World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Patent Information

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin

Enhancing patent landscape analysis with visualization output q

Yun Yun Yang *, Lucy Akers, Cynthia Barcelon Yang, Thomas Klose, Shelley Pavlek
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., P.O. Box 4000, Princeton, NJ 08543-4000, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: A patent landscape analysis can be defined as a state-of-the-art patent search that provides graphic rep-
Text mining resentations of information from search results. The focus is patents and patent applications from a given
Data visualization tools technology area or company patent portfolio. Unlike a traditional state-of-the-art search which provides
Patent information relevant information in text format, patent landscape analysis provides graphics and charts to demon-
Intellectual property analysis
strate patenting trends, leading patent assignees, collaboration partners, white space analysis, technology
Patent landscape analysis
Business intelligence
evaluations, etc.
In this article, we will illustrate two case studies from a more in-depth evaluation of some text mining
tools. Output from these tools may be integrated into patent analysis workflow to yield critical visual
views of the data and actionable business intelligence.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Selection of tools for Phase II study

In 2006, we initiated a study to investigate text mining and
visualization tools that were available on the market. In Phase I,
we examined three groups of tools and identified their strengths
and potential limitations from a patent analyst perspective. These
experiences have been summarized in an article in World Patent
Information [1]. Previous studies by others have also evaluated
one or more of these tools [2,3].
In mid 2007, we started our Phase II activities which included
ongoing monitoring of additional tools and collaborations such as
Megaputer, Innography, IFI PatentAtlas, Linguamatics, IBM Text
Analytics and IRF Matrixware. In this article we describe two case
studies focused on two types of patent landscape analysis using
only the following tools: VantagePoint, STN AnalyzePlus and STN
AnaVist.
Patent landscape analysis provides a break-down of patents and
applications from a specific technology area or company patent
portfolio. A patent landscape analysis report typically presents (i)
a visual representation of information derived from a state-of-
the-art search, (ii) graphics and charts that show patenting trends,
key patent assignees, collaboration partners, and technology eval-
uations and (iii) text information related to the graphs and charts
in an interactive database that comes with the analysis report.
q
This article has been developed from a presentation by the authors at the PIUG
2009 Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, May 2–7, 2009.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 609 818 4726.
E-mail address: yunyun.yang@bms.com (Y. Yang).
Criteria for selection of tools for further study were based on
ease of use and ability to work with the structured datasets that
can be routinely downloaded from online databases. Cost was also
a consideration. Some tools were excluded because their complex-
ity or capabilities exceeded our requirements.
Tool selection was based on the following observations:
 VantagePoint
o relatively inexpensive
o some unique features such as list generation, list clean up,
and cross-correlation maps
 STN AnalyzePlus
o easy to use tool that adds visualization to the familiar analyze
command
o inexpensive
o quick and simple to access and generate charts
 STN AnaVist
o free software
o more options compared to AnalyzePlus
o requires no filters for data import
o natural progression to this post processing tool since we are
very familiar with STN
These three tools were chosen since they were thought to work
well with structured data. All three tools enable quick processing
of large sets of information in a short period of time and provides

0172-2190/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2009.12.006
204 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220

Fig. 1. VantagePoint sample data fields.

Fig. 2. STN Analyze Plus default data fields.

