Table of Content

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 5
METHODOLOGY 13
MAIN ASSIGNEES MENTIONED 24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31
PATENT LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW 36
- Time evolution of patent
publications
- Countries of patent filings
- Time evolution, by country of filing
- Ranking of most prolific patent
applicants
- Mapping of main current IP holders
- Mapping of main current IP
applicants
MAIN PATENT ASSIGNEES ANALYSIS 43
- Strength index of patent portfolios
- Patent citation analysis
- IP blocking potential of patent
applicants
- Time evolution for main patent
applicants
- Countries of filing for main patent
applicants
- Summary of applicant’s portfolios
- Patent applicants IP network
- IP leadership of patent applicants
- Granted patents nearing expiration
- Degree of specialization
- Potential future plaintiffs
ANALYSIS, BY TECHNOLOGY 66
- Technical segmentation, by
technology
- Main assignees, by technology
- Time evolution, by technology
- Time evolution, by country
- Legal status, by technology
ANALYSIS, BY APPLICATION 82
- Technical segmentation, by
application
- Main assignees, by application
- Time evolution, by application
- Legal status, by application
MAIN PATENT LITIGATIONS 96
- Illumina vs. Oxford Nanopore
Technologies
- Pacific Biosciences vs. Oxford
Nanopore Technologies
- University of California vs. Roger
Chen and Genia Technologies
IP PROFILE FOR KEY PLAYERS 101
- Harvard University
- University of California
- Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Oxford Nanopore Technologies
- Roche
- Nabsys
- Two Pore Guys
- Quantapore
- Hitachi
- Illumina
- Pacific Biosciences of California
- Sequenom
- Agilent Technologies
- Thermo Fisher Scientific
For each selected player:
- Company profile and news
- Summary of their patent portfolio
- Key patent families
OTHER KEY PATENTS 163
CONCLUSION 173