor structures, synonyms or filters and
formats for data correction.
- Three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets to carry out operations
such as table cleaning, retrieval of new tables, realineations,
comparisons, classifications of varying types, groupings, detection of
multiterms or emerging terms.
- Multidimensional methods of analysis.
- Analysis of main components.
- Factorial analysis of correspondence.
- Visualization of factorial maps (2D, 3D & 4D).
- Visualization of quantitive links in 4D.
- CAH hierarchical ascendancy classification for navigation in this
classification.
- CPP partitioned classification method.
- Study of absolute evolution (trajectory)
- Study of differential evolution (speed and acceleration).
- Study of relative evolution (procrustean rotation).
SECTION SIX
Conclusion and discussion
- 138 -
- 139 -
6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
6. General Conclusion
6.1 Results of comparison

The study of supply and demand for patent analysis softwares, along with
their comparison allows us to make several observations and draw certain
conclusions. To begin with, the comparison in this study is the first of its
kind to be carried out. It underlines not only the deficiencies of commercially
available applications but also the overload of functions which are not strictly
of use to regular users. Table 16 summarizes all the data gathered.
In the “supply” section of the table, values are listed for the items
considered in the study for each program to which we have been given access.
In the comparative study a value range of 0 to 7 was assigned to each function.
A column has been added reflecting the average value of each function and
each group of functions (average weighted value).
On the “demand” side, table 16 shows the result obtained in the study
of supply. Those program users surveyed were asked to give a value to each
function. Below, we outline some comments and conclusions to bear in mind
for each section:
1. Searching and Downloading: This is the group of functions which

generally least corresponds to the requirements of users. Moreover,
this deficiency is accentuated by the fact that users have given greater
value to the relative importance which the search and download of
patent information has for them in comparison with other groups.
Only a few functions in this group respond to the demand, such as
the capacity to import patents (“Ability to import patent records”).
2. Filtering and Value Adding: In the large majority of cases, this group
of functions fulfils the requirements of users very satisfactorily. In
other words, the range of functions available slightly exceeds the use
made of them.
3. Local Analysis and Exploitation: According to the results of the study,

this function does not satisfy users’ needs. Results obtained show that
only two of the five programs cover 50% of these functions.
4. Graphic Generation: Although the overall result is positive, there

are some areas where it is not possible to work in any great depth.
Functions such as “Space or topographical representation of a patent
collection - text mining analysis” or “Ability to use local databases
to integrate new data and complete the patent analysis” are poorly
covered by the programs studied but are generally used frequently.
5. Dissemination and Workgroup: This is another group of functions

which is not particularly noted for its presence in the programs
analyzed in the study. For example, alerts, important tools for all
users, are not sufficiently covereds.
6. Management of Tool: There is a serious lack in this area. Practically

none of the programs analyzed in the study fulfil to an acceptable
degree the seven functions described in this group. Their low
value scores may be due to the fact that the professionals who have
responded to the survey are not the application administrators (also
known as webmaster). Therefore, perhaps, both the use and the
importance of these functions have a relatively low value.
Conclusion and discussion - 141 -
Supply Demand
Matheo Analyzer v3.0 - (MA)
PM Manager V1.4.0.3 - (PM)
Supply (Average by Function)

Matheo Patent v7.1 - (MP)
Use (Average by Function)

Vantage Point v4.0 - (VP)
PatentLabII v1.41 - (PL)
Relative Importance
(Average)
1.- Searching and 1,51 4,42 2,23
Downloading
Ability to search in a set of 7,04 1,4 1,75 4,46
online patent databases
Ability to search in other 4,4

