In the “Competitor A’s Patent Portfolio“ figure, the art held by this competitor is moderately strong in all four categories. The portfolio is of a moderate size. Applications and patents are filed worldwide. The number of references and cited by counts contained in these patents and applications is around the average for benchmarked companies. The portfolio covers a broad range of patent classifications and technical fields. The number of inventors and assignees is high. From this information it may be concluded that the patents have a pattern associated with art that is typically held to be valid, the art is solid, but not typically key in the industry, and that the portfolio is a good one for out-licensing because of its broad technical coverage.
The “Competitor B’s Patent Portfolio“ figure shows they have a weak position. The portfolio is about the same as the client but distributed across the geographic areas. The patents are likely to be narrow and out of the mainstream work of the field. The age of the portfolio is high. This company has a high number of multiple assignees on its patents. In conclusion, this company’s art is likely incremental in nature, pursuing a cost-centered fast-follower strategy, and is not investing in new R&D.
The “Competitor C’s Patent Portfolio“ figure shows a company that is just getting started in the field. This company has few patents. The patents they do have are highly referenced. The portfolio is young. The work is done by sole inventors and not with others or other companies. In summary, this is likely a start-up company intent on competing with its intellectual property.