list from Clarivate.

Innovators to watch goes beyond measuring accomplishments. It identifies companies and institutions that demonstrate both exceptional potential and consistent, above-the-bar innovation excellence. These pioneers are poised to be recognized on the 2024 Top 100 Global Innovators list.

Assessing potential with three criteria

Identifying those companies and institutions on the cusp of entry involves a straightforward but powerful analysis that supplements the Top 100 Global Innovators methodology. To determine which organizations are making their way to the top, we ask three questions:

• Are they within reaching distance of the Top 100 rankings? i.e., rank inside the Top 250 in 2023.
• Are they moving quickly through the rankings? e., the organization’s average rise in ranking since 2017 is greater than its current gap to position 100.
• Are they new in the sense of not being a previous recipient of the Top 100?

The answer has to be ‘yes’ to all of the above for an organization to make the watch list.

Observations at the forefront of innovation

The world is taking shape under the influence of today’s ingenuity. Those at the forefront of the innovation ecosystem are set to be the architects of the future.

Half of those who made the list this year were new entrants, not previously included in Innovators to watch in 2022. This reflects the dynamic landscape that these innovators are operating within.

We also see diversification. A number of automotive companies continue to expand as does their global representation. Mazda, from Japan, maintains its position from the previous year and four new entrants are present in the automotive sector (Aptiv, Faurecia, Toyo Tires and Vitesco). A similar trend is seen in the semiconductor industry, which added two U.S. companies, Cirrus Logic and ON Semiconductor, to the Innovators to watch list.

Many trends observed this year reflect those found in the Top 100 Global Innovators list and continue themes from last year’s Innovators to watch. Japan remains the largest country in terms of representation with even more Japanese organizations on this year’s list, spanning multiple industries, including energy and electrical, consumer goods and food and chemicals and materials.

Clarivate is pleased to recognize the Innovators to watch 2023 – the organizations showing the fastest rise to entering the Top 100 Global Innovators list.

See who made the list.

The post Innovators to watch 2023 [REPORT] appeared first on Clarivate.

As patent filings grow at unprecedented rates, companies are beginning to realize the strategic importance of patent renewals, unlocking their ‘data power’. A new report from Clarivate, Global patent renewals trends, leans on enriched patent and IP case data paired with human expertise and technology to analyze patent filing activity. Through the report, law firms and in-house legal teams can gain a better understanding of maintenance behaviors to help unleash annuities’ strategic value and optimize patent portfolios.

Annuities – more than meets the eye

Patents are important IP assets with deep commercial value. Beyond the initial filing and obtaining of a patent, the decision to renew or abandon a patent plays a significant strategic role, especially where patents are critical to business operations.

However, patent renewals are often seen as a primarily administrative or operational aspect of patent enforcement. When organizations view renewals as a mere formality in patent lifecycles, they inadvertently underplay the strategic value of patents.

In contrast, when organizations recognize annuities ‘data power’ they can capitalize on the possibilities of analyzing data derived from worldwide patent renewals and draw intelligence to inform their patent portfolio management.

In our latest special report, Global patent renewals trends, we explore how patent renewals can become strategic devices and act as decision-making points for organizations.

Key annuities trends

After two decades of global patent renewals, we have the technological tools to curate and analyze renewals data and take a global view of patent renewal trends. Through analyzing the life of 70 million patents across five key jurisdictions, our report aims to answer a simple question of what survives.

We focus on those patents remaining in portfolios, removing those that have explicitly lapsed due to the non-payment of fees as indicated in legal status information. By combining grant and abandonment rates, we can better understand the chances that a similar patent or application in each field would survive. In doing so, we can see potential renewal dynamics, helping patent holders make contextualized decisions about their exposure to opportunity risk.

Key findings from our report include:

• Sectors vary considerably in their abandonment rates: If we consider that even one percentile point can represent thousands of patents and millions of dollars, the sectors’ differences are vast — with the difference between the industry with the highest and lowest abandonment rate at 12%.
• Life science verticals have longer patent lifecycles: Life science verticals, including medical, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, have the highest survival rate, with 35% of patents still in force after 20 years.
• Brand-centric sectors move ‘faster’: Brand-centric fields have some of the lowest patent renewal rates, with less than 25% of patents in the luxury, fashion and sports sectors still in force by year 20.
• Mainland Chinese filings continue to dominate the global landscape: Looking at the worldwide footprint of filings, Mainland China is overwhelmingly the jurisdiction of choice, with academic and government institutions being the biggest filers.