technical/grey literature
online databases
Ability to search in local 4,2
(intranet) databases
Ability to import patent 7,0 2,8 4,2 2,8 7,0 4,8 3,9
records
Ability to import other 7,0 7,0 2,8 3,9
records (not patents)
Ability to launch 4,5
simultaneous searches in
multiple databases
Ability to save search 7,0 1,4 5,0
strategies
Ability to Schedule repetitive 4,4
searches
Downloading and integration 7,0 1,4 4,7
of patent legal status
Downloading and integration 7,0 7,0 4,2 3,6 4,0
of graphics
Downloading and integration 4,2 1,4 1,1 4,9
of pdf documents
2.- Filtering and Value 3,9 3,7 1,9
MA
MP
PL
PM
VP
Adding
Automatic duplicate 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 5,6 4,7
detection and removal
Automatic grouping of 7,0 7,0 2,8 4,9
patent families
Automatic generation of 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 5,6 3,8
field indexes
Ability to define and build 5,0 7,0 2,8 3,3
new indexes
Wizard for grouping and 2,8 4,2 2,8 7,0 3,4 3,3
cleaning terms of indexes
Patent pertinence (user filled 7,0 7,0 7,0 4,2 3,7
field)
Annotation of patents (user 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 5,6 3,6
filled field)
Ability to define and edit 7,0 7,0 7,0 5,6 5,3 3,3
patent groups
Links to other related 1,4 7,0 1,4 2,0 3,6
documents
Taxonomies creation and 7,0 1,4 1,1 2,5
edition
3.- Local Analysis and 1,3 3,8 1,5

MA
MP
PL
PM
VP
Exploitation
Automatic extraction of 1,4 1,4 0,6 3,7
main keywords from patents
Automatic abstracts 3,7
Automatic clustering of 4,2 1,4 1,2 3,4

patents
Automatic classification of 4,9
patents using semantic filters
Full text searching 2,6 7,0 5,6 4,5 3,9 3,5
capabilities
Semantic searching 3,7
capabilities
4.- Graphic Generation 3,3 2,9 1,2
MA
MP
PL
PM
VP
Cite Analysis (cited and
citing patents in relation to a
known patent) 4,0
Rankings - Analysis of one 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0
field. 4,0
Matrix or Bar graphs – Two 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0
field’s co-occurrence analysis. 3,6
Network relations analysis 7,0 7,0 4,2 3,6
– Two fields co-occurrence
analysis 3,2
Space or topographic 1,4 0,3
representation of a patent
collection – text mining
analysis 2,7
Ability to use local databases 2,8 1,4 1,7
to integrate new data and
complete the patent analysis
5.- Dissemination and 1,4 2,9 1,2

MA
MP
PL
PM
VP
Workgroup
Publish the contents in 1,4 2,8 0,8 3.8

the intranet / internet
Personaed alerts 4,4
Alerts to detect changes 3,2

on the legal status of a
patent
Automatic reports using 5,6 4,2 4,2 2,8 3,4 3,3
templates
Ability to export data 4,2 7,0 4,2 7,0 5,9 5,7 3,7
Ability to create a poll and 1,4 0,7 0,4 1,9

link a patent to a poll
Ability to link a patent to 1,4 0,7 0,4 2,0
a forum
Ability to link a patent 1,4 0,7 0,4 2,0

to an event in a shared
agenda
6.- Management of Tool 0,0 3,4 1,0
MA
MP
PL
PM
VP
Management of users 3,8
access rights
Management of Document 3,6
collections access rights
Simultaneous multi-user 3,8
access and edition
Customization of access 3,4
and search interface
Multilanguage interface 2,6
System utilisation statistics 2,9
Table 16 – Comparison of adjusted values for supply and demand.
The table above (table 16) summarizes the conclusions drawn about the
previous groups of functions, with those functions not satisfying the demand
marked in red and those which (to a greater or lesser extent) do marked in
green. We can conclude that only two features fulfil the average expectations
of program users.
The results from table 16 are summarized in table 17. Figure 56 offers
a different visualization of the results obtained in table 17. The groups of
factors have been compared with the average use of those factors. It can be
seen that, in the majority of cases, there is a certain positive relationship
between the frequency of use of those functions and the value given to them.
This relationship is similar to that discovered in other studies using the same
methodology (for example, see Comai, 2005).
Average Value
Average Value
Importance
of Demand
of Supply
Relative
Group of Functions
1.- Searching and Downloading 1,5 4,4 2,2

