Thursday, 19 January 2017

Why is IP being left behind in the boardroom?

Here, in the first in a series of articles, Cipher casts a light on the M&A trends of 2016 and the outlook for 2017.
Why is IP being left behind in the boardroom?

According to the latest research, 2017 could be a record year for deal-makers, with 57% of those surveyed by EY set to pursue acquisitions in the next 12 months. The same research indicates that as many as 91% of respondents are using big data and analytics as part of their deal process. Given this, contradictory results from a survey commissioned by Aistemos at the end of 2016 may come as a surprise.

Just 17% of respondents believe M&A decisions are always made with a sufficient understanding of the IP issues at play.

In an age where around 80% of company value is in its intangibles and where IP issues are increasingly at the heart of the deal, why is IP being left behind in the deal room?

The challenge faced by business leaders and IP professionals, is how to navigate vast patent landscapes when data is disorganised, incomplete, and unstructured, making it difficult to interpret or understand. Given these challenges, the timelines and budgets that dominate corporate deal-making, it’s little wonder that this type of analysis is often left to one side.

Complex questions require simple answers

This is why IP business intelligence tools like Cipher are fast becoming critical to decision support. By applying cutting edge analytics to the world’s most comprehensive and trusted set of patent-related data, Cipher delivers information clearly and instantly. A glance at some of 2016's biggest deals demonstrates this.

The acquisition of TMS allowed Canon to leapfrog competition to become the largest and fastest growing portfolio.

LinkedIn has amassed large portfolios by acquisition but recently shifted to in-house innovation and patenting.
A look ahead to 2017 Smarter deals in 2017

One can only speculate about what deals will be done in 2017. Will Comcast acquire T-Mobile, and will someone snap up Netflix? In any case, an analysis of three pending mega-deals for 2017 highlights the power of Cipher when applied to complex datasets:
  • DuPont and Dow Chemical
  • ChemChina and Syngenta
  • Bayer and Monsanto
The biggest shake up since the 90s?

If all were to get regulatory approval, it would put Bayer Monsanto in a proprietary throne both in seed technologies and agrochemicals. Is this the biggest shake-up since the 90s? View  our full Cipher report here

Smarter deals in 2017?

Amid the rumours and speculation, one thing is certain - the consequences of not assessing intangible assets with the same degree of scrutiny as financials can be disastrous to business performance. Those that choose to engage with IP data and incorporate it into their deal processes early will make better, smarter decisions.

With Cipher, information that is impossible to analyse manually is available to both IP professionals and business leaders at a click of a button. Cipher helps with corporate decision support by
  • - Providing market analysis and trends;
  • Identifying and evaluating potential targets;
  • Supporting due diligence and execution

Focus on what matters, make better decisions.

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

A fresh start -- and a chance to take stock: five perspectives for the New Year

Earlier this week we listed our Top Ten blogposts for the year just past.  Now we change gear from retrospect to some forward thinking, via some thoughts from Aistemos CEO Nigel Swycher (these thoughts are also posted to the Aistemos LinkedIn Group if you'd like to discuss them there). Nigel notes the following:
The start of the year is a great time to take stock and, with so much change in the world, I wanted to add my perspective from the world of intellectual property:

1. Never been better: how so? 
Few like the direction of travel for US patent reform, copyright in Europe is a mess, SEPs and FRAND policy is chaotic, NPEs are still causing trouble, China has entered the mix. But that’s the point. Many people care. Legislators, regulators, economists, investors. So whilst change can be uncomfortable, it is an essential prerequisite of evolution.

2. Now a strategic issue: really? 
Yes really. Aistemos conducted an industry survey last year and are publishing a series of reports [the first, "The Rise and Rise of the Intangible Asset", is published here]. The main finding is that IP Strategy is a thing. Boards are interested in IP and now see intangibles as more than a cost. And so they should - intangibles more often than not account for the majority of enterprise value.

3. Investors care, lenders don’t
Slightly upsetting. I used to think this was one issue. It’s not. There are now more M&A deals than ever before where IP matters. There remain few financings where the primary collateral is IP. There is a good reason for this, and it’s the difference between value and valuation. No one has a problem accepting the former when it comes to IP. Everyone has a problem agreeing on the latter.

4. Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion
A half truth. IP has been a specialist sport for too long, controlled by experts in ivory towers (I speak from decades of personal experience). There is no shortage of data, but we are only now seeing the potential of AI and machine learning to extract insight. Cipher is leading the way, but expect to see significant improvements in IP analytics in the year to come.

