--- name: IP Landscape Analysis slug: ip-landscape-analysis category: AI Engineering description: IP Landscape Analysis helps analyze patent landscapes with trend, applicant, citation, and white space views, then turns findings into filing and defense strategy. Use it for IP landscape, patent map, or technology trend requests. github: "https://github.com/revfactory/harness-100/tree/main/en/100-ip-portfolio/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis" stars: 1224 forks: 427 install: "npx degit https://github.com/revfactory/harness-100/tree/main/en/100-ip-portfolio/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis ~/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis" installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis source_path: en/100-ip-portfolio/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis/skill.md collection_size: 51 category_size: 2451 collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/revfactory/harness-100" added: 2026-08-12T04:43:23.085Z last_synced: 2026-08-12T04:43:23.085Z canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/ip-landscape-analysis" --- # IP Landscape Analysis IP Landscape Analysis helps analyze patent landscapes with trend, applicant, citation, and white space views, then turns findings into filing and defense strategy. Use it for IP landscape, patent map, or technology trend requests. **Install:** ```bash npx degit https://github.com/revfactory/harness-100/tree/main/en/100-ip-portfolio/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis ~/.claude/skills/ip-landscape-analysis ``` ## README # IP Landscape Analysis — IP Landscape Analysis Enhances the IP strategy analysis capabilities of the patent-mapper and protection-advisor agents. ## IP Landscape Analysis Process ### 5-Step Analysis Procedure ``` Step 1: Define Technology Scope - Technology keywords + IPC/CPC codes - Search query design Step 2: Data Collection - KIPRIS (Korea), USPTO (US), EPO (Europe) - Search range: Last 10-20 years Step 3: Quantitative Analysis - Filing trends, applicant rankings, technology classification - Patent family analysis Step 4: Qualitative Analysis - Key patent selection, claims analysis - White space identification Step 5: Strategy Derivation - Opportunity/threat mapping - Filing/acquisition/licensing/design-around strategies ``` ## Patent Map Types ### Technology-Timeline Map ``` 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Tech A ## ### #### ##### ###### Tech B # ## ### #### #### Tech C ### ## ## # # Tech D - - # ## #### -> Tech A: Rapid growth, Tech D: Emerging -> Tech C: Declining ``` ### Applicant Portfolio Map | Applicant | Tech A | Tech B | Tech C | Total | |-----------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | Company X | 45 | 32 | 18 | 95 | | Company Y | 38 | 28 | 25 | 91 | | Competitor Z | 52 | 15 | 8 | 75 | | Our Company | 12 | 20 | 5 | 37 | ### Citation Network Map ``` Key patent identification criteria: - Top 10% by forward citations - Examiner citations (higher weight) - Betweenness centrality ``` ## White Space Analysis ### Technology-Market Matrix ``` Market A Market B Market C Tech 1 #### ## .... <- Gap Tech 2 ### .... ## <- Gap Tech 3 .... ### #### <- Gap .... = White Space (no/few filings) -> Strategic filing opportunities ``` ### White Space Types | Type | Description | Strategy | |------|------------|----------| | Technology Gap | Unexplored technology area | Preemptive filing | | Market Gap | Unapplied market/region | Foreign filing | | Applicant Gap | Area competitors have not entered | Rapid portfolio build | ## FTO (Freedom to Operate) Analysis ### FTO Analysis Procedure ``` 1. Confirm target product/technology specifications 2. Search relevant patents (registered/valid patents) 3. Claims analysis (element-by-element comparison) 4. Infringement risk assessment - Literal infringement: All elements match - Doctrine of equivalents: Substantially identical 5. FTO opinion preparation ``` ### Infringement Risk Matrix | Risk | Infringement Likelihood | Impact | Response | |------|----------------------|--------|----------| | High | Literal infringement possible | Core functionality | Design-around / License | | Medium | Equivalents infringement possible | Some functionality | Design-around review | | Low | Low infringement likelihood | Non-core | Monitoring | ## IP Strategy Framework ### Offensive/Defensive Strategies | Strategy | Purpose | Means | |----------|---------|-------| | Patent Fence | Protect core technology | File surrounding patents | | Preemptive Filing | Market entry barrier | Fast filing on new technology | | Cross-Licensing | Mutual practice rights | Portfolio exchange | | Defensive Publication | Block competitor filings | Publish technology (establish prior art) | | Patent Pool | Access standard technology | Industry-wide joint licensing | ### IP Portfolio Optimization ``` Retention Criteria: 3 stars - Core: Directly business-related, high value 2 stars - Important: Defensive value, revenue potential 1 star - Moderate: Review value vs maintenance cost Pruning Criteria: - No business relevance + no licensing demand -> Abandon - Maintenance cost > value -> Sell or abandon - Expiring within 3 years + no utilization plan -> Consider abandonment ``` ## Renewal Management ### Country-Specific Patent Life/Renewal Costs | Country | Patent Term | Renewal Cycle | Cost Trend | |---------|-----------|-------------|-----------| | Korea | Filing date + 20 years | Annual (from year 4) | Increases annually | | United States | Filing date + 20 years | At 3.5/7.5/11.5 years | 3 stages | | Europe (EP) | Filing date + 20 years | Annual (from year 3) | Increases annually | | Japan | Filing date + 20 years | Annual (from year 4) | Increases annually | | China | Filing date + 20 years | Annual | Increases annually | ## Quality Checklist | Item | Criteria | |------|----------| | Search Scope | IPC/CPC + keyword combination | | Quantitative Analysis | Trends, rankings, classification | | White Space Analysis | Technology-market matrix | | FTO | Core products/technologies covered | | Strategy | Offensive/defensive strategies specified | | Portfolio | Retention/pruning criteria defined |