the basic charts and matrices to answer the who, when, where, and
what type of questions.
3. Brief description of selected tools
3.1. VantagePoint
VantagePoint is empowered by natural language processing
(NLP). It allows rapid navigation through structured text, such as
bibliographic information obtained from online hosts, to discover
hidden patterns, trends, and relationships. Lists generated from
various fields (including NLP phrases from title, abstracts, or
claims) can be cleaned, using pre-defined thesauri, so that the con-
cepts can be grouped, clustered, or categorized. The output of Van-
tagePoint analysis is a series of matrices, factor maps, correlation
maps, and charts.
VantagePoint comes with a reader module that enables end-
users to interact with, but not edit, the output and data analyzed
by a professional information analyst.
Fig. 1 shows a screen shot of data fields imported from Derwent
World Patents Index (DWPI) for analysis by VantagePoint. The list
is database dependent.
3.2. STN Analyze Plus
STN Analyze Plus is available with STN Express, Version 7.01
and higher. The Analyze Plus Wizard lets you easily (i) analyze,
cross-tabulate, and chart data in Microsoft Excel from single- or
multi-file search results for one or two fields of data, and (ii) group
 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
Fig. 3. STN AnaVist data fields.
related author/inventor names and corporate source/patent as-
signee names.
One Analyze Plus feature that stands out is the utilization of
the STN standardized company name thesaurus, which provides
complete company historical detail including mergers and acqui-
sitions. It also lists joint ventures to enhance the search results.
This feature simplifies analysis of complete company information
(patent assignee) without manually clustering them. It greatly
reduces the time for post processing answer sets and improves
the accuracy and the comprehensiveness of the information
retrieved.
Fig. 2 is a screen shot of the default data fields available for anal-
ysis by STN Analyze Plus. Additional fields may be included via a
customizable option.
Chart 1. Major patent assignee vs. priority filing.
205
3.3. STN AnaVist
STN AnaVist is an interactive analysis and visualization soft-
ware that offers a variety of ways to analyze search results and
visualize patterns and trends in the research landscape. The capa-
bilities include integration of content from multiple databases such
as CAplus or DWPI and the company name standardization. The
visualization results can be shared with others within an
organization.
One feature of STN AnaVist is the research landscape, which
provides a visual representation of the key concepts across the en-
tire document set. Other content view options include top organi-
zations, collaboration partners and top researchers, as well as a list
of the selected references. The tool also features a highlighting
manager, with interactive functionality.
Three default charts are automatically generated: key research-
ers by publication year trends, key organizations or assignees, and
research landscape. Fig. 3 shows ten data fields that are available
for analysis through STN AnaVist. Additional charts and matrices
may be generated using these fields.
4. Patent landscape analysis – two case studies
The case studies are focused on two types of patent landscape
analysis. Companies are often interested in profiling a technology
area or an organization as a part of a technical intelligence or com-
petitive study. Therefore, a case study has been chosen to illustrate
each of these.
The first case study is a technology assessment in the hepatitis C
virus (HCV) area. Since this is a technology assessment-related case
study, it is focused on the current state and potential future direc-
tion of this technology.
The second case study is a company assessment of Kosan Biosci-
ences. This is focused on understanding the work of a single com-
pany, so it is useful to identify key researchers, collaborators, and
trends in research.
206 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
Chart 2. Major assignees correlated by major inventors.
4.1. Technology patent landscape – case study 1 – hepatitis C virus
inhibitors
In general, a technology patent landscape includes a high-level
visualization of a large dataset of patent information and provides
a quick overview of the various segments in a particular
technology domain to support decision-making. The data may be
organized and highlighted to show patent filings trends, patent
counts by country, top patenting organizations and other details.
It may also be used to identify potential collaboration, acquisition
and merger opportunities.
The primary objective of this case study was to determine if the
three chosen tools were useful for technology assessment using
patent information.
In the case study of HCV inhibitors, the following questions are
addressed:
 Who are the major players?
 When have they been patenting and how active are they
currently?
 Which companies and inventors are collaborating with
whom?
 What HCV inhibitor chemotypes (type of compounds) are they
working on?
4.1.1. VantagePoint
The dataset was created by running a simple text search in the
MicroPatent full-text database (US, WO and EP patent documents),
limited to patent documents published from 2001 to 2007. The fol-
lowing keywords or concepts were searched in the title, abstract
and claims:
((ns1* OR ns2* OR ns3* OR ns4* OR ns5*) OR (((non ADJ struct*)
OR nonstruct*) ADJ3 protein*1)) AND (HCV or hepatitis ADJ C) AND
(inhibit* or *agoni* or block* or modulat*).
The search strategy was not intended to be comprehensive for
this particular case study. The search retrieved 540 patent docu-
ments which represented 299 unique inventions (patent family
groups). This dataset of 299 patents was used for VantagePoint
analysis.
Chart 1 is a 3D chart showing the top 15 patent assignees out of
a total of 94 patent assignees in this dataset. Two thirds of these
assignees had only 1 patent. The patenting activity was measured
by plotting priority year vs. number of patents. Hoffman La Roche
started filing patents in 2005. GSK started in 2004, but was less
active compared to Roche. Boehringer Ingelheim started at least
from 1998 and peaked in 2003 with 17 unique inventions.
Note that intellectual effort was required to clean up the
assignee name list in VantagePoint to create the chart above. In
contrast, as you will see later, company name thesaurus can be
 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220 207

Chart 3. Major assignees grouped by IPC.