5. Increased transparency: what, no more hide and seek? 
The three legs of the IP stool are ownership, licensing and litigation. There are significant developments to improve access to data in all areas. (Quick plug for ORoPO, which helps answer the question who owns the world’s patents). While some companies still struggle to balance transparency and secrecy/ competitive advantage, they are signs that this coin will land the right way up.

We live in interesting times
From a technology perspective the pace shows no sign of slowing down. In 10 years, there are whole sectors that will be unrecognizable. What are the long term implications of FinTech, MedTech, Autonomous Vehicles, AI/machine learning, Internet of Things/connected devices? I don’t have the answer. I do have Cipher, and I remain convinced that increasing and improving access to the right information at the right time, is essential.
If you'd like to comment on any of these points or start a discussion, you can do so by posting your points below.  Alternatively you can contact Nigel Swycher directly by email or via Aistemos.

Monday, 16 January 2017

What you read last year: our most popular blogposts for 2016

The new year is well underway, with all the challenges and opportunities that every new year presents. But before we say goodbye to 2016 completely, let's take a look at our most popular blogposts for the past twelve months. Their interest lies no only in what we have had to say, but more importantly in which topics have attracted the most interest among our readers. 

Inevitably the majority of most-visited blogposts are those from the earlier part of the year, since they have been online and available for longer than the more recent posts. Nonetheless, the posts listed below are broadly an accurate reflection on what our readers have been most eager to peruse.

In descending order of popularity, the 2016 "Top Ten" reads as follows (just click the title to access each post):

Patents surrounding Pokémon Go – has someone caught them all? (2 August)

Following the launch of Pokémon Go -- the free-to-play, location-based augmented reality game -- we took a look at the legal bases upon which such games are built. Accordingly we composed a Cipher Snapshot, focusing on the highly topical issue of Augmented Reality and looking at the key patent-holders.

Competitor behaviour revealed: an exercise in software patent data (26 May)

So much ink has been spilled in recent times over the demise of patents in the software sector, particularly in the United States after the Supreme Court's Alice ruling, that one might be led to believe that there were scarcely any of them left standing. The truth is however very different.  There are tens of thousands of them, in the US and beyond. Their very large number makes it difficult to gauge their potential impact in the marketplace and their role in shaping the commercial direction taken by their owners.  This Cipher-driven study gives some idea of the benefits that can be derived through the deployment of IP analytics in this highly competitive field.

Microsoft and the missing Link? The LinkedIn deal has a patent profile (20 June)

After the news broke of software giant Microsoft's $26.2bn acquisition of business-oriented social networking service LinkedIn, there was surprisingly little comment or response from the business information sector. We asked whether there might just be a patent dimension to this acquisition and, again With the aid of Cipher we threw together a few bits of relevant data that analysts and investors might want to consider.

Entrepreneurship and Talent Management from a Global Perspective (10 February)

The enticingly-titled Entrepreneurship and Talent Management from a Global Perspective: Global Returnees is a new book in the Edward Elgar New Horizons in Management series. It is also the first and only book whose review managed to made the Aistemos Top Ten.

Patent landscape and IP competitive intelligence: should every company have it? (9 May)

In a field of activity that has suffered from a dearth of useful objective and non-promotional literature, an article with the title "Leveraging Patent Landscape Analysis and IP Competitive Intelligence for Competitive Advantage" is bound to attract serious attention.  A piece with that title, published in Elsevier's World Patent Information, was authored by Yateen R. Pargaonkar. A registered US patent agent whose experience covers working with Procter & Gamble and Chevron. This blogpost takes a look at what he has to say, adding some comments of our own.

IP Strategy in the Boardroom: around the Roundtable (5 July)

In late June Aistemos hosted an IP Strategy Roundtable, in which participants discussed the following issues: 
  • Is intellectual property recognised by boards as an asset class deserving of C-suite attention? 
  • What changes are likely to occur in the next 5 years to corporate reporting of IP and IP strategy? 
  • What are the key elements of an IP strategy that will transform IP from a cost to profit centre? 
  • What data and analytics need to underpin IP strategy, and how should they be presented?
Aistemos took this event as an opportunity to publish the results of its survey, which are summarised in this blogpost.

