You are here: IDTechEx.com >> Reports & Subscriptions >> Reports

Advanced Energy Storage Technologies: Patent Trends and Company Positioning

Electric vehicle and other lithium-ion batteries, supercapacitors/ ultracapacitors, battery management systems, chargers

Most Detailed Patent Analysis
"The world's first computer analysis of Advanced Energy Storage patents"
This product is no longer available. Click here to view latest edition

Description

Report by Dr Victor Zhitomirsky of PatAnalyse and Dr Peter Harrop of IDTechEx
This world-first report allows detailed access, in an easily digestible format, into the pattern of patenting activities in the advanced energy storage sector. The report delivers trends for patents registered by country, company, assignee and inventor over a seven year period; invaluable when planning a long-term business strategy for any organisation.
 

 
Download the White Paper "New Frontiers in the Strategic Use of Patent Information" to find out how patent mapping is enabling a greater understanding of patent registration.
 

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.
How can our report help your business:
  • Access patent analysis by country, technology, year, inventor and assignee
  • Reveal which technologies are attracting R&D funding
  • Keep track of technologies emerging from academic research
  • Find out how serious competitive threats are
  • Discover who is investing in R&D; who is withdrawing R&D funding and hence discover where the opportunities are
  • Find out possible acquisition targets to strengthen weaker points of your own patent portfolio
 
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
Sample analysis of Patent Maps
The Advanced Energy Storage Technologies Report uniquely illustrates the distribution of patents using patent maps. Below are some examples of the different kind of patent maps that feature in the report.
 
Enlarge the image.
 
 
Figure 3. Country of Invention vs National Patent Office Country
 
Enlarge the image.
 
Figure 4. Citation links between Top Assignees
 
Enlarge the image.
 
Why does IP (intellectual Property) intelligence matter?
  • Competitor intelligence...strategic IP intelligence is proven to be an important part of strong competitive advantage
  • Firms disclose their secrets - 'patent' them in exchange for a limited monopoly. Through patent analysis you can gain insight into the market and your competitors
  • Google style searches will not provide adequate results on patents - the best set of keywords will miss more than half of the patent portfolio; patents are written by lawyers using obscure not 'Google-friendly' terminology
  • It is impossible to gain IP intelligence without using proper 21st century collaborative on-line technologies
  • Even if using best business processes and tools the IP intelligence study is highly labour intensive
Methodology
The patent search has been carried out using the DocDB patent database provided by the European Patent Office. It has been further restricted to patent families containing either US patents, EP patents, or international PCT patents. Patents taken exclusively in Japan, Korea or China were considered as relatively unimportant inventions as they are not aiming to achieve monopoly rights in the major European or US markets. Indeed all Asian players are actively applying for patents in foreign jurisdictions. For instance, in the subject area of the current patent study Japanese and Korean applicants heavily dominate US patent applications. PatAnalyse has used its iterative self-learning broadly inclusive approaches to searching methods to ensure that all relevant patents are considered. Further details of the methodology are published in the white paper available at www.IDTechEx.com/evWhitePaper. PatAnalyse strongly believe that the key to patent search and analysis is the judicious use of both IT and expert judgement. The core approach is based around good collaboration between the subject area expert insight and judgement on one side, and an artificial intelligence algorithm taking into account an advanced combination of semantics and meta-data pattern recognition on the other side. The algorithms are specifically developed for learning an optimal combination of a huge number of features in prediction or classification tasks. In the past these techniques have routinely demonstrated the ability to find several times more relevant patents than experienced information specialists in client organisations. Results of the search at each iteration step are further manually cleaned from irrelevant entries and classified by the subject area experts under the strict control from the quality audit artificial intelligence algorithm. The quality audit meta-analysis is continuously trained with already classified patents from the patent portfolio. The Initial edition of the Patent Report is restricted to the patents with a priority date from 2005 which represent about half of all patents with a priority from 1990 related to the subject area of the Patent report. As a result the current portfolio includes about 40,000 patents combined into about 12,000 simple patent families.
Free Electric Vehicle Encyclopedia when you purchase this report
Electric Vehicle experts IDTechEx have encapsulated over ten years of research and analysis into an easy to digest electric vehicle encyclopedia. All the technologies are covered and supported with over 100 tables and illustrations and over 200 acronyms and terms are explained. This encyclopedia, worth $1,500, is given as a free PDF download when you buy this report.
Further information
If you have any questions about this report, please do not hesitate to contact our report team at or call Clare on +44 (0) 1223 813 703 if you are based in EMEA or Raoul on +1 617 577 7890 if you are based in the Americas, ROW or Spain.
Analyst access from IDTechEx
All report purchases include includes up to 30 minutes telephone time with an expert analyst who will help you link key findings in the report to the business issues you're addressing. This needs to be used within three months of purchasing the report.
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

Ordering Information

Quotes

"Many of the answers to key questions of technology and business strategy can be found in the patent databases if you know how to find them; PatAnalyse has the powerful tools and expertise to do this"
Alan MacDougall, European Patent Attorney, partner at Mathys & Squire
 
"PatAnalyse offers a really intelligent way to cope with the huge volume of patent information available worldwide."
Dr. Bakuri Lanchava, European Patent Attorney
 
 

Report Statistics

-Pages229
-Tables9
-Figures63
-Forecasts to2021
 

Downloads

pdf Document White Paper: Strategic Use of Patent Information
pdf Document Report Pamphlet
pdf Document About the authors
 

Contact

Dr Victor Zhitomirsky
Primary Author
Raoul Escobar-Franco
Research Sales Manager - Americas, Asia Pacific, Oceania & Spain
+1 617 577 7890
Clare Newell
Research Sales Manager - Europe, Middle East & Africa
+44 (0)1223 812300
Mr Robert Purser
Research Sales - UK, Germany, Denmark & Japan
+44 (0)1223 812300
 

Publications

Supercapacitor / Ultracapacitor Interviews, Strategies, Road Map 2014-2025
Electrochemical Double Layer Capacitors & Supercabatteries AEDLC: Interviews with users and technology suppliers: Advances Creating Extra Markets - Map to 2025
Electrochemical Double Layer Capacitors: Supercapacitors 2014-2024
Ultracapacitors, EDLC, electrochemical capacitors, supercabatteries, AEDLC for electronics and electrical engineering

Conferences

 
print Print Page
email Forward Page
-  Library Recommendation