Fig. 4. STN Analyze Plus sample standardized company and inventor name clustering.

automatically applied to generate standardized assignee list with
minimal, if any, intellectual effort.
Chart 2 is a cross-correlation map showing 13 top assignees cor-
related by their major inventors. This map illustrates interactions
among the various assignees based on whether documents have
common inventors. Each dot, or node, represents one assignee,
and in VantagePoint, moving the cursor over each dot brings up
a list of the inventors associated with the patents that each dot
represents.
Assignees connected by a solid line may be collaborating on cer-
tain aspects of their HCV research – for example, Schering and
Dendreon. Another example is Merck, which appears to be associ-
ated with three different partners. On the other hand, Bristol-
Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim appear to be working
independently in this area.
Chart 3 is a correlation map showing major assignees grouped
together on the basis of International Patent Classification codes
(IPCs, version 2007.01).
A cluster of patent assignees is shown in the lower left corner,
suggesting that these companies which includes Bristol-Myers
Squibb, are developing similar types of compounds as HCV inhibi-
tors, while Chiron, Pfizer and others use different approaches.
208 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220

Chart 4. Major patent assignee vs. publication year.

Chart 5. Major patent assignee vs. main IPC.

 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
Chart 6. Major patent assignee vs. IPC class code A61P0031.
Hovering over a patent assignee node displays a typical drop
down list. This example illustrates IPC codes associated with Chir-
on. Clicking on a particular assignee node generates a list of docu-
ments associated with that assignee.
So, while Chart 2 shows definite correlations between assignees
based on inventor analysis, Chart 3 shows more possible techno-
logical relationships between assignees based on the IPC codes that
describe the inventive concepts. These codes are assigned indepen-
dently by the various patenting offices.
4.1.2. STN Analyze Plus
The dataset was created by running the same simple text search
described earlier for VantagePoint. This search was conducted on
STN in the Chemical Abstracts database and was limited to basic
patents (as defined by Chemical Abstracts Service) published from
2001 to 2007, with keywords appearing in the title and abstract.
The search retrieved 294 patent unique inventions which were
submitted for analysis by STN Analyze Plus.
STN Analyze Plus uses STN standardized company names. This
feature allows for analysis of complete company information (pat-
ent assignee) without manual clustering. Similar automatic clus-
tering may be done with inventor names as well. Fig. 4
illustrates this automatic clustering for patent assignees and
inventors.
Chart 4 shows the patenting activities of the top 16 patent
assignees out of a total of 82 patent assignees in this dataset. The
patenting activity was measured by plotting patent assignee vs.
publication year. This chart shows that the top four assignees have
had consistent patent activity in this HCV inhibitor area, from
209
2001–2007, with BMS peaking in 2007, Schering in 2005, and
Boehringer in 2003.
Chart 5 shows the top 5 IPC codes plotted against the top five
patent assignees. They have significant patenting activity in
A61P0031 (therapeutic activity of chemical compounds or medici-
nal preparations), A61K0031 (medicinal preparations containing
organic active ingredients) and A61K0038 (medicinal preparations
containing peptides) areas, followed closely by C07K005 (organic
chemistry; peptides).
Chart 6 shows the patenting activity of the top 16 patent assign-
ees in the A61P0031 area (therapeutic activity of chemical com-
pounds or medicinal preparations). This was the most frequently
used IPC code in the dataset.
Chart 7 shows the patenting activities of the top eight patent
assignees vs. CAS controlled terms. Hepatitis C virus, antiviral
agents and interferons are common controlled terms indexed from
documents from the major patent assignees.
4.1.3. STN AnaVist
The dataset was the same as that used for STN Analyze Plus. STN
AnaVist also uses STN standardized company names.
Chart 8 shows a 4-pane display of publication year, documents,
assignees and research landscape. The year 2007 is highlighted and
those assignees that have basic patents (as defined by Chemical
Abstracts Service) that published in 2007 are also shown (interac-
tive highlighting).
Chart 9 shows a matrix (partial) of patent assignee vs. priority
application year (left table). When Schering is highlighted (right
210 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220

Chart 7. Major patent assignee vs. controlled terms.