Transformative patent intelligence enables patent portfolio optimization

Clarivate has one of the most comprehensive IP solution portfolios on the market. By pairing enriched data with analytics and expertly curated insights, we can offer practitioners a more holistic understanding of the patent renewals landscape, giving them clarity to navigate the complex, to anticipate risk and leverage opportunities, optimizing their patent portfolios.

Read the new report: Global patent renewal trends: Unpicking what survives to understand maintenance behaviors better and unleash annuities’ strategic value.

The post Unlocking the promise of patent renewals appeared first on Clarivate.

Have we done enough? It’s a simple question but it prompts us to engage in the difficult task of constructive introspection. It is also perhaps the ultimate question for developed and civilized institutions when it comes to the topic of diversity and inclusion (D&I). These initiatives are undoubtably important to the sustainability agenda, but they can be vague and even unhelpful unless properly contextualised. This article considers the notion of D&I in intellectual property and the wider innovation ecosystem, sketching some possible recommendations for empowering innovators.

When it comes to the business of innovating, the patent has a special power because of the monopoly it confers on the owner. Patents are part of a wider system of knowledge governance, which have become useful proxies for innovation. It is assumed that successful inventing results in obtaining a patent.

Although anyone can apply for a patent, not everyone is entitled to grant; that usually belongs to the inventor, unless someone, like an employer, is given privilege. However, an inventor’s position is not guaranteed: the only automatic right they can enjoy is being named on the patent, particularly for those ‘paid to invent’^[1].

In theory, such a system, which gives protection to ideas, should be accessible to all those that need to use it, regardless of gender, race and ethnicity.

But data reveals a different story.

It can tell us who is (and who is not) being recognized and ultimately rewarded for their contribution to the branches of human knowledge. Perhaps, more importantly, it encourages us to reflect on who never got a seat at the table.

Keep reading to learn more about representation in innovation and inventorship:

• The importance and legal significance of inventorship
• Why lack of representation is a systemic problem
• What’s in a name? Measuring diversity and inclusion in inventorship
• Diversity as a driver of sustainable innovation
• The ‘4 Rs’: Responsibility, rewards, recognition and remuneration
• Recommendations for empowering innovators
• Closing the gap: final remarks

Is patent law inclusive?

Patent law purports to be neutral. The law claims to look impartially at issues like novelty, inventiveness through the eyes of the person skilled in the art. But just as these have been difficult lines to draw, inventorship also does not exist in a vacuum.

History tells us of both cautionary tales and successes of minority inventors. Ada Lovelace, the mother of the computer. Mary Kenner, the Black woman who revolutionized the menstrual pad, filing five patents. And Alan Turing the pioneer of modern computer science, convicted and only now pardoned for being a gay man. These individuals, and the many others who are forgotten, overcame great adversity to deliver technologies that have vastly improved our daily lives.

Patent rights are exclusionary by design, held up by the principles of ownership and territoriality. So long as IP rights exist there will always be a separation between the IP-haves and have nots. That is how the system functions, but it cannot excuse everything.

In the early patent system, many occupations from which IP might be expected to arise were closed-off to sections of society. Cultural (mis)appropriation and exploitation have featured heavily. In the modern patent system, greater protections are being given to traditional creativity and cultural expressions e.g., handcrafts, folklore. This allows indigenous communities — those that are otherwise often excluded from the patent system — opportunities for protection^[2].

However, the bigger picture is still problematic. Patent rights are exclusionary by design, held up by the principles of ownership and territoriality. So long as IP rights exist there will always be a separation between the IP-haves and have nots. That is how the system functions, but it cannot excuse everything.

Why lack of representation is a systemic problem

We know from research that today’s inventors are mostly male. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported that only 16.5% of inventors named on international patent applications were women^[3]. Estimates suggest that gender parity will not be reached until at least 2058 at the current pace. Similarly, research published by the UK IPO in 2015 suggested that women represented less than 8% of British patent applications^[4]. The proportion of all-female teams was an even rarer occurrence making up 0.33% of inventions in 2015^[5]. The USPTO has reported on their progress in 2020, with the number of patents with at least one female inventor increasing to 21.9%^[6].

Teamworking: Female inventors on GB patent applications by inventor type 1980-2015

Source: UK IPO (2015), ‘Gender Profiles in UK Patenting: an analysis of female inventorship’

To speak solely in terms of a ‘gap’, is an oversight; we should also be thinking about the space, between academia and industry, where minorities might be lost. In the life sciences sector, women receive more than half of new PhDs but only make it on to 15% of patents.

