Advanced Energy Storage Technologies: Patent Trends and Company Positioning
NEW YORK, Aug. 1, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue:
Advanced Energy Storage Technologies: Patent Trends and Company Positioning
http://www.reportlinker.com/p0570424/Advanced-Energy-Storage-Technologies-Patent-Trends-and-Company-Positioning.html#utm_source=prnewswire&utm_medium=pr&utm_campaign=Navigation_Systems
Overview
Dr Victor Zhitomirsky of PatAnalyse and Dr Peter Harrop of IDTechEx have collaborated to produce the world's first computer analysis of the previously impenetrable patent thicket surrounding Advanced Energy Storage. A particular focus is electric vehicle technology such as traction batteries in general, lithium-ion traction batteries, supercapacitors/ ultracapacitors, battery management systems and charging. However, there is thorough coverage of lithium batteries and supercapacitors in general for those more widely interested in these topics. The results are startling. Some of the most respected giants of the industry are dismantling their R&D in order to pump money into production facilities just when the technology is rapidly changing. The company with a strong, broad patent portfolio, that is the fastest increasing one, is rarely mentioned in the press as a leader in this subject. Our measurements reveal that one giant landing the biggest orders rarely has its huge portfolio of patents cited, a warning on IP quality.
Supercapacitors (ultracapacitors) have a surge in demand and interest from EV manufacturers. So why is supercapacitor patenting stagnant and why is Europe largely ignoring the subject? We reveal many other openings for newcomers and opportunities for giants to realign their research. We reveal the most prolific inventors and the fine details of patent trends in many aspects of anode and cathode chemistry for example. Our sophisticated computer analysis provides the first clarity on the very different technological emphasis of the research being carried out by a host of companies and research organisations worldwide. We give our expert opinion on this.
Report scope
The patent search strategy has been carefully developed via several rounds of iteration. As a rule of thumb, it takes at least five years from invention to the first product on the market. In order to focus on the `hidden' R&D efforts which have not yet materialised as new products on the market, the initial study has been restricted to patents with a priority date from 2005. However because of a significant increase in the rate of patenting in this area, this initial patent portfolio contains over half of all patents with a priority from 1990 in this area.
About 2,800 original Assignee names from the original bibliographic records were combined into 200 Top Assignees. The proprietary de-duplication algorithm aggregated about 12,000 simple patent families from about 40,000 national patents. Only 3% of the patent families have been left unassigned and it was further found that about 12% of the patent portfolio is assigned to small players with fewer than one invention per year. The remaining 85% of the patent portfolio is assigned to about 250 companies with about 66% of the patent portfolio assigned to the top 50 companies in terms of patenting. Almost a hundred Patent Maps have been provided in the report to facilitate the detailed understanding of various aspects of the patent landscape.
Report in figures
- Patents screened 100,000
- Patents classified 40,000
- Patent codes searched 2,600
- Inventors searched 1,200
- Keyword used 1,250
- Assignee searched 110
PatAnalyse offers a really intelligent way to cope with the huge volume of patent information available worldwide. Dr. Bakuri Lanchava, European Patent Attorney
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1.1. Who needs this report
1.2. Methodology
1.3. Report layout
1.4. Indicative results
1.5. Overview of patents
1.5.1. Advanced Energy Storage
1.5.2. Lithium-ion batteries
1.5.3. Further details of Anode chemistry
1.5.4. Further details of Cathode chemistry
1.5.5. LITHIUM TRACTION BATTERIES for EVs in particular
1.5.6. TRACTION BATTERIES IN GENERAL
1.5.7. Supercapacitors
1.5.8. Charging and battery management systems
1.6. Commercial situation today
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Patent mapping and landscaping
2.2. Preventing wilful infringement exposure
2.3. The focus of current study
2.4. Patent search strategy
2.5. Report layout
3. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF COMBINED PORTFOLIO
3.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Country of invention
3.2. The lag between Publication year and Priority year
3.3. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
3.4. Time line for different countries
3.5. Top 50 Assignees and their strategy for applying to National Patent offices
3.6. Country of Invention vs National Patent Office Country
3.7. Citation links between Top Assignees
3.8. Most prolific Inventors as a measure of aggressive patent strategies
4. GENERIC LITHIUM BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
4.3. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
4.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
4.5. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
4.6. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
4.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
4.8. Further details of Anode chemistry
4.9. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
4.10. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
4.11. Technical categories vs Priority Years
4.12. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
4.13. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
4.14. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
4.15. Further details of Cathode chemistry
4.16. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
4.17. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
4.18. Technical categories vs Priority Years
4.19. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
4.20. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
4.21. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
5. LITHIUM TRACTION BATTERIES
5.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
5.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
5.3. Comparison of Profiles for top companies in Lithium Traction batteries
5.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
5.5. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
5.6. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
5.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
6. TRACTION BATTERIES IN GENERAL
6.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
6.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
6.3. Comparison of Profiles for top companies in Traction batteries
6.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
6.5. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
6.6. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
6.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
7. GENERIC SUPERCAPACITOR TECHNOLOGIES
7.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