Chart 8. Publication year, documents, assignees and research landscape.

 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220 211

Chart 9. Patent assignee vs. priority application year.

Chart 10. Research landscape.

table), Dendreon also becomes highlighted. One might deduce that tion with Schering. Thus Dendreon and Schering may have part-
five of the six Dendreon patents may have resulted from collabora- nered in this area prior to 2000.
212 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220

Chart 11. Kosan’s research teams.

What research has Kosan done recently and what may

they have abandoned?
Mechanism of Action vs Priority Year

14

12

None given.

10 HSP-90 Inhibitors
Cancer Cell Growth Inhibitors
Motilin Agonists
8
Peptide Inhibitors
Bacterial Growth Inhibitors
6 Tubulin Polymerization
Megalomicin Synthesis
Hydroxylase
4
Gene therapy.
GPCR agonist
2
Antibiotic

0
1995 1996
1997 1998
1999 2000
2001 2002
2003 2004
2005 2006

Chart 12. Kosan research program profile – mechanism of action.

Chart 10 shows the research landscape for this particular set of
HCV inhibitor documents. There is a large cluster of documents in
the ‘‘viral nucleoside” space as well as the ‘‘protein” space.
4.1.4. Summary of case study 1
The objectives of case study 1 were met. Results show that
VantagePoint, STN Analyze Plus and STN AnaVist are useful for
technology assessment. Furthermore, the Micropatent dataset
was successfully imported into VantagePoint and subsequently
used to assess the patent landscape for hepatitis C virus
inhibitors. The corporate thesaurus function on STN proved to
be very valuable for automatic clustering of patent assignee
names.
4.2. Company patent landscape – case study 2 – Kosan Biosciences
A company patent landscape may provide a patent intelli-
gence report that consists of visual representations of the patent
assets of a specific company. It may also provide insights about
the company in terms of patenting trends, geographic protec-
tions, top inventors, research focus and collaboration partners.
The landscape may also illustrate the company’s relative
patenting strength and potential opportunities for future
collaborations.
The primary objective in this case study was to see if the three
chosen tools were useful for a company patent landscape. Specifi-
cally for VantagePoint, we wanted to see if the dataset from DWPI
 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220 213

What research has Kosan done recently and

what they may have abandoned (in terms of Use )?

7
Polyketides
Hyperproliferative Disease
6 Cancer
Anti-Infective Agents
5 Gastric Motility Diseases
Recombinant DNA
4 Disease
For Treating Multiple Myeloma
3 For the Production of Synthetic Genes/Libraries
Chemical Deriv.

2 Epothilone Deriv.
Erythromycin Deriv.

0
1995 1996
1997 1998
1999 2000
2001 2002
2003 2004
2005 2006

Chart 13. Kosan research program profile – use.

Chart 14. Controlled terms vs. publication year.