Rabbits join Unicorns in the Investment Menagerie (26 January)

Last year there was still quite a lot of interest in the concept of Unicorns (billion dollar start-ups). However, Unicorns were not alone in the investment menagerie.  Writing in Australia's Business Insider ("2016 will be the year of the rabbits"), Sam Shead picked up on a theme brought to light by CB Insights CEO Anand Sanwal in his daily newsletter: the rise of the Rabbit. What is the Rabbit -- and what are our thoughts on the subject? Read on!

Would you sell your family? (18 May)

The IAM Blog is always a good place to find news, views and talking points on intellectual property strategy topics, particularly in the hyperactive area of patents. Here we review and discuss a recent IAM Blog post, "Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM and 14 others team up with AST to launch new patent buying initiative" by Richard Lloyd.

Europe, Utopia and the Unified Patent Court (7 June) 

The Unified Patent Court (UPC), billed as "a single patent court covering 25 countries", is not yet functioning. Indeed, it is still some way from being kick-started into action. However, its existence and operation entered the limelight last summer, particularly within the context of Brexit. 

Nokia price fall a "wild overreaction" -- and it's not the first, either (4 February)

Aistemos CEO Nigel Swycher discusses share price fluctuations affecting large-scale patent owner Nokia and asks whether better use can be made of patent analytics when considering a company's stock value and future prospects.

Monday, 9 January 2017

The Rise and Rise of the Intangible Asset -- now for the webinar

Don't let those intangible
assets slip out of sight!
Last November this weblog posted "The Rise and Rise of the Intangible Asset" [you can check it out out in full by clicking here]. This was the first a series of reports, prepared by Aistemos, that are designed to alert and educate readers as to the growing importance of intangible assets in general and intellectual property in particular. The reports are based on the results of research conducted by Aistemos last year in its IP Strategy in the Board Room project [you can find out more about this by clicking here].

Now we're taking this theme further and making it more accessible to the business community and its advisers.

On Wednesday 1 February you can enjoy "Examining the Rise and Rise of the Intangible Asset" in webinar format, as Aistemos CEO Nigel Swycher looks at a selection of key intangible asset issues that were thrown up in the course of the IP Strategy in the Board Room project, discussing these topics with contributors to the report.

If you'd like to sign up for the webinar, you can find all the relevant details here, The webinar commences at 3.00 pm GMT.

If you can't make it on that day or time, sign up anyway and, in keeping with Aistemos practice, you will be sent a recording of the webinar as soon as it's available.

Friday, 6 January 2017

Push from CPA Global adds to ORoPO's momentum

A push in the right direction
can have knock-on effects ...
At risk of sounding like latter-day prophets, the Aistemos blog team can say in all honesty (and with some pleasure) that some of their more ancient blogposts have been a bit ahead of their time. In a series of articles posted mainly in 2015 [you can check them out here], we trumpeted the virtues of having accurate data regarding ownership of registered intellectual property rights and supported the launch of non-for-profit ORoPO [in full, that's the Open Register of Patent Ownership, which you can read more about here]. While ORoPO, as its name suggests, does not cover all registered IP, the fact is that, in practical terms, patents are the ones that are most important in terms of IP analytics; they also have the potential to cause the most trouble if your ownership information is wrong.

It is thus with the greatest satisfaction that we read this week's media release from leading IP management and technology company CPA Global. The story tells of CPA Global's active support for ORoPO

CPA Global®, a leading IP technology and management company, is actively supporting the Open Register of Patent Ownership (ORoPO) – a non-profit organisation that aims to improve transparency and openness around patent ownership data. According to this release:
" ... The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) estimates that 25% of patent data available on public registers is inaccurate. This can be caused by something as simple as a misspelling on a patent application or uncertainty around ownership [in this context, 'inaccuracy' embraces 'inconsistency' -- an almost inevitable consequence of the transliteration of names of companies and individuals between different languages or scripts]. During the lifetime of a patent, ownership can change hands or companies change names. Data needs to be regularly updated.

Inaccuracies in patent ownership have significant consequences, causing increased risk, cost, and uncertainty that creates barriers to innovation. With intellectual property making up as much as 70% of a company’s value [this statistic has become something of a mantra, in whichever form it gets quoted. In some sectors it can be hard to find businesses with an IP-based value of as little as 70%], inaccurate information can fundamentally impact the core asset value of a business. ...