2.- Filtering and Value Adding 3,9 3,7 1,9
3.- Local Analysis and Exploitation 1,3 3,8 1,5
4.- Graphic Generation 3,3 2,9 1,2
5.- Dissemination and Workgroup 1,4 2,9 1,2
6.- Management of Tool 0 3,4 1,0
Table 17 – Summary of the comparison between groups of functions and

their priorities.
6.2 Final thoughts

The programs evaluated here do not totally address the 41 functions identified
as being of special significance for patent tracking programs. These programs
cover the range of areas with differing levels of intensity. Although this study
only concerns itself with the five programs which kindly gave us permission to
evaluate, we believe that the non-evaluated programs possess similar features
therefore, they do not fully satisfy the functions examined in this study. The
main findings of our report can be synthesized into the following statements:
1. None of the patent tracking programs totally cover the functions

which one would expect to find in a program of this type.
2. Existing patent tracking programs satisfy users’ demands although

there are serious deficiencies in some functions.
We believe that the results of this test show that there is still work to be done
by the companies producing these softwares. Manufacturers need to increase
1 - SEARCHING AND
DOWNLOADING (4.4/2.2)
Relative Importance
2 - FILTERING AND VALUE ADDING (3.7/1.9)
3 - LOCAL ANALYSIS AND

EXPLOITATION (3.8/1.5)
4 - GRAPHIC 5 - DISSEMINATION AND

GENERATION (2.9/1.2) WORKGROUP (2.9/1.2)
6 - MANAGEMENT OF TOOL (3.4/1.0)
Frequency in the use
Figure 56 – Relative importance and

Frequency in the use of groups of functions.
their capacities in the areas underlined above in order to increase the added
value of these programs. The main improvements in the softwares should be
centred on the functions most commonly accessed by users, adopting the
priorities suggested in table 17 as “Searching and Downloading”, “Local
Analysis and Exploitation”, “Management of Tool” and “Dissemination and
Workgroup”.
******************************************************
Footnotes
1
This value was calculated by taking the average of the adjusted values for all the functions in
a class.
2
The value reflects the average of the functions classified in a category.
3
The value comes from table 11 (page 55).
4
The value reflects the individual tables for each program in the study, presented in chapter 5
which have an original scale of 0 (no function in the program) to 5 (the program fully covers
this function). This scale has been adjusted to 0 to 7 in order for supply and demand table
to be directly comparable. See comparison tables and survey used in the indices. If the box
indicates no mark and is not marked this means that the program does not fulfil the function
in question.
5
This value was obtained by taking the average of the associated values of the five programs for
the same function.
6
This value was calculated by taking the average of users’ responses to the programs in the
study, obtained in the study of use of functions (see chapter 4).
- 148 -
SECTION SEVEN
References and Authors
- 150 -
- 151 -
7.1 REFERENCES
APQC (2001). Using Science and Technology Intelligence to drive Business

Results. APQC [http://www.apqc.org].
Adams, S. R. (2006). Information Sources in Patents. Saur.
Ashton, W. B. and R. A. Klavans, (1997). Keeping Abreast of Science and

Technology: Technical Intelligence for Business. Battelle Press,
Columbus.
Dou, H.; Levillé, V.; Manullang, S. and J. M. Dou, (2005). “Patent Analysis
for Competitive Technicall Intelligence and Innovative Thinking,”
Data Science Journal, 4:209-237.
Fuld&Company (2004). Intelligence Software Report 2004/2005. Published

by Fuld&Company Inc. [http://www.fuld.com/Products/ISR2004/
HomePage.html].
Lozano, I. P. (2003). “El análisis de patentes en el mundo de la inteligencia

tecnológica competitiva,” PUZZLE - Revista Hispana de la Inteligencia
Competitiva. 2(8):10-13.
Nikkel, P. (2003). “How can We Determine Which Competitive Intelligence