worked well with value added abstract sub-fields for novelty, use,  What is the research focus in terms of Novelty?
and mechanism of action.  What is the research focus in terms of Use?
Typical questions for company patent landscape analysis  What is the research focus in terms of Mechanism of
include: Action?
 What research have they done recently?
 Where does the company patent?  What research may have been abandoned?
 Who are they collaborating with?
 Who are their top inventors? 4.2.1. VantagePoint
 What are their research teams? A patent assignee name search (/pa) was performed in both
 What are each of the research teams working on? HCAplus and DWPI files on STN. In HCAplus file, the company
214 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
Chart 15. International classification codes.
name was expanded using CAS standardized company thesaurus (e
kosan/co) to ensure a comprehensive search result. In DWPI,
expanding the Derwent Patent Assignee Code KOSA-N (e kosa-n/
paco) helped to quickly identify all company names associated
with Kosan Biosciences, which were then searched in the patent
assignee (/pa) field. The results were combined in DWPI and dupli-
cates were removed. The final dataset of 123 patent family records
was downloaded from DWPI.
Chart 11 is an auto correlation map that shows who is working
with whom within Kosan. It may indicate that Zhou, Meller and
Johnson work in the same program.
Chart 12 shows the mechanism of action sub-field of the DWPI
abstract and what programs are active. Heat-shock-protein-90 is
the topic of 15 patents. There was a spike in patent filing in 2004
for HSP-90 inhibitors and the Motilin agonist program was active
in 2006. Other mechanisms of action include cancer cell growth
inhibitors and Motilin agonists. The NOT-GIVEN category comes
from patents where the mechanisms of action are not disclosed
or indexed.
Chart 13 plots the numbers of patents/patent applications vs.
patent priority filing years in terms of Use (also a DWPI abstract
sub-field). For example, the Use term ‘‘Erythromycin Derivatives”
is found in documents filed in 1998 and 1999, but there was no re-
lated patenting activity after 1999. This program may have been
discontinued or abandoned.
4.2.2. STN Analyze Plus
A patent assignee name search (/pa) was performed in HCAplus
and DWPI files on STN. In HCAplus file, the company name was ex-
panded using CAS standardized company thesaurus (e kosan/co) to
ensure a comprehensive search result. This search result was used
to generate Chart 14 below.
Charts 15–18 were generated using the dataset described in
Section 4.2.1.
Chart 14 shows a two field analysis using CAS controlled terms
vs. the publication year, using the Chemical Abstracts dataset. The
chart shows the steady publication activity in the areas of ‘‘gene,
microbial” and ‘‘polyketides”. The chart also shows a decreased
publication trend in ‘‘molecular cloning” since 2004.
Chart 15 shows Kosan’s main research focus in terms of IPC
codes, using the DWPI dataset. The most frequently assigned is
C12n0015 (mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA concern-
ing genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation,
preparation or purification; use of hosts therefore) and subclass
52 (genes encoding for enzymes or proenzymes for DNA or RNA
fragments; modified forms thereof in recombinant DNA-technol-
ogy) [4].
Chart 16 was created using Options (see Options ? Cus-
tom ? Field name and code), using the DWPI dataset. STN Analyze
Plus algorithm parses the sentences or phases into individual
words so the output is not useful.
Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220 215

Chart 16. Mechanism of action vs. publication year.

Chart 17. Derwent title terms vs. publication year.

216 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
Chart 18. Derwent title terms (cleaned) vs. publication year.
Please note that although STN Analyze Plus offers the list clean
up option to group, ungroup, or rename the words, it is very diffi-
cult to clean up the list from the Derwent value added sub-fields
such as Mechanism of Action (ACTN field), without knowing them
beforehand.
Chart 17 shows title words in the Derwent Title Term field plot-
ted against publication year, using the DWPI dataset. The chart is
not useful since only the individual words, and not phrases, were
plotted. However, if the title words were cleaned or re-grouped,
the visualization output may present more useful insight as shown
in Chart 18.
Chart 18, using the DWPI dataset, shows the cleaned Derwent ti-
tle terms which could be potentially useful to depict the company’s
research areas. ‘‘Cancer” appears to be a major research focus in re-
cent years, while ‘‘antibiotic” decreased since 2000.
4.2.3. STN AnaVist
A patent assignee name search (/pa) was performed in HCAplus
and DWPI files on STN. Charts 19 and 20 were generated using the
dataset described in Section 4.2.1.
In HCAplus file, the company name was expanded using CAS
standardized company thesaurus (e kosan/co) to ensure a compre-
hensive search result. This search result was used to generate Chart
21 below.
Chart 19 shows the Research Landscape generated from titles/
abstracts clustering field from DWPI dataset. Each document is
represented once on the landscape by a dot. The two most
frequently occurring concepts are displayed in a cluster area.
Clusters of documents with similar content indicate possible re-
search areas.
Chart 20 is a four-panel view of clustering Concepts, Publication
Year Trends, Key Researchers, and document titles charts. Yellow
highlight shows the clustering concepts, year of publication, and
the inventor names that contribute to the 14 documents selected
from the ‘‘hsp 90” cluster from the Research Landscape shown in
Chart 19 (the area not highlighted is non-contributing).
Chart 21 shows the top 22 Technology Indicators out of 323
Technology Indicators generated from the entire dataset. Technol-
ogy Indicators are CAS controlled terms that are only available in
documents from CAplus, and chemistry-relevant USPATFULL and
USPAT2 documents that have been enhanced with indexing.
4.2.4. Summary of case study 2
The objectives of case study 2 were met. Results show
that VantagePoint, STN Analyze Plus and STN AnaVist were
useful for generating a company patent landscape. The dataset
from DWPI, especially the value added abstract sub-fields for
novelty, use, and mechanism of action, worked very well
with VantagePoint. However, STN Analyze Plus and STN AnaVist
do not have this capability for in-depth analysis using DWPI sub-
fields.
5. Overall tool function summary
In summary, all three tools accomplished the objectives with
respect to technology and company landscape analysis. Features
that stand out for VantagePoint include: sub-field analysis for
Derwent value added information, such as mechanism of action,
novelty and use, etc.; correlation maps and matrices that have
the potential to provide insights into collaboration amongst com-
panies and their researchers; and the VP reader.
An outstanding feature, that is common to STN Analyze Plus
and STN AnaVist, is the ability to use the standardized company
name thesaurus that provides an automatic comprehensive listing
of companies, with minimal need for additional manual clean up.
Features that stand out for STN Analyze Plus include: easy to gen-
erate visualization that is quick and cost effective per analysis; and
flexibility that allows users to manipulate the charts generated in
 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220 217