CPA Global will support ORoPO by actively publicising the initiative to its customer base and encouraging its clients to grow the open register database. CPA Global is planning a series of joint webinars with ORoPO, IBM and Microsoft to improve knowledge of the initiative and share its benefits. ...
Simon Webster (CPA Global's CEO) is unambiguous in his support. In his own words:
“Intellectual property is as important, if not more so, than physical assets in determining the value of a company. Innovation is critical to global business growth and ORoPO will help remove uncertainty around who owns assets and how they can be used. We wish to support ORoPO and promote its benefits to our clients and beyond, helping to drive further traction on this important initiative.”
Added to the support that ORoPO already has from major players in the world of patents and innovation such as IBM, Microsoft, ARM and BAE Systems, this development suggests that maybe the time has come for others to follow suit.

Monday, 2 January 2017

December's Aistemos blogposts: a handy summary

We were so busy in December that the month really flashed past -- and that's why we didn't post as many items on our weblog as we usually do. Still, in case you were as busy as we were (which is quite likely if you are working in the fields of intellectual property analytics and strategy), here's a list of our December features. 

If you're not yet familiar with our blog, let us explain.  Each month we list and summarise the previous month's blogposts for readers  who have been away or who were simply too busy to follow them in real time. Each blogpost listed below comes with a moderated comment facility, so please feel welcome to respond to anything you read, whether you disagree with it, wish to amplify or clarify its points, or merely provide further links to relevant material.

To check each post out, just click the title:

Every so often, this weblog likes to take a look at information-related tools that may be of assistance to the intellectual property community. This post notes the ScienceOpen Research + Publishing Network, this being
"... a freely accessible research network to discover and evaluate scientific information. Search among over 27 million articles and article records, filter by citation or Altmetric score, and share your expertise via comments or peer review".
What does this all mean for the strategic deployment of information in patent-related contexts?


This weblog has sounded off on previous occasions about the potential importance of BEPS, the tidy acronym that stands for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting [see also earlier Aistemos BEPS-related blogposts here].  Our position has been that this is a topic that has substantial relevance to the intellectual property business and investment community, which has to date taken little interest in it. Now the OECD is throwing its weight behind the issue.


Recent blogposts have focused on the challenges created by "Industry 4.0", a term that is gaining currency in the world of the Internet of Things. These posts include our well-received and much-read report on key technologies and trends, as well as a series of posts relating to "Industry 4.0 through the lens of patents", an Aistemos webinar. You can follow the webinar presentations by Marcus Malek and Sebastian Muller-Borges, together with relevant visuals, by clicking here.

You can check out Aistemos's posts over the previous twelve months below:

If you like our emails, why not receive them by email? Just enter your email address in the little box in the sidebar, or email us at and we will do it for you. 

Sunday, 18 December 2016

ScienceOpen: looks promising, but can it help patent and IP search?

Every so often, this weblog likes to take a look at information-related tools that may be of assistance to the intellectual property community. Today we note the ScienceOpen Research + Publishing Network, this being
"... a freely accessible research network to discover and evaluate scientific information. Search among over 27 million articles and article records, filter by citation or Altmetric score, and share your expertise via comments or peer review".
As ScienceOpen puts it, in rather greater detail:
" ... we’ve just upgraded our search and discovery platform to be faster, smarter, and more efficient. A new user interface and filtering capabilities provide a better discovery experience for users. ScienceOpen searches more than 27 million full text open access or article metadata records and puts them in context. We include peer-reviewed academic articles from all fields, including pre-prints that we draw from the arXiv and which are explicitly tagged as such. 
The current scale of academic publishing around the world is enormous. According to a recent STM report, we currently publish around 2.5 million new peer reviewed articles every single year, and that’s just in English language journals. 
The problem with this for researchers and more broadly [including, we imagine, anyone scouring the prior art in order to challenge a patent on grounds of novelty or inventive step] is how to stay up to date with newly published research. And not just in our own fields, but in related fields too. Researchers are permanently inundated, and we need to find a way to sift the wheat from the chaff. 
The solution is smart and enhanced search and discovery. Platforms like ResearchGate and Google Scholar (GS) have just a single layer of discovery, with additional functions such as sorting by date to help narrow things down a bit. GS is the de facto mode of discovery of primary research for most academics, but it also contains a whole slew of ‘grey literature’ (i.e., non-peer reviewed outputs), which often interferes with finding the best research. 
As well as this, if you do a simple search with GS, say just for dinosaurs, you get 161,000 returned results. How on Earth are you supposed to find the most useful and most relevant research based on this if you want to move beyond Google’s page rank, especially if you’re entering this from outside the area of
specialisation? [good question, but for the intellectual property community non-peered material can be of significance, as when discussion arose as to whether material first shown on 2001: a Space Odyssey and Star Trek could be cited as prior art against the Apple iPad: see here and here] Simply narrowing down by dates does very little to prevent being overwhelmed with an absolute deluge of maybe maybe-not relevant literature. We need to do better at research discovery.
ScienceOpen's vast and impressive editorial board is solidly academic, with no names of obvious intellectual property candidates springing out. The advisory board, though much smaller, is more diverse, with representatives from industry as well as academe. 