Software Is Most Effective?” pp.163-175 in Fleisher, C. S. and
Blenkhorn, D. L (editors) (2003). Controverises in Competitive
Intelligence: The Enduring Issues. Praeger.
Paap, J. (2002). Using technical intelligence to drive innovation and enhance

technical decisions. Workshop given at the annual International SCIP
conference in Cincinati, USA.
Rodríguez, M. (2003). “Análisis de patentes en la inteligencia competitiva y

tecnológica: el caso de los materiales avanzado,” PUZZLE - Revista
Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva, 2(8):4-9.
Trippe, A. J. (2003). “Patinformatics: Tasks to tools,” World Patent

Information. No.25:211-221.
Vergara, J. C. (2004). “Uso de las patentes en la práctica de la Vigilancia

Tecnológica e Inteligencia Competitiva,” PUZZLE - Revista Hispana
de la Inteligencia Competitiva. 3(10):4-10.
References and Authors - 153 -
7.2 AUTHORS
Juan Carlos Vergara
Is an Industrial Engineer from the University of Navarra with a postgraduate

degree, from the University of Barcelona, in both the Spanish and the
European Patent. He is the co-founder of “CDE-Centro de Vigilancia
Normas y Patentes”, a company which is part of the CDE Group, where he is
Technical Director. He has extensive experience in the creation of Automated
Observation Services in Internet using his CDETracker. He provides training
in and advice on the implementation of Technological Observation and
Competitive Intelligence Systems in organizations of all kinds. He created
Sector-based Technological Observation Services, assisting in areas such as
definition, configuration and start-up. He is a consultant in Intellectual
Property, from both the technological (analysis of patent rights status,
identification of competition’s lines of research, technological leaders and their
specialties) as well as from the legal viewpoint, in order to prevent and find
solutions for conflict between patents (analysis of patentability, analysis of the
risk of patent infringement in a country, analysis of the legal status of a patent,
etc.) He is a member of SCIP and is an expert/collaborator with Vizcaya City
Council’s Zaintek Servicios (Technological Observation for SMEs in Vizcaya)
and Navarra Innovation Agency’s Navactiva. Contact: jcvergar@cde.es
Alessandro Comai
Ph.D. candidate at ESADE business school (URL), he holds a BSc (Honor)

in Engineering (Coventry University) and an MBA from the University
of Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. At the moment he is an associate professor
of the University of Pompeu Fabra, (Barcelona, Spain) and was a visiting
professor at Tampere University of Technology (Tampere, Finland) during
2005. He researches and teaches competitive intelligence (CI). He has
written several articles and papers about CI and he is involved in several
research projects in this field. He has also given several workshops and
presentations about CI at international conferences. Co-author of several

books (“Inteligencia Competitiva y Vigilancia Tecnológica: Experiencias de
Implantación en España y Latinoamérica”, Barcelona: Emecom, 2006) and
studies, he is currently the director of the Spanish Competitive Intelligence
Magazine “PUZZLE - Revista Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva” and
is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Competitive Intelligence
and Management. He is also a member of SCIP (Society of Competitive
Intelligence Professionals). Contact: direccion@revista-puzzle.com
Has a degree and a doctorate in Business Administration from the

Autonomous University of Barcelona and a Master of Business Administration
from the University of California in Los Angeles. Full Professor at Pompeu
Fabra University (UPF). Director of the MBApt for the Diploma in Business
Management and co-director (with Alessandro Comai) of the online Course
in Competitive Intelligence (CICOL) at the Institute of Further Education
of the UPF. Director of the Business School at UPF. Author of, among other
titles, “Inteligencia Competitiva y Vigilancia Tecnológica: Experiencias de
Implantación en España y Latinoamérica”, Barcelona: Emecom, 2006, “El
Entorno de la Empresa”, Barcelona: Editions 2000, 1992, “Organización de la
Empresa: Teoría y Aplicaciones”, Editions 2000, 1989, “Análisis y Formulación
de Estrategia Empresarial” with J.D. Grima. Barcelona: Hispano Europea,
1984. Co-director of PUZZLE and member of the Academy of Management,
the Strategic Management Society and SCIP. Contact: joaquin.tena@upf.edu
SECTION EIGHT
Annexes
- 156 -
- 157 -
8. ANNEXES
8.1 Annex 1: Letter of invitation sent to software-producing

