The UK Intellectual Property Office has compiled a nanotechnology patent landscape for the UK. This reports on UK patent data and reflects on UK innovation in the field of nanotechnology. The full report is available to download at:
For an idea of topics covered in this report please see below.
Executive Summary
Patent data reflecting UK innovation in the field of nanotechnology was analysed and several subsets considered separately:
- UK innovation commercial organisations
- University applicants
- Global patent activity in nanotoxicity
These yield the following observations in respect of UK innovation:
- UK strong overall in bionanotechnology
- Commercial organisations prolific in medical and cosmetic applications
- Universities strong in science-base research in nanostructures, physics and electrical applications including scanning probes, light guides, semiconductors and magnets
- Most prolific commercial patents closely related to densely patented (established) technology sectors
- University patents spread very broadly across all sectors and tend to populate underrepresented sectors supporting research bias
It was noted that whilst recent declines in nanotechnology patenting may be attributable to patent publication delays, evidence in university patenting, and the GB patent bias in the dataset suggested that the decline may be actual. If so, nanotechnology patent activity would seem to have peaked in 2002.
Under technology breakdown, medical preparation including targeted drug delivery and antibody directed enzyme therapy is seen to decline since prolific activity in the early 1990s. On the other hand, cyclodextrins and medicinal preparations involving nanoparticles and/or nanocapsules is recently resurgent. Activity in nanostructures and physics/electrical fields is ongoing and may be attributable to recent university research pursuing these technologies.
The UK is underrepresented in nanotoxicity, but this appears to be a growth area, peaking recently in 2005.
Patent portfolio (holdings) analysis suggests, despite the bias of patents in established areas assigned to commercial organisations, that new entrants and exploratory research still form a significant part of the UK nanotechnology landscape; 49% of patents are held within portfolios of less than 20 nanotechnology patents.
Collaborative activity between applicants is noted although inventor collaborations are more prolific. Universities are seen to collaborate widely suggesting a high degree of technology transfer and/or spin out.
Patents held by non-commercial organisations make up 33% of the dataset. This suggests a significant research and development activity-base with continuing commercialisation and applications development.