How successfully might ScienceOpen be used in the IP community? ScienceOpen is not immediately intended as a facility for IP users if the list of tags on its side bar is anything to go by.  These suggest that it is addressed more to those whose interests and expertise lie in the area of pure science and research.  It would however be good to know if any of our readers are already deploying its search capacity. 

We were alerted to this item by beSpacific, which is well worth looking at -- if you have not already done so.

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

The OECD BEPS guidelines -- here's an IP perspective

This weblog has sounded off on previous occasions about the potential importance of BEPS, the tidy acronym that stands for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting [you can check out our previous BEPS-related blogposts here].  Our position has been that this is a topic that has substantial relevance to the intellectual property business and investment community, which has to date taken little interest in it.

We are therefore pleased to see that our friend and occasional blog contributor Donal O'Connell (Chawton Innovation Services Ltd) has put together a short but very helpful paper with the assistance of Dr Alla Sakharova. This paper appears below. While it is written as prose, it will be poetry in the ears of those whose call to take heed of BEPS has so far received the most muted of responses.  This is what he writes:
OECD BEPS Guidelines

The global tax policy landscape is changing dramatically, and the emphasis on intangible assets will shift the scope of service provided by IP professionals.  The new international tax rules are closely watched by the tax professionals but the IP community has yet to really recognise the challenges and opportunities it offers to them.

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) is at the forefront of efforts to improve international tax co-operation between governments to counter international tax avoidance and evasion.

The OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) package of measures has been agreed upon and over 100 countries and jurisdictions have confirmed their commitment to the consistent implementation of this comprehensive package. The package provides 15 Actions that range from new minimum standards to revision of existing standards, common approaches which will facilitate the convergence of national practices and guidance drawing on best practices. Described by the OECD as 
“the most significant re-write of international tax rules in a century”, 
the BEPS package provides countries with the powerful tools to standardize compliance requirements and force firms to be transparent about where they generate income.

An essential new feature of the new regulations is an emphasis on intangible assets. It is increasingly recognized that intangible assets create a substantial part of the business value. However, until now there has been no single definition of intangible assets in use by tax authorities or the OECD, and no proper guidance on how such assets should be reported.

The accurate and complete identification, taxation and valuation of intellectual property and other intangible assets is now recognized as one of the most important areas of the international tax reform and transfer pricing legislation.

OECD BEPS guidelines from an IP management perspective

In the OECD guidelines, it defines intangible assets as including the following categories

• Patents;

• Know-how and trade secrets;

• Trade marks, trade names and brands;

• Rights under contracts and government licences;

• Licences;

• Goodwill.

As a result of these OECD guidelines, multi-national enterprises (MNEs) will now or in the near future need to recognize the value of intangible assets for their businesses. Businesses will need to consider a regular assessment of their value chains to ensure that intangible assets have been correctly identified, including existing contracts and arrangements for the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangibles in light of the new international tax rules. These functional and economic assessments and analyses will require a depth of knowledge of definitional aspects of intangibles, ownership issues, identification and characterisation of intangibles and valuation that identifies arm’s length prices for transactions involving intangibles.

MNEs will need to conduct an exercise rather sooner than later to determine if they are OECD BEPS compliant and to take the necessary actions. This part of the conformity assessment checks if the MNE has the skills and competencies, knowledge and experience, process and systems in place to enable the MNE to complete these IP data management related tasks, and if not, what actions need to be taken to remedy the situation.

Challenge and opportunity

This provides a unique opportunity for IP professionals to extend their service offering and aggressively occupy this no man’s land – the area of Intangible Assets and OECD BEPS compliance.

The market research shows that, until recently, transfer pricing and Intangibles have been mostly in focus of the Big Four accounting firms and transfer pricing professionals. However, there are examples of some law firms and intellectual property firms showing interest towards this new area.

