The United States, Japan, China, Germany, and Korea in that order, received the largest number of nanotech patents between 1994 and 2005, according to a data mining study we have just completed (1). We consolidated results of 44 discrete searches in Derwent Innovations Index using terms such as nano* (where * included specific terms such as nanoparticle, nanorod, nanofiber, etc.) as well as other nano-oriented terms (e.g., fullerenes, quantum dots, spintronic). Duplicates were removed, data cleaned and analyzed using VantagePoint. We analyzed the resulting 18,952 unique patents for this 12-year period (data are not complete for 2004/05).

Based on prior years, the growth in patenting has been exponential. Patent assignees, by continent, somewhat surprisingly, show Asia leading (45 percent), followed by North America (35 percent) and Europe (14 percent). For this analysis, we selected one leading country from each:

* United States, which leads all countries with 6,623 of these patent assignments.

* Japan with 4,541 (the leading Asian patenter).

* Germany with 1,548 (the leading European Union country).

Two other countries stand out as well-China with over 2,000 and Korea with some 1,500 patents in the set. No other country shows as many as 500.

Many of the patents are assigned to individuals. Of the institutional assignees, 10 of the top 11 are Asian (led by Samsung and Sony). The lone American organization appearing in this set is the University of California (in 3rd place). We checked what portion of the leading institutions' patenting over this period consisted of these nanopatents. Eight organizations showed greater than 2 percent as nano:

* Dokuritsu Gyosei Hojin Busshitsu Zairyo (151 patents, constituting 16.3 percent of 928).

* NEC (132, 5.2 percent).

* Qinghua University (115, 4.0 percent).

* Dokuritsu Gyosei Hojin Sangyo Gijutsu So (166, 3.7 percent).

* University of California (197, 3.4 percent).

* Kagaku Gijutsu Shinko Jigyodan (147, 3.1 percent)

* Eastman Kodak (113, 2.7 percent).

* Industrial Technology Research Institute (109, 2.2 percent).

We sought to categorize the nanopatents along the value chain into three groupings:

* Nano raw materials (e.g., non-processed nanometric structures, such as titanium dioxide nanoparticles).

* Nano intermediates (e.g., showing specific nano-dimensional characteristics, such as special nanocomposites).

* Nano products (e.g., final products incorporating nanotechnology elements, such as paint with greater scratch resistance).

Using International Patent Classifications (IPC) subclasses, ten of these included at least 5 percent of the nanopatents (multiple classifications are allowed). We also applied text mining to the "patent use" abstract field. We then combined information on the leading IPC subclasses with the text "use" terms. For instance, the leading subclass (H01L-2,870 patents) is semiconductor devices, showing main uses relating to electron devices, semiconductor devices and solar cells. We categorized the first two uses as nano intermediates and the third, solar cells, as nano products. Applying such a process, overall nanopatenting concentrates on the second link of the value chain-nano intermediates, but with patenting activity pertaining to raw materials and products as well.

Distinct Patenting Strategies

Using VantagePoint, we generated maps showing shared interests of the leading patent assignees in the U.S., Japan and Germany, based on shared IPC subclasses. We then categorized the leading assignees' emphases based on patent "uses" into the three value chain groupings.

The dynamic of innovation in this emerging area demonstrates distinctly different patenting strategies. The country that leads in the number of nanopatents, the U.S., demonstrates diffuse interests. Its inventiveness is spread thinly among many assignees and spread across the three parts of the nanotechnology value chain. In contrast, Japan stands out as the country with most of the leading patenting institutions. However, the attendant value of their nano invention focuses largely on the beginning and middle of the chain-nano raw materials and nano intermediates. Germany, although patenting much less than the U.S. or Japan, shows the strongest focus, concentrating on nano products. These likely offer the greatest potential for added value.

Implications for Management

These results raise interesting considerations for companies pursuing nanotechnology. To what degree is one's nano R&D coherently focused? What are its value chain targets-raw materials, intermediates or products? Clearly, consideration of nano development must also relate to other company priorities. It may be worthwhile to combine nano R&D, other R&D, and products together in integrated roadmapping exercises to help focus company efforts to generate the greatest expected value.

National Policy Challenges

These results also pose counterpart national policy challenges. Given the rapidly declining advantage of the U.S. in global R&D (albeit certainly still the leader), is it time to consider national foresight efforts? Alone among the highly developed nations, the U.S. has ignored such priority-setting, enjoying the resources to pursue bottom-up scientific and engineering agendas. That may be less prudent when striving to compete against others with more technically able scientists and engineers (e.g., China) and cleverly formulated value chain agendas (e.g., Korea). It also sharpens the perspective on the challenges facing emerging high tech nations, such as Brazil. Coordinated allocation of resources by government and industry, along with focused university training and research, would seem to offer the best prospects.