Chart 19. Research landscape.

Chart 20. Clustering concepts, publication year trends, key researchers, and document titles.

Excel and re-create charts at will. Features that stand out for STN visualization charts; technology indicators (unique to Chemical
AnaVist include: easy, automatic generation of three default Abstracts datasets) and research landscape visualization charts;
218
Table 1
Summary of tool features.
Features
Data import
Maximum size for dataset
Data clean up and list
manipulation
Temporal analysis
(publication/priority year)
Patent assignee analysis
Auto-generated patent assignee
thesaurus/corporate history
Classification analysis
(IPC, ECLA, USPC)
Keyword analysis
Abstract sub-field analysis using
Derwent data
CAS Controlled Term analysis
Collaboration analysis
Customized reports and graphs
End-user interface
Cost
Note: Irrespective of whether
the database access is
through fixed-fee, or pay as
you go, this reflects the cost of
using the tools
and an interactive, highlighting manager that permits one to
see contributing and non-contributing relationships in multiple
charts.
Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
Chart 21. Technology indicators.
VantagePoint
Requires initial import filter for
each data source but allows most
sources with fielded data
A 100 MB raw dataset. As a rule-
of-thumb, this may equate to
about 10,000 DWPI (Derwent
World Patent Index)
bibliographic records
Yes
Yes
Yes
No – allows user to create own
thesauri
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes – VP reader
Upfront software license
required, with no analysis fee.
Need to download and pay
separately for fee-based
bibliographic records
STN Analyze Plus STN AnaVist
Not applicable Easy but only from select STN files
50,000 records 20,000 records
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes – but the fields were parsed into Yes – generated for research landscape only
individual words only. No practical use
No No
Yes Yes – analyzed as Technology Indicator clustering
field
No Yes
Yes – cross-Tabulate data can be saved Yes – chart data can be saved in comma delimited
in Excel and used to make additional (.csv) format for use in Microsoft Excel
charts
No No – it is not possible to share .shx files across
service centers at this time. However, .xta files may
be shared between users with full-access STN login
IDs
Fixed-cost per field analysis. The Fixed-cost per analysis/visualization. The analysis
analysis fee is based on the number of fee is based on the number of answers to be
answers to be analyzed. The cost adds analyzed. It is relatively higher than STN Analyze
up when multiple charts are generated. Plus, but covers multiple field analysis and sub-set
Downloading bibliographic records is analysis. Downloading bibliographic records is not
not required for analysis. However, a required for analysis. However, a separate cost will
separate cost will apply if records are apply if records are displayed
displayed
The key features for VantagePoint, STN Analyze Plus and STN
AnaVist are summarized in the Table 1. The perceived strengths
and limitations are summarized in Table 2.
 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220 219

Table 2
Perceived Strengths and Limitations Summary.

