The significance of reading corporate trends from patent analysis as a patent attorney
The same content is also available on Spotify (Japanese only).
In this Spotify, I spoke about the significance of reading corporate trends from patent analysis as a patent attorney, using my own personal prejudice.
Often, in the context of corporate analysis and management consulting, we read articles on corporate trends as deciphered from patents.
A patent is a system that allows a company to obtain exclusive rights for a certain period in exchange for disclosing technical information to the public, so by looking at the contents of a patent, we can learn what kind of technology the company has at its core, and what kind of business development it is considering in the future, Therefore, by looking at the contents of patents, we can learn what kind of technology the company has at its core and what kind of business development it is considering in the future.
As a patent attorney with a certain amount of experience, they may intuitively know where to start when reading a patent specification and where the main points are written.
This is not limited to patent attorneys, but also applies to researchers engaged in research and development, academics who regularly read competitive patents, and intellectual property consultants and management consultants who read patent specifications on a daily basis.
From here, I would like to briefly introduce, in my opinion and prejudice, the points from which patent attorneys read specifications and analyze patents when they read corporate trends from patent analysis.
For example, patent attorneys who have been involved in lawsuits or who read case law frequently will tend to read a patent gazette after it has been granted, considering how the claim will be amended or, in the worst case, whether it will be squashed as a right if the patent case develops into a dispute.
Secondly, if you are a patent attorney familiar with foreign cases, I think your reading would include a one-step analysis and foresight by country.
For example, in the U.S., they might check for family applications, i.e., whether or not a continuation application has been filed, and decipher how the rights have been granted from many sides in the case of a chain of successive applications from a single patent application.
In major countries, the exchange of disputed cases and the like are also publicly available, so if an application or patent is under attack, for example, they can read up on who the attacking party is and from what perspective the attack is being made.
In addition, regardless of whether or not they are familiar with disputed relationships or foreign applications, patent attorneys will probably make it a habit to look at the claims at the application stage and guess at the approximate drop-off point in the event that the application is granted rights.
In other words, as a patent attorney, when reading corporate trends from patent analysis, I tend to read patents not only from the perspective of technical content, but also from a legal perspective. As a result, the trend of the company is predicted from the technical point of view, as well as the trend and movements of the competitors.
When you look at patent analysis articles written by people who are not legal experts such as patent attorneys or lawyers, you will find that they sometimes make legally incorrect interpretations or refer to the contents without being aware of whether the information they are referring to is from the application stage or after the patent has been granted. I think that it is a good idea always to be aware of whether you are conveying incorrect information from a legal standpoint.
