In the world of patent services, a standardized approach often falls short on client expectations. Every organization has their unique challenges, goals, and competitive dynamics that require solutions that are designed just for them.
A corporate’s objectives for performing patent services such as patent landscape analytics are very different from that of an academic institution, similarly a start-up requires a very different approach as compared to a law-firm or a government agency. Further more, persona’s with an organization for e.g. R&D, IP & Legal, HR, or Strategy may have their own requirements with minimal overlap with others.
The Problem with Generic IP Solutions vs Customized Patent Services
About 10 to 15 years back, patent analytics offered in the global market primarily focused on plain vanilla analysis and visuals such as the top entities by volumes, invention velocity, top technology themes, top filing and top family expansion geographies, and a few mix-and-match matrices of the aforementioned variables.
As the client stakeholders were still getting used to ingesting this data, these predefined templates, and standard methodologies worked, and worked really really well. Plus, they enabled service providers to increase efficiency through automation. Build a MS Excel macro, input a reasonably clean data, and “one click” spit out a beautiful report.
But then amongst others, two major shifts happened:
- China: The People Republic of China government’s policies in early 2000s to incentivize domestic innovation and push patent filings started emerging in patent analytics studies across the technology spectrum. The model that had worked so well suddenly started skewing 90% of the analysis towards one country and continues to till date (owing to the patenting prowess of the PRC). Top entities, geographies all pointing towards one insight, one country.
- Demand for actionable intelligence from Patent Analytics: As “Intellectual Property” established itself firmly at the organization’s big table to decide on business objectives of investment, market position, and risk mitigation, the need for actionable insights became more relevant than ever in these high-stakes discussions. The discovery and delivery calls with patent services providers saw more curve balls with increasingly complex questions like:
-
- How can we differentiate between volume and quality?
- Why is there a white space for a particular technology::use case intersection. Is it emerging or a dud?
- What are the emerging signals at the sub-technology level?
- How can we map our sustainability efforts towards UN SDG goals and compare it to our competitors’ portfolios?
- What is the protection situation in MENA, LATAM or South Asia region apart from the IP5?
- How can we identify global laboratories for a fruitful and symbiotic industry-academia partnership?
- How can we leverage IP and our position in this niche to strengthen our investor pitch?
- As a government stakeholder, what is the patent asset return on the sovereign funding in a particular province or a state?
- How do I keep up with the top 10 global filer in the world?
- And many more..
-
Generic solutions while offering high efficiency, and quick turnaround time, often miss these critical nuances. A one-size fits all approach, might provide surface-level insights, but it lacks the depth needed to make strategic, informed decisions. The evolving technology domain, constantly changing regulatory frameworks, and never-like-before competitive environment, underscores the demand for real-time deep-dive intelligence.
IP is not just about protection—it’s about strategy, growth, and staying ahead of the competition. A standardized approach may offer a quick fix, but a customized, insights-driven strategy ensures long-term success. With all due respect, standardized approaches have their use-cases and will continue to do so, but to force-fit these models to each and every client situation overlooking their needs and objective would be un-wise.
– Team Qualevia (email us at: hello@qualevia.com)
“A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach usually ends up fitting no one.” – Patrick Lencioni (American Author, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team)
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and reflects the views of the Qualevia editorial team, based on years of experience in the Intellectual Property (IP) services industry. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Qualevia as an organization. Qualevia is a technical consulting organization specializing in IP matters, offering insights based on data analysis, research, and industry expertise. However, Qualevia is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation or legal opinions. This content should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek guidance from qualified legal professionals before making decisions related to intellectual property matters.
While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the information presented, Qualevia makes no guarantees regarding its completeness, reliability, or applicability to specific cases. We disclaim any liability for actions taken based on this content. By accessing this blog, you acknowledge and agree that Qualevia shall not be held responsible for any direct, indirect, or consequential losses arising from the use of the information provided. For specific legal or business advice, please consult a qualified professional.