It is more than just a numbers game too. In STEM occupations where men and women are equally distributed, research shows that women are less likely to engage with the patent system. Statistically, women are also likely to be named on patents alongside men rather than individually. Globally, women make-up about 35% of those in STEM education^[7]. To speak solely in terms of a ‘gap’, is an oversight; we should also be thinking about the space where minorities might be lost, including between academia and industry. In the life sciences sector, women receive more than half of new PhDs but only make it onto 15% of patents^[8].

These disparities extend to the prosecution and examination process. Research by Yale identified that women’s inventions had a significantly higher chance of being rejected. Their patents were 2.5% less likely to be appealed and of those that were granted, they included more words which reduced the scope of the claimed invention and thereby the monopoly^[9]. Examiners were similarly found to disregard prior inventions because of the gender of their originator^[10]. Only 28% of patent attorneys registered with the U.K. Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) identify as female^[11]. Yet, over half of respondents surveyed thought that the profession was inclusive^[12]. The situation is similar with examiners as only 21% of UKIPO examiners are female, and 24% of EPO examiner posts are filled by women^[13].

Inventorship is therefore socially constructed. It is replicating, and inadvertently embedding, power-structures and biases we see in the real-world.

What’s in a name? Measuring diversity and inclusion in inventorship

Patents contain bibliometric information such as the inventor’s name, country of origin and details of assignment. Disclosure of demographic information is usually not requested by patent offices or academic journals. Most approaches are therefore onomatological. They use the etymology, history, and statistical usage of names by indexing census data for example, to infer probable characteristics like gender, race and ethnicity.

This approach is problematic namely because of its binary nature (specifically when it comes to gender), reliance on self-reporting and statistical limitations.

Existing research is also patchy. Studies have overwhelmingly focused on gender. Race and ethnicity are scarcely talked about in the literature and there is next to no reporting on characteristics like sexual orientation or disability. This is compounded by insufficient country-level data and lack of frequent reporting. For this reason, data largely reflects a Western perspective.

Numerical approaches do not capture actual experiences and anecdotal accounts of prejudice and discrimination in patent-intensive fields (although there is no direct evidence of this). They therefore gloss-over factors like scale, complexity and intersectionality.

The methodology isn’t perfect, but it is at least measurable. Bibliometric approaches allow us to understand yesterday’s hierarchy and give us the springboard for tomorrow’s policies.

Diversity is a driver of sustainable innovation

Inventors are not the only ones harmed by underrepresentation. Non-inclusive processes have the potential to further embed the biases of their creators. The impact is likely to be substantial in a world where algorithmic approaches and automation have become the norm. We need to contemplate the wider social, economic, moral and even environmental consequences for society. The benefits of a diverse workforce are well-documented in research. The idea that ‘diverse teams deliver’ has become a maxim but it also reflects the importance of bringing unique perspectives, experiences, and cultures to the table. This also means acknowledging that equality in innovation is not just about equal opportunity for inventors but democratizing technology.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly recognize D&I in:

• SDG 5: Gender equality
• SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth
• SDG 9: Inclusive and sustainable innovation
• SDG 10: Reduced inequalities

Specifically, SDG 9 incorporates inclusive and sustainable development infrastructure, together with innovation^[14].

Therefore, sustainability cannot be achieved without inclusivity. If we accept that patents are critical to the success of the SDGs, then D&I in innovation ought to properly be framed as a sustainability challenge.

From an economic standpoint, studies have found that eliminating the shortfall of female holders of science and engineering degrees would increase GDP per capita by 2.7%^[15]. Including more women and Black Americans in the initial stage of the process of innovation would increase GDP somewhere between 0.64% and 3.3% per capita.

The ‘4 Rs’: Responsibility, rewards, recognition and remuneration

While individual attitudes play a significant role in creating an inclusive innovation culture, institutions should be responsible for delivering ‘the 4 Rs’ — taking meaningful responsibility, providing adequate rewards, recognizing contributions and, where possible, remuneration.

Without adequate representation, it can be harder to solve real-world challenges that disproportionately affect minority groups. From this standpoint, facilitating meaningful access to the patent system could enable access to technology. This leads to a series of moral questions. Have the wrong people been unjustly recognized in the past? Are we recognising the right ones? Or are we simply overlooking technical contributions?

For an individual that identifies as a minority in an inventor team, for example, there may be many factors which influence the likelihood of patent recognition e.g., research and development processes, policy, gender and cultural differences. Getting or not getting a granted patent may amplify, affirm or entrench certain biases.
Incentivizing creative productivity goes to the heart of the patent system and this is part of the allure of working in STEM industries. So even if patents are not awarded equally, are they equally attractive to everyone?