companies
Dear Sir,
We are inviting you to participate in our study.
PUZZLE, The Hispanic Magazine of Competitive Intelligence (www.revista-

puzzle.com) is working on a research project to establish the characteristics of
patent analysis software.
This study seeks to understand the usage of patents analysis software and
make a comparison between several softwares. The benchmark evaluation
will be done for each software against a defined list of characteristics which
will be validated from a survey we are doing with practitioners. This survey
will define the relevance and importance of different methods or techniques
within the profession.
We are interested in installing your software “Company Brand Name” and

making the test with results obtained from “Company Brand Name”Host.
We would like to ask if you could send us a 1-month limited copy of your
software “Company Brand Name” and if you could allow us limited access
to “Company Brand Name” so that we can test the software.
If this were not possible, we would appreciate if you could send us the
documentation and other relevant material that would allow us to study the
software. In this specific case the conclusion of the software benchmark will
be classified in a special group of products that have not been tested.
As a small token of our appreciation, we will provide a summary of our

findings for each stage of the research. The full report, which provides several
patent analysis software programs, and the results will be published at the
beginning of November 2005.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Juan Carlos Vergara

Technical Adviser
Annexes - 159 -

individuals
Dear Sir,
PUZZLE, The Hispanic Magazine of Competitive Intelligence (www.revista-

puzzle.com) is working on a research project to establish the characteristics
of patent analysis software.
We are seeking your expert assistance and your participation is critical in

this research. This study seeks to understand the usage of patents analysis
software. Therefore, we are particularly interested in defining the relevance
and importance of different methods or techniques within the profession.
We would very much appreciate it if you could complete the questionnaire

online at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=72931084818
The deadline will be tJuly 15, 2005. As a small token of our appreciation, we
will provide a summary of our findings for each stage of the research. The
full report, which provides several patent analysis software programs, and the
results will be published at the beginning of November 2005.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Comai
Director of PUZZLE and Ph.D. candidate (ESADE Business School)
alessandro.comai@revista-puzzle.com
8.3 Annex 3: 3rd. Letter of Invitation sent to professional

individuals
Dear Sir,
I am sending a 3rd. and last call for participating in our study. This study
seeks to understand the usage of patent analysis software.
After the 2nd call we have added 19 valid questionnaires to the initial 34.
Therefore, we have achieved 53 valid responses at the moment. We would
very much appreciate it if you could complete the questionnaire online at:
The deadline will be July 31, 2005. As a small token of our appreciation, we
will provide a summary of our findings for each stage of the research.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Comai
Director of PUZZLE and Ph.D. candidate (ESADE Business School)
Annexes - 161 -

individuals (in Spanish)
Estimado/a Sr/a,
PUZZLE, la revista hispana de Inteligencia Competitiva, (www.revista-

puzzle.com) está llevando a cabo un trabajo de investigación para establecer
las características más valoradas de los Software de Análisis de Patentes y a
continuación hacer una comparativa entre ellos.
Buscamos su opinión como experto en patentes y consideramos que su

participación es crítica en esta investigación. Este estudio busca entender
el uso que se hace del software de análisis de patentes. Por tanto, estamos
particularmente interesados en definir la relevancia y la importancia de
diferentes métodos o técnicas de análisis en el desempeño de su profesión.
Le agradeceremos que dedique unos minutos en responder a un cuestionario

disponibe online en:
La fecha para la recopilación de los resultados es el 29 de Julio de 2005.