OECD BEPS Compliance offers a great opportunity to IP professionals, but to win it requires a cross discipline team with knowledge and understanding of the different forms of intangible assets, their identification and valuation in the context of business strategy and value chain, with experience of the different IP activities as listed by the OECD, with insights into how MNE organise and operate their IP activities, and with an appreciation of the goals and objectives of the OECD BEPS guidelines.
This paper, one of a series on this theme, is a gently edited version of the original, which Donal first posted on LinkedIn here.

Friday, 2 December 2016

November's Aistemos blogposts: a handy summary

Now that November has departed, it's time to review the blogposts on topics that have occupied us, or indeed preoccupied us, over the past four weeks. Accordingly, here's a list of the previous month's substantive Aistemos features. This service is provided for your convenience if you have been away or simply too busy to follow them in real time, and for your general information and amusement if you are not yet familiar with Aistemos and its take on IP analytics, management and strategy. Each blogpost listed below comes with a moderated comment facility, so please feel welcome to respond to anything you read, whether you disagree with it, wish to amplify or clarify its points, or merely provide further links to relevant material.

To check each post out, just click the title:

The UK government announced its intention to prepare to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The UPCA provides for the machinery whereby  European Union-backed Unitary Patents will be litigated. What does this tell us about UK Brexit strategy?

This is the first in a series of special reports based on the research conducted by Aistemos earlier this year in its IP Strategy in the Board Room project [on which see our post here].  The text below is designed to introduce readers to the continuing growth of importance of the intangible asset, shedding light on what this means to businesses and investors.

Our attention has recently been drawn to another potentially useful service for the intellectual property community. It's called Omnity and it claims to accelerate "the discovery of otherwise hidden, high-value patterns of interconnection within and between fields of knowledge as diverse as science, medicine, engineering, law and finance". What does Omnity seek to add to the growing and increasingly sophisticated range tools for delivering and analysing information? 

This weblog has mentioned in the past that trade secrets are in a way the last frontier for effective intellectual property management: trade secrets are often amorphous, difficult to protect and to license safely, hard to value and complicated to deal with in terms of in-house rights management [for a helpful review of management issues click here; for a case study click here]. Being unregistered and having so very little publicly accessible profile, they also pose a huge challenge for the discipline of IP analytics. The article featured here, by Donal O'Connell (Managing Director of Chawton Innovation Services Ltd and the author of a number of articles that have appeared on this blog over the past year and a half), looks at some key issues that currently give cause for concern.

Economic Approaches to Intellectual Property, a new book by Nicola Searle and Martin Brassell, deserves a spot of serious attention. Dr Searle, currently of Goldsmiths, University of London, has previously served as Economics Adviser to the UK Intellectual Property Office and is well known as having a sense of humour and a level-headed, sympathetic approach to intellectual property rights -- both of which being qualities that appear to have eluded many of her fellow economists.  Martin Brassell, co-founder and Chief Executive of Inngot, has hands-on experience of raising capital for SMEs; he also co-authored Banking on IP?, an independent report for the UK Government. We take a look at this promising publication.

This post publicises a call for "ugly" clauses in intellectual property agreements -- these being clauses that employ vague, ambiguous or otherwise objectionable obligations on either party.  Specimens of such clauses, appropriately anonymised, are sought for use in teaching by Amsterdam-based IP attorney and academic Alexander Tsoutsanis

This is a Cipher report on Industry 4.0 which gives a pictorial analytic perspective in order to explain both the meaning and the importance of this term, paying particular attention to patents.

You can check out Aistemos's posts over the previous twelve months below:

If you like our emails, why not receive them by email? Just enter your email address in the little box in the sidebar, or email us at and we will do it for you. 

Thursday, 1 December 2016

Hot off the press: the Industry 4.0 webinar recording is now available

Recent blogposts have focused on the challenges created by "Industry 4.0", a term that is gaining currency in the world of the Internet of Things. These posts include our well-received and much-read report on key technologies and trends, as well as a series of posts relating to "Industry 4.0 through the lens of patents", the Aistemos webinar which took place yesterday.

The recording of yesterday's webinar, under the title "Examining Industry 4.0", has now been posted online for the benefit of those who wished to participate but were unable to do so. Total running time is just over 27 minutes, so it needn't eat into your valuable time!

You can follow the presentations by Marcus Malek and Sebastian Muller-Borges, together with relevant visuals, by the simple expedient of clicking here.