Of course, the patent system was not necessarily designed with inclusivity in mind. However, it raises a fundamental question—can a system fixated with property ever be an equitable one? Or is it, as data suggests, inherently biased towards specific genders, races or ethnicities?

There are no easy answers nor is it productive to suggest that the system was broke to begin with.

In future, we might challenge some of the assumptions in law and policy, allowing regulation to play a more active role in fostering inclusivity. Until then, individuals and organizations should take collective responsibility to empower innovators.

Recommendations

Change needs to be implemented at the global, organizational and individual level. While there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, this section provides suggestions for empowering innovators:

1. Develop programs to increase diversity in STEM and patent-intensive fields. Incorporate training, inclusive policies and processes. Increase IP proficiency in higher education, alongside mentorship, networks and industry partnerships. Further understand the experiences of minorities interacting with the patent system.
2. Conduct a ‘diversity audit’ where possible. Treat D&I as a sustainability challenge and where possible reporting of salary data could take account of patent ownership information, supplemented by survey feedback. Take meaningful action through ‘Diversity Pledges’, manifestos and quotas.
3. Further research needs to be considered. For example, use bibliometric approaches to compare industries and D&I conversion from academia. Additionally, legal scholarship, socio-ethical (e.g. looking at dynamics in mixed inventor teams) and cross-cultural research may be beneficial.
4. Continue efforts to analyse and collect demographic data within patent offices. Patent offices can assess the feasibility of voluntary disclosure of inventor profiles^[16]. Closely monitor unconscious bias in the patent examination process. This could be supported by training and even legislative instruments.
5. Partnerships, knowledge sharing and matrixed collaboration. Patent offices and companies could issue guidance to other country offices/participants, sharing knowledge, know-how and best practices. This could include an open-source API, repositories for D&I resources and studies comparing the effectiveness of initiatives in different jurisdictions.

Closing the gap: final remarks

Underrepresentation is not just a thing of the past. It exists all around us. The patent system is no exception; in fact, it is a poignant reminder. This blog has put forward evidence that exclusivity is not just feature of patent ownership, it is embedded throughout the entire IP lifecycle. It is true those ‘paid to invent’ will typically not become the owners of their inventions but this misses the point. Having opportunities to invent and, if successful, be named on a patent, is the moral right of an inventor. Lack of representation does not just hurt individuals, it can also have social, economic and ethical consequences particularly when it comes to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The above recommendations provide a starting point for stakeholders looking to address these challenges generally, while acknowledging the role of the patent system as a tool to address inequality.

Stay up to date

At Clarivate, sustainability is at the heart of everything we do, and this includes support of human rights, diversity and inclusion, and social justice. Read more about our commitment to driving sustainability worldwide and see highlights from our 2021 Clarivate Sustainability Report. You can also read more about the research and trends in each of the Sustainable Development Goals in our ongoing blog series.

References

^[1] E.g. UK PA 1977, s 13

^[2] WIPO (2007), ‘Intergovernmental committee on intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore’

^[3] WIPO (2020), ‘Gender Equality, Diversity and Intellectual Property’ <https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/#:~:text=2020%20statistics%20reveal%20that%20only,only%20be%20reached%20in%202058.>

^[4] UK IPO (2015), ‘Gender Profiles in UK Patenting: an analysis of female inventorship’ <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514320/Gender-profiles-in-UK-patenting-An-analysis-of-female-inventorship.pdf>

^[5] UK IPO (2015)

^[6] USPTO (2020), <https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-releases-updated-study-participation-women-us-innovation-economy-0>

^[7] Women in STEM Statistics (2022)

^[8] Jensen et al. (2018), ‘Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights’

^[9] Jensen et al. (2018), ‘Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights’

^[10] Shen and Zingg (2020), ‘Patent Examiners and the Citation Bias in Innovation’

^[11 Intellectual Property Owners Association (2022), ‘Diversity in the European Innovation Industry and IP Profession’

^[12] IP Inclusive (2021), ‘Benchmarking Survey- IP Inclusive’

^[13] Intellectual Property Owners Association (2022), ‘Diversity in the European Innovation Industry and IP Profession’

^[14] This is further reinforced in Paragraph 2 of the Lima Declaration

^[15] Hunt et al. (2012), ‘Why Don’t Women Patent’

^[16] It is noted that this is resource-intensive and needs to adhere to data protection standards.