Como muestra de agradecimiento a los participantes, les enviaremos un
resumen con las conclusiones de cada etapa de investigación. El informe
que incluye una comparación de varios paquetes de análisis de patentes se
publicará en Noviembre de 2005.
Le agradeceremos que re-envie este mensaje a otros colegas que puedan

responder al cuestionario.
Si Ud. tiene alguna pregunta, por favor no dude en contactarnos.
Sinceramente,
Alessandro Comai
Director de PUZZLE y doctorando (ESADE)
Joaquín Tena
Co-Director de PUZZLE
Joaquin.tena@upf.edu
Juan Carlos Vergara

Asesor de PUZZLE
juancarlos.vergara@revista-puzzle.com
Annexes - 163 -
8.5 Annex 5: Functions Table

Ability to search in a set of online patent databases
Ability to search in other technical/grey literature online databases
Ability to search in local (intranet) databases
Ability to import other records (not patents)
Ability to launch simultaneous searches in multiple databases
Downloading and integration of patent legal status
Downloading and integration of pdf documents

Wizard for grouping and cleaning terms of indexes

Automatic extraction of main keywords from patents
Automatic abstracts
Automatic classification of patents using semantic filters

Cite Analysis (cited and citing patents in relation to a known patent)
Matrix or Bar graphs – Two field’s co-occurrence analysis
Network relations analysis – Two fields co-occurrence analysis
Space or topographic representation of a patent collection – text mining
analysis
Ability to use local databases to integrate new data and complete the patent
analysis

Personalised alerts
Alerts to detect changes in the legal status of a patent
Ability to create a poll and link a patent to a poll
Ability to link a patent to an event in a shared agenda

Users access rights management
Multi-user access and edition
Access and search interface customisation
Document collections access rights management
System utilisation statistics
Annexes - 165 -
8.6 Annex 6: Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in the poll was a form consisting of a total of 10 pages
in HTML format, accessible only through the internet (see example screens
below).
The entire contents of the questionnaire are shown below although the format
of the document is slightly different to the one which appears in the internet.
Patent Analysis Software
1. Purpose
This study seeks to understand the usage of patents analysis software. We are
particularly interested in defining the relevance and importance of different
methods or techniques with respect to your profession.
The questionnaire is divided in two parts. The first will explore what methods
or techniques are most commonly used. The second one distinguishes the
importance of the methods.
2. Demographic Information
Confidentiality: We assure you that your identity and that of your company
will be treated as strictly confidential. The information you provide will not
be shared with any other person and all references to your company’s data will
be blinded in any report resulting from this research.
1. Position: R&D / Director / Libraian / Technician / Other (please specify)
2. Industry/Sector: Pharmacy / Veterinary / Chemical / Petrochemical