Tool Strengths
VantagePoint  Analytical toolbox for technology and company assessment
 Sophisticated visualization output, i.e. correlation maps, factor maps, matrices, Excel charts
 Can provide further in-depth analysis on abstracts, particularly DWPI abstracts for the analysis of mechanism of action, novelty, and use
 A customized report to include the key information in a table format
 VP reader to enable file sharing with end-users
 Can work with multiple database sources, utilizing filters
STN Analyze  Use of the CA company thesaurus – this eliminates the need for manual clean up of the assignee field and provides a comprehensive listing of com-
Plus panies, including mergers and acquisitions (this feature greatly improves the precision of the information output)
 The charts are easy to generate and easy to manipulate
STN AnaVist  Use of the CA company thesaurus – this eliminates the need for manual clean up of the assignee field and provides a comprehensive listing of com-
panies, including mergers and acquisitions
 The charts and matrices are easy to generate and easy to navigate
 The data is interactive
 Highlighting manager: (a) automatically updates other related charts (b) multiple colors to perform comparative analysis
Tool Limitations
VantagePoint  List clean up can be tedious and time consuming
 Steep, initial learning curve
 Does not handle chemistry-related text well
STN Analyze  Limited number of default fields which can be analyzed
Plus  Cannot cross-analyze the same field, e.g. cannot analyze author/inventor vs. author/inventor or corporate source/patent assignee vs. corporate
source/patent assignee
 Limitation on charting capabilities (although there are several options for creating charts in Excel, such as column, bar, pie, among others, there is
no capability for creating more complex matrices)
 Cost accumulation when generating multiple visualization charts
 Limited to databases on STN network
STN AnaVist  Limitation on the clustering fields at the visualization stage
 Limitation on the default fields from which you can analyze (cannot analyze Derwent abstract sub-fields, i.e. mechanism of action, novelty, use,
etc.)
 No Reader available – it is not possible to share .shx files across service centers at this time (however, .xta files may be shared between users with
full-access STN login IDs)
 Limited to STN databases, Caplus; WPINDEX, WPIDS, or WPIX (access to WPIDS and WPIX for subscribers only); USPATFULL, including USPAT2;
PCTFULL; EPFULL