The post Diversity and inclusion in innovation: understanding the ‘gap’ and five ways to empower innovators appeared first on Clarivate.

Luxury today

It is difficult to pinpoint what constitutes ‘luxury.’ It is often synonymous with affluence, exclusivity and quality. Some luxury products, such as haute couture in France, have their own set of legal protections and membership. Luxury brands have an undeniable attraction and brand owners continue to artfully craft their brand story and experience, drawing consumers to their brands. When it comes to brand premiumization, there is a lot we can learn from luxury brands. What, in turn, can luxury brands learn from other sectors’ wider use of IP intelligence?

Our new report, Luxury brands: Re-calibrating brand strategies for a changing world dives into the world of luxury brands. We apply Clarivate brand IP and analytics, first unveiled in our Top 100 Best Protected Global Brands 2021, to better understand luxury’s ‘brandscape.’

Blurring of lines between sectors

Before the pandemic, most luxury brands seemed hesitant about going digital. For instance, most luxury brand websites were ‘look books’ for their collections. They have since shown a great deal of creativity and flair in articulating their brand story and experience in the digital sphere, for an age where travel and footfall to their stores remain restricted. From virtual runway presentations to a ‘try-on’ experience using augmented reality (AR) technology, luxury brands are now braving the digital world.

They are also braving new sectors and surfacing in unexpected places. For example, computer, software, electrical and scientific products rank among the top five in terms of trademark filing activity for luxury conglomerate, Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), according to our trademark research data. The previously clear lines between sectors are blurring and the competitive set is widening.

Our report also shows that luxury brands are adopting AR and virtual reality (VR) technologies, to bring virtual fashion shows and virtual showrooms to consumers. Trademarks filed by LVMH that mention AR/VR in 2019 were more than double compared to the previous year, according to our trademark research data.

What does this mean in a world where companies such as Facebook have grands plans for the metaverse (a virtual, immersive world where our physical and digital lives are interwoven)? Luxury brands are making big strides today with their digital strategies. They should look ahead and consider how to navigate the metaverse world of tomorrow.

What Gen Z and millennials want

Another interesting development that our brand IP and analytics spotlight is how luxury brands are adapting to a new generation of consumers – Generation Z and millennials. Luxury and what is considered luxurious mirror societal changes. The days of conspicuous consumption are over and younger consumers are increasingly courted by brands. Indeed, millennial consumers are expected to drive 50% of luxury goods purchases by 2025.^[1]

Our research shows that these young consumers have a different view of luxury. They identify with brands in different ways. They are digitally savvier than the older, more traditional luxury consumer demographic. There is increasing collaboration between high fashion and streetwear. For example, streetwear brand Palace collaborated with Polo Ralph Lauren to launch the Palace X Polo Ralph Lauren collection,^[2] while LVMH’s majority stake acquisition of Off-White is widely seen as a move to capture a younger, more diverse demographic.

Brands are also developing video games to engage with this younger audience. Louis Vuitton developed a game, Louis, to target a Generation Z demographic.^[3] Burberry and Mythical Games launched its Blankos Block Party game, featuring Burberry-branded in-game NFT (non-fungible token) accessories.^[4] By delving deeper into the trademark filing activity of Louis Vuitton, we observed a spike in filing in the computer games and software category for 2018 and 2019, which preceded the launch of the game, Louis.

Protecting digital brand identities

New opportunities in today’s digital era invariably open the door to challenges and risks, such as those revealed in our recent 2021 Global Business Survey: The growing role of domains in IP.

Luxury brand owners are often present in arbitrations and litigation against domain names that are acquired for high-risk activities such as deliberating diverting traffic, according to our IP litigation data. In fact, a growing number of arbitrations involve luxury brands’ trademarks being used in their entirety in domain names, as profiteers seek to benefit from luxury brands’ reputation.

There are other areas of consideration too. Asia’s increasing prominence – in the region’s contribution to luxury sales and where highest number of actions and cases are filed by luxury brands occur – impact luxury brands’ domain management strategies. The picture here is an interesting mix of different approaches, according to our domain experts, demonstrating the different dynamics in the region compared to the rest of the world.

Accelerating digital transformation

Luxury brands are advancing their strategies for digital transformation as the sector grapples with changing times, changing brand attitudes and expectations, and the changing concept of luxury. They can gain valuable, new insights through the lens of integrated IP and strengthen their mastery of the art of brand building with the science of IP intelligence.

Read the new report: Luxury brands: Re-calibrating brand strategies for a changing world.

The post Are luxury brands swimming with or against the digital tide? appeared first on Clarivate.