/ Automotive / Electronic / Metal / Plastic / Medical / Engineering or
Mechanical / Computer / Other (please specify)
3. Years of Experience: ______
If you are interested in receiving an executive copy of the full study, please fill
the following information:
4. Name:
5. Surname:
6. e-mail
Annexes - 167 -
3. Search
7. Please rate the extent to which you use the following methods/techniques
to SEARCH patents?
Sometimes
every time
Very little
Not at all
Almost
Always
Often
Little
N/A
1. Search in
complementary
technical/grey
literature online
databases
2. Search in local
(intranet) databases
3. Import patent
records from other
software
4. Launch simultaneous
searches in multiple
databases
5. Save search
strategies
6. Schedule repetitive
searches
7. Download and
integrate of patent
legal status
8. Download and
integrate of graphics
9. Download and link
of pdf documents
4. Filter and value add
to FILTER & VALUE ADD patents?
Sometimes
every time
Very little
Not at all
Almost
Always
Often
Little
N/A
1. Automatic patent
duplicate detection
and removal
2. Automatic grouping
of patent families
3. Automatic
generation of field
indexes
4. Definition and
building of additional
indexes
5. Group and clean of
index terms
6. Evaluation of
pertinence (user filled
field)
7. Annotation of
patents (user filled
field)
8. Definition and
edition of patent
groups
9. Link to other
related documents
10. Creation and
edition of Taxonomies
Annexes - 169 -
5. Local Analysis and Exploitation
to ANALYSE & EXPLOIT patents?
Sometimes
every time
Very little
Not at all
Almost
Always
Often
Little
N/A
1. Automatic
extraction of main
keywords from
patents
2. Automatic abstracts
3.Automatic clustering
of patents
4. Automatic
classification of
patents in pre-defined
categories
5. Full text indexing/
searching
6. Semantic indexing/
searching
7. Ability to use local
databases to integrate
new data and
complete the patent
analysis
6. Graphic Generation
to GENERATE GRAPHICS from patents?
Sometimes
every time
Very little
Not at all
Almost
Always
Often
Little
N/A
1. Cite Analysis (cited
and citing patents in
relation to a known
patent)
2. Rankings - Analysis
of one field.
3. Matrix or Bar
graphs – Two fields
co-occurrence
analysis.
4. Network relations
analysis – Two fields
co-occurrence
analysis
5. Space or
topographic
representation of
a patent collection
– text mining analysis
Annexes - 171 -
7. Dissemination and Workgroup
to DISSEMINATE patents?
Almost every
Sometimes
Very little
Not at all
Always
Often
Little
time
N/A
1. Publish the contents
in the intranet /
internet
2. Customised alerts
3. Alerts with changes
on the legal status
4. Automatic reports
using templates
5. Export all the fields
(csv, xml, etc)
6. Link a patent to
a poll with a key
question
7. Link a patent to
a forum and begin a
discussion
8. Link a patent to
an event in a shared
agenda
8. Management of Tool
12. Please rate the extent to which you use the following characteristics to
MANAGE Patent SOFTWARE?
Sometimes
every time
Very little
Not at all
Almost
Always
Often
Little
N/A
1. Management of
users access rights
2. Management of
Document collections
access rights
3. Simultaneous
multi-user access and
edition
4. Customisation of
Access and search
interface
5. Multilanguage
interface
6. System utilisation
statistics
Annexes - 173 -
9. Please rate how important you think the following group of methods/
techniques for analyzing patents is
NOTE: Assign “1” to the least important group of methods/techniques and

rate ALL the others groups against it. If you rate “1”, it means that the group
of methods is equal to the group they are being compared against. If you rate
“1.5”, then it means that the group of methods is 50% more important than
the one they are being compared against. If you rate “2” then it means that the
group is 100% more important or twice as important and if you rate “3” then
it is 200% more important or three times as important and so on.
Relative Importance:
N /A
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1. Search
2. Filter and value add
3. Local Analysis and

Exploitation
4. Graphic generation
5. Dissemination and
Workgroup
6. Software
Management
10. Conclusion
Thank you for completing this Survey. We appreciate your input. If you have
any questions, please send an e-mail to:
Mr. Alessandro Comai,

Ph.D. Candidate ESADE and director of the magazine PUZZLE.
Annexes - 175 -
8.7 Annex 7: List of IP Organizations
World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.org

(WIPO)
Office for Harmonization in the Internal http://oami.eu.int
Market (OAMI)
International Intellectual Property http://www.iipi.org
Institute (IIPI)
European Patent Office (EPO) http://www.european-patent-
office.org
EPI - Institute of Professional http://www.patentepi.com
Representatives before the European
Patent Office (EPO)
The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys http://www.itma.org.uk
(ITMA)
The Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) http://www.eapo.org
Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center http://www.apic.jiii.or.jp
(APIC)
Japan Patent Information Organization http://www.japio.or.jp
(JAPIO)
Institute of Intellectual Property (IIP) http://www.iip.or.jp
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains
American Intellectual Property Law http://www.aipla.com
Association (AIPLA)
Austin Intellectual Property Law http://www.austin-ipla.org
Association
(Austin-IPLA)
International Association for the http://www.aippi.org
Protection for Industrial Property (IAPPI)
Intellectual Property Owners Associations http://www.ipo.org
(IPO)
Japan Intellectual Property Association http://www.jipa.or.jp
(JIPA)
International Federation of Intellectual http://www.ficpi.org
Property Attorneys (FICPI)
Interamerican Association of Industrial http://www.asipi.org