7.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
7.3. Technical categories vs Priority Years
7.4. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
7.5. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
7.6. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
8. ON-BOARD ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND EXTERNAL CHARGING EQUIPMENT
8.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
8.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years
8.3. Comparison of Profiles for top companies in Battery Management
8.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
8.5. Countries of origin vs. Priority Years
8.6. Technical categories vs. Countries of origin
8.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
9. TRADING AND INVESTMENT BY THE 71 LEADING LI-ION TRACTION BATTERY MANUFACTURERS AND IDTECHEX MARKET FORECASTS
9.1. What is happening today
9.2. Massive investments
9.3. Market 2011-2021
9.4. Replacement business
APPENDIX 1: ABOUT PATANALYSE
APPENDIX 2: ABOUT IDTECHEX
APPENDIX 2: IDTECHEX PUBLICATIONS AND CONSULTANCY
APPENDIX 3: WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
TABLES
9.1. 71 vertically integrated lithium traction battery cell manufacturers, their chemistry, cell geometry and customer relationships (not necessarily orders)
9.2. Traction battery manufacturers compared, showing their cumulative investment in Li-ion manufacturing in general and examples of actual investments and grants related specifically to Li-ion traction batteries
9.3. Applicants to accelerate the manufacturing and deployment of the next generation of US batteries and electric vehicles
9.4. Numbers of vehicle traction batteries, in thousands, sold globally in new vehicles, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector.
9.5. Ex factory unit price of traction battery packs, in thousands of US dollars, sold globally, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector
9.6. Global market value of traction battery packs, in millions of US dollars, sold globally, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector, rounded
9.7. Replacement market for traction battery packs in value $ million 2011 to 2021
9.8. Traction battery technologies in 2011, number percentage lead acid, NiMH and lithium
9.9. Traction battery technologies in 2021 number percentage lead acid, NiMH and lithium
FIGURES
1.1. Focus of current study
1.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
1.3. Approximate percentage of manufacturers offering traction batteries with less cobalt vs those offering ones with no cobalt vs those offering both. We also show the number of suppliers that offer lithium iron phosphate versions.
2.1. Focus of current study
3.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Country of invention
3.2. The lag between Publication year and Priority year
3.3. Timeline for top 50 Assignees - absolute and normalised
3.4. Timeline for different countries
3.5. Top 50 Assignees and their strategy for applying to National Patent offices- absolute and normalised
3.6. Country of Invention vs National Patent Office Country
3.7. Citation links between Top Assignees
3.8. Most prolific Inventors as a measure of aggressive patent strategies
4.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
4.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
4.3. Technical categories vs Priority Years
4.4. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
4.5. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
4.6. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
4.7. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
4.8. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
4.9. Technical categories vs Priority Years
4.10. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
4.11. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
4.12. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
4.13. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
4.14. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
4.15. Technical categories vs Priority Years
4.16. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
4.17. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
4.18. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
5.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
5.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
5.3. Comparison of Profiles for top companies in Lithium Traction batteries
5.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
5.5. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
5.6. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
5.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
6.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
6.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
6.3. Comparison of Profiles for top companies in Traction batteries
6.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
6.5. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
6.6. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
6.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
7.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
7.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
7.3. Technical categories vs Priority Years
7.4. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
7.5. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
7.6. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
8.1. Top 50 Assignees vs Technical categories
8.2. Top 50 Assignees vs Priority Years- absolute and normalised
8.3. Comparison of Profiles for top companies in Battery Management
8.4. Technical categories vs Priority Years
8.5. Countries of origin vs Priority Years
8.6. Technical categories vs Countries of origin
8.7. Technical categories vs National Patent Office Country
9.1. Approximate percentage of manufacturers offering traction batteries with less cobalt vs those offering ones with no cobalt vs those offering both. We also show the number of suppliers that offer lithium iron phosphate versions.
9.2. Numbers of traction battery packs for two wheelers, cars and mobility for the disabled compared in thousands, sold globally in new vehicles, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector
9.3. Numbers of traction battery packs consisting of heavy industrial, light industrial/commercial, golf car and caddy, military, marine and other compared in thousands, sold globally, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector
9.4. Ex factory unit price of traction battery packs, in thousands of US dollars, sold globally, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector
9.5. Global market value of traction battery packs, in millions of US dollars, sold globally, 2011 to 2021, by applicational sector, rounded
9.6. Here comes lithium
To order this report:
Navigation Systems Industry: Advanced Energy Storage Technologies: Patent Trends and Company Positioning
Navigation Systems Business News
Check our Company Profile, SWOT and Revenue Analysis!
CONTACT
Nicolas Bombourg
Reportlinker
Email: [email protected]
US: (805)652-2626
Intl: +1 805-652-2626
SOURCE Reportlinker
Share this article