Advertisement
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Guidelines for Preparing Patent Landscape Reports World Intellectual Property Organization, 2015-08-24 These Guidelines are designed both for general users of patent information, as well as for those involved in producing Patent Landscape Reports (PLRs). They provide step-by-step instructions on how to prepare a PLR, as well as background information such as objectives, patent analytics, concepts and frameworks. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: United Technologies Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Microsoft Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: 3M Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Tessera Technologies Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Baker Hughes Incorporated Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Honeywell International Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Apple Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Patent Portfolio Deployment: Bridging The R&d, Patent And Product Markets Shang-jyh Liu, Anna Hoi Yan Fong, Tony Yuhong Lan, 2017-01-11 Patents are powerful weapons in a company's legal arsenal, with both defensive and offensive capabilities. Patents protect a company's innovation from potential infringers, while at the same time support the company's efforts to exploit their innovation commercially in the global marketplace. This book explores the role of patents in today's knowledge economy. We discuss how patents have become a valuable commodity and have a lucrative market of their own. However, to profit from patent monetization, this Patent market must be closely linked to the R&D market and the Product Market.This book offers a systematic approach to patent deployment to maximize profits beginning with data collection from patent, journal and business sources. Readers will be guided through analyses of the patent landscape to identify traps and opportunities for commercialization. This book argues that patents must be aggregated into portfolios to maximize their effectiveness and value in the modern economy. With strong patent portfolios, companies can be engaged in licensing and more sophisticated business models like forming patent alliances and collaborating with IP intermediaries. Finally, the book will provide an overview of the various ways of valuing patents and suggest some simplified approaches for management to value the company's patents. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: TOTAL SA Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: The Ultimate Patent Guide DexPatnet (Your Patent Scientist), 2024-05-15 TURN YOUR IDEA INTO AN INVENTION, AND YOUR INVENTION INTO AN ASSET! Do you have a brilliant idea, but don’t know how to protect it? This comprehensive guide from IP experts of DexPatent provides inventors, entrepreneurs, and small business owners with everything they need to understand the patent process, from concept to commercialization. ‘This book is all you need to start your patenting journey’ Dr. Steward Gracian, Founder & CEO, SocioDent ‘Should form part of a welcome kit across universities and corporate offices’ Dr. Vijay Singh, IP Manager, Indian Institute of Science Discover more resources at www.dexpatent.com |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Mitel Networks Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Merck & Co Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: International Game Technology (IGT) Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: OC Oerlikon Corporation AG Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: General Electric Company (GE) Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Royal Philips Electronics NV Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Funai Electric Co Ltd Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Citizen Holdings Co Ltd Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Honda Motor Co Ltd Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Air Products and Chemicals Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Oki Electric Industry Company Limited Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: L-3 Communications Holdings Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Technicolor SA Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd (Foxconn) Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Internet of Things , 2014-11-01 Internet of Things (IoT) is possibly the most widely discussed technological concept in today’s technology circles. This technology is expected to dramatically change not only how we work but also how we live. This report studies the technological landscape of this fast growing technology domain from an Intellectual Property (Patents) perspective. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Robert Bosch GmbH Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Unfolding Intellectual PRoperty Rights Parintek Innovations, 2019-05-06 This is a complete working guide and practical book about Intellectual property awareness, covering details about patent, trademarks, copyright, Industrial design and all other types of IP. India is a growing consumer market. There are many start-ups developing new technologies, MNC research centres are working on new technologies and “Make in India” is being promoted by Government - all of these point to a need to build strong IP capability in India, which is far below in terms of global IP index (India ranks 36th in global IP index 2019). To build an IP culture, awareness is the first step. This book will help • Students to learn practical aspects of IP/Patent and choose IP as career. • Academicians to enhance IP capability in their institutes • Help technology start-ups to tap their potential IP with ease • Help researchers and research managers to align their invention with IP and thus increase their companies patent portfolio. • We have covered geography based IPR basics and their comparison thus enabling student/researchers to learn about IPR fundamentals in a global perspective. • For academicians, we have detailed out the current IPR state in India and what are the measure needed to enhance academic/university’s IPR capability. • A world proven methodology TRIZ has been detailed out explaining how to drive research using TRIZ methodology and get its advantage in building strong patent portfolio with example, case study and hypothesis. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: SanDisk Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Ecological Footprint of the Modern Economy and the Ways to Reduce It Bruno S. Sergi, |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Quanta Computer Inc Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Sustainability Objectives in Competition and Intellectual Property Law Pranvera Këllezi, Pierre Kobel, Bruce Kilpatrick, 2024-01-13 This open access volume of LIDC contributions focuses on how competition and intellectual property laws incorporate sustainability objectives. Businesses are increasingly embracing sustainability objectives, driven by the international community. Although competition and intellectual property law are certainly not the only tools for addressing sustainability issues, they can play a role in moving toward a more sustainable society. Sustainability has gained prominence in competition law in all jurisdictions covered in this volume. The contributions focus on classic questions such as whether sustainability agreements restrict competition and, if so, to what extent businesses can be exempted on efficiency grounds. The papers also raise a number of questions, in particular concerning the treatment of non-market efficiencies. The soft law and case law produced by competition authorities are examined, and the leadership role of some competition authorities in the field – from advocacy to policy papers and sustainability guidelines – is highlighted. The authors call for more individual guidance to provide enhanced transparency and clarity to industry, advisors and society at large on sustainability issues, with guidelines or sustainability-related block exemptions providing even greater legal certainty. With regard to intellectual property, the contributions examine various important issues, such as the need for intellectual property rights to remain technology-neutral, ways to promote the use of sustainable technologies and incentives for licensing, and ways to promote the dissemination of sustainable technologies, including compulsory licensing, cross-licensing, open source or FRAND licensing, and replacing the destruction of counterfeit goods with recycling. The papers also discuss greenwashing and how it can be addressed through revisions to trademarks and related rights. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Pioneer Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: EMC Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
| competitive patent landscape analysis: Omron Corporation Patent Landscape Analysis – January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 Reiner E. Jargosch, Joseph Jurich, 2014-06-30 The following analysis illustrates the underlying trends and relationships of U.S. issued patents of the subject company. The analysis employs two frequently used patent classification methods: US Patent Classification (UPC) and International Patent Classification (IPC). Aside from assisting patent examiners in determining the field of search for newly submitted patent applications, the two classification methods play a pivotal role in the characterization and analysis of technologies contained in collections of patent data. The analysis also includes the company’s most prolific inventors, top cited patents as well as foreign filings by technology area. |
COMPETITIVE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The meaning of COMPETITIVE is relating to, characterized by, or based on competition. How to use competitive in a sentence.
COMPETITIVE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
COMPETITIVE definition: 1. involving competition: 2. wanting very much to win or be more successful than other people: 3…. Learn more.
Competitive - definition of competitive by The Free Dictionary
1. involving or determined by rivalry: competitive sports. 2. (Commerce) sufficiently low in price or high in quality to be successful against commercial rivals. 3. relating to or characterized by an …
COMPETITIVE Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
What does competitive mean? Competitive is most commonly used to describe a person who has a strong desire to compete and win. Competitive is commonly associated with sports, but it is used …
COMPETITIVE - Definition & Translations | Collins English Dictionary
Competitive is used to describe situations or activities in which people or companies compete with each other. 2. A competitive person is eager to be more successful than other people.
competitive adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and …
Definition of competitive adjective in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
Competitive Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary
COMPETITIVE meaning: 1 : of or relating to a situation in which people or groups are trying to win a contest or be more successful than others relating to or involving competition; 2 : having a …
What does competitive mean? - Definitions.net
Competitive refers to the scenario or tendency of individuals, organizations or nations attempting to achieve superiority, dominance, or success over others in a particular field, activity, or aspect.
Competitive - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
If you're competitive, you want to be the best. No one likes to lose, but if you are a competitive person, it will be especially disappointing to see someone else win. People who are competitive …
COMPETITIVE Synonyms: 65 Similar and Opposite Words - Merriam-Webster
Synonyms for COMPETITIVE: competing, diligent, hungry, aggressive, motivated, dynamic, driving, determined; Antonyms of COMPETITIVE: disinterested, indifferent, uninterested, casual, …
COMPETITIVE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The meaning of COMPETITIVE is relating to, characterized by, or based on competition. How to use competitive in a sentence.
COMPETITIVE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
COMPETITIVE definition: 1. involving competition: 2. wanting very much to win or be more successful than other people: 3…. Learn more.
Competitive - definition of competitive by The Free Dictionary
1. involving or determined by rivalry: competitive sports. 2. (Commerce) sufficiently low in price or high in quality to be successful against commercial rivals. 3. relating to or characterized by an …
COMPETITIVE Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
What does competitive mean? Competitive is most commonly used to describe a person who has a strong desire to compete and win. Competitive is commonly associated with sports, but it is …
COMPETITIVE - Definition & Translations | Collins English Dictionary
Competitive is used to describe situations or activities in which people or companies compete with each other. 2. A competitive person is eager to be more successful than other people.
competitive adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and …
Definition of competitive adjective in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
Competitive Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary
COMPETITIVE meaning: 1 : of or relating to a situation in which people or groups are trying to win a contest or be more successful than others relating to or involving competition; 2 : having a …
What does competitive mean? - Definitions.net
Competitive refers to the scenario or tendency of individuals, organizations or nations attempting to achieve superiority, dominance, or success over others in a particular field, activity, or aspect.
Competitive - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
If you're competitive, you want to be the best. No one likes to lose, but if you are a competitive person, it will be especially disappointing to see someone else win. People who are …
COMPETITIVE Synonyms: 65 Similar and Opposite Words - Merriam-Webster
Synonyms for COMPETITIVE: competing, diligent, hungry, aggressive, motivated, dynamic, driving, determined; Antonyms of COMPETITIVE: disinterested, indifferent, uninterested, …