Property (ASIPI)
American Bar Association - IP Law http://www.abanet.org/intelprop
Japan Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA) http://www.jpaa.or.jp
The Institute of Patent and Trade Mark http://www.ipta.com.au
Attorneys of Australia (IPTA)
Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) http://www.piug.org
Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) http://www.bpla.org
National Association of Patent Practioners http://www.napp.org
(NAPP)
Patent and Trademark Office Society http://www.ptos.org
(PTOS)
International Trademark Association http://www.inta.org
(INTA)
European Communities Trademark http://www.ecta.org
Association (ECTA)
The Association of European Trademark http://www.martex.co.uk/
Owners (MARQUES) marques/index.htm
The Domain Name Rights Coalition http://www.domain-name.org
(DNRC)
Annexes - 177 -
- 178 -

Software For Technological Patent Intelligence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Software For Technological Patent Intelligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

e4

Software for Technological Patent Intelligence

Juan Carlos Vergara

Martha Matteo, Ph.D.

Vergara, Comai y Tena

EMECOM Ediciones in collaboration with

Eng - Cubierta Estudio.indd 1 11/07/2006, 12:28

Juan Carlos Vergara

EMECOM Consultores, S.L.

Table of Contents vii

5.3 Program evaluated: PatentLabII v1.41 83

PRESENTATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In order to evaluate the main functions and characteristics of patent analysis

We worked on the supposition that the software assessed was representative

We concluded that, of all the groups of functions, the section “Searching

The group of functions which by and large lives up to user expectations is

According to the results of the study, “Local Analysis abd Exploitation” is a

“Dissemination and Workgroup” is another group of functions which is not

There is a major weakness in “Management of Tool”. None of the software

Overall we have reached the following general conclusions:

- No patent-monitoring software fully covers the functions one would

2.1 Patent Analysis Software: a review of the situation

A bibliographical review of patent analysis software shows that no specialized

- The main players - competitors and current and potential

2.2 Software analysis studies for Competitive Technological

2.3 Purpose of the Study

- Non-existence of exhaustive studies comparing computer applications

All of this has led us to formulate several research questions:

1. Which are the main characteristics or functions used by professional

a) Study of the patent CTI software available: this study focused on

3.1 Definition of Application Characteristics

- A review of literature in this field (Ashton y Klavans, 1997; APQC,

1.- Searching and Downloading

2.- Filtering and Value Adding

3.- Local Analysis and Exploitation

4.- Graphic Generation

5.- Dissemination and Workgroup

6.- Management of Tool

Table 1 - Definition of Application Functions.

The following is a more detailed list of the functions.

3.1.1 Searching and Downloading

3.1.2 Filtering and Value Adding

included in the title), is also examined.

3.1.3 Local Analysis and Exploitation

3.1.4 Graphic Generation

This section itemizes the graphics most used by current applications. In

- Single-dimension ratings or classifications, normally represented by a

is related. These links can be shown in a way which is more or less

3.1.5 Dissemination and Workgroup

3.1.6 Management of Tool

3.2 Analysis of supply

3.2.1 Criteria and selection of patent analysis software

- the software carries out some kind of analysis.

The following table summarizes the selection criteria, organized in such a

Criterion Calculation Selection Criteria Number of

1 + Analysis of existing software open to 33

3 = Those which can be assessed and 21

Table 3 – Selection of Patent Analysis Softwares and results

By way of an example, we would like to cite two packages which were

- BizInt – This package only reformats records obtained from very

We did not, therefore, think it appropriate to include this software program

3.2.2 Invitation to participate

On the basis of prior analysis, 21 companies were identified as being suitable