6. Conclusions example, cross-correlation maps of patent assignees correlated

We have discussed our Phase II investigation of text mining and
visualization tools, and described two case studies using Vantage-
Point, STN Analyze Plus and STN AnaVist to enhance patent land-
scape analysis. The results of these case studies demonstrate that
each of these tools has unique strengths as well as some
limitations.
Charts showing patenting trends based on technology terms,
company names, and other data fields can be easily generated
using VantagePoint, STN Analyze Plus, and STN AnaVist. Vantage-
Point allows use of multiple data sources and analysis of any im-
ported data fields, while STN AnalyzePlus and STN AnaVist are
limited to a select group of CAS sources and to a certain number
of default data fields that can be analyzed. On the other hand,
STN Analyze Plus and STN AnaVist are convenient to use without
any preliminary preparation, while VantagePoint requires data
clean up to deliver useful output.
STN AnaVist and AnalyzePlus earn high marks for their user
interface. STN AnaVist provides interactive charts with colorful
highlighting features that automatically update other related
charts when looking at a particular data point, making it easy to
navigate through different views. It also allows for more detailed
drill-down into a specific field. These STN tools also provide the
convenience of automatic clustering for inventor names and patent
assignees using a pre-defined CAS company name thesaurus. While
VantagePoint provides a thesaurus capability, it is based on indi-
vidual user preferences and requires investment of user time/ef-
fort, but can be an advantage for those more inclined to build
their own thesauri/ontologies.
VantagePoint comes with a reader that enables sharing of anal-
ysis results with users. It also provides insights that would be al-
most impossible to discern via conventional manual analysis. For
by major inventors reveal interesting insights on possible collabo-
ration relationships between companies. Correlation maps of pat-
ent assignees based on IPC codes helps visualize the tenuous
relationships among patent assignees based on the inventive con-
cepts in their patents, as classified independently by the various
patenting offices. STN Analyze Plus and STN AnaVist do not provide
an online reader for users nor in-depth types of correlation
analyses.
Patent analysts play a critical role in selecting the types of anal-
ysis and visualization options that are most appropriate to the
dataset based on their scientific expertise, knowledge of the busi-
ness, understanding of the clients’ needs and knowledge of tools
and databases. They collaborate interactively with users to refine
the analysis criteria, execute the analysis strategy, iteratively refine
strategy against desired output, and guide users in navigating the
dynamic reports presented to users to realize the full value of
the reports.
In summary, text mining and visualization tools enhance patent
landscape analysis by providing easy to generate charts and in-
sights that are hidden or not easy to identify by conventional man-
ual analysis. Text mining and visualization tools facilitate and
supplement human expert analysis. Patent analysts, who are
responsible for selecting and implementing the right tools, execut-
ing the analysis strategy, and designing the appropriate output to
facilitate decision-making, play a critical role towards the overall
success of patent landscape analysis.
Acknowledgement
As in our earlier article [1], special thanks to the vendors who
demonstrated their products and allowed us to use their product
information for this article.
220 Y. Yang et al. / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 203–220
References
[1] Yang Yun Yun, Akers L, Barcelon Yang C, Klose T. Text mining and visualization
tools – impressions of emerging capabilities. World Patent Inform
2008;30:280–93.
[2] Laura Routsalainen. Data mining tools for technology and competitive
intelligence. VTT Tiedotteita – Research Notes 2451. Utgivare Publisher:
Julkaisija; 2008.
[3] Gerhard Fischer, Nicolas Lalyre. Analysis and visualization with host-based
software – the features of STNÒ AnaVist™. World Patent Inform
2006;28(4):312–8.
[4] http://www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc/ipcen.html.
Yun Yun Yang has almost 20 years experience in the
patent information field. She is currently a senior patent
analyst with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. In addition
to her primary function of performing legally significant
patent searches, she also leads an initiative to evaluate
text mining and visualization tools for the Patent
Analysis group. She started her career as a medicinal
chemist at the University of Pennsylvania, where she
conducted post doctoral research on the synthesis of
new imaging agents for Central Nervous System (CNS)
receptors. Later, she worked as an information scientist
at DuPont and then at DuPont Pharmaceutical before
taking her present position. Yun Yun obtained her PhD degree in Organic Chemistry
from Beijing Normal University. She is a member of the Patent Information Users
Group (PIUG) and American Chemical Society (ACS).
Lucy Teixeira Akers is a US Patent Agent with over
25 years of experience in the information field. She has
formerly held patent information positions at Shell and
ExxonMobil, and is currently a senior patent analyst
with Bristol-Myers Squibb. From 2000–2004, Ms. Akers
was Chair of the Patent Information Users Group, whose
membership grew over 20% during her term. Her lead-
ership and work with the PIUG and connections with
other professional organizations, such as with the Pat-
ent and Trademark Group in the UK, and with WON in
the Netherlands, makes her a recognized international
figure in the patent information world, particularly for
her active role in patent information development, training and education. She is
currently the Chair of the Selection Board for the International Patent Information
Award.
Cynthia S. Barcelon Yang Director of Patent Analysis
Group at Bristol-Myers Squibb, has over 20 years
experience in the information science field. Prior to
joining BMS in 2001, Cynthia had worked at DuPont,
initially as a bench chemist and later as information
scientist, group leader, project manager, patent
searcher, and team leader in the Patent Information
Services group at DuPont Pharmaceutical subsidiary.
Cynthia obtained her M.S. degree in Chemistry from
Marquette University and a M.S. degree in Information
and Library Science from Drexel University. She is the
current Chair of the Patent Information Users Group
(PIUG), Inc. and is an IP Advisory Board Member of the Information Retrieval Facility
(IRF), a Member of the STN Advisory Council and the Patent Documentation Group
(PDG).
Thomas Klose is currently a Senior Patent Analyst in
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Patent Analysis Group. He first
worked with Eastman Kodak Co. in Rochester, NY as a
Research Chemist. Later on, he transferred to Kodak’s
legal division and became a Patent Searcher. After a
short interval as a Senior Information Scientist with
American Cyanamid in Princeton, NJ, he moved to BMS
in 2001. Tom graduated from the University of Adelaide
with a PhD degree in Organic Chemistry. He is a mem-
ber of Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) and the
American Chemical Society (ACS).
Shelley L. Pavlek Senior Patent Analyst II at Bristol-
Myers Squibb Company, has over 12 years experience in
the chemical and patent information field. Shelley
started her career as a medicinal chemist at Hoechst
Marion Roussel Pharmaceuticals (now Sanofi-Aventis)
in 1993 and later as a chemical information scientist,
followed by patent information scientist. Shelley
obtained her B.S. degree in Chemistry from Gannon
University and her M.S. degree in Organic Chemistry
from Ohio University. Shelley is a member of the Patent
Information Users Group, as well as the Chemistry and
the Law and the Chemical Information sections of the
American Chemical Society.