Skip to Content
MIT Technology Review
  • Featured
  • Topics
  • Newsletters
  • Events
  • Podcasts
    • Sign in

    The TR Patent Scorecard 2001

    Whose patent portfolio is most potent? We rank 150 of the world’s top companies according to the quality and quantity of their patents.
    May 1, 2001

    We ranked companies in key industries according to the quality and quantity of their patents. Here are 150 of the world’s top firms.

    Aerospace
     

    Company

    Lockheed Martin
    313/1

    282/1

    329
    307
    0.95
    0.92
    2.70
    1.82
    8.5
    8.5
    United Technologies
    207/2
    221/2
    345
    335
    0.60
    0.66
    0.33
    0.42
    10.8
    9.8
    Boeing
    153/3
    187/3
    232
    223
    0.66
    0.84
    0.54
    0.78
    11.4
    13.0
    Rockwell International
    114/4
    176/4
    112
    175
    1.02
    1.01
    0.34
    0.53
    7.1
    7.6

    Northrop Grumman

    96/5
    113/5
    132
    145
    0.73
    0.78
    0.37
    0.63
    9.3
    8.9
    Thomson-CSF
    74/6
    83/6
    97
    113
    0.76
    0.73
    0.58
    0.69
    8.8
    8.1
    EADS
    66/7
    75/7
    126
    132
    0.52
    0.57
    0.27
    0.35
    13.4
    10.8
    Textron
    51/8
    73/8
    61
    77
    0.83
    0.95
    0.05
    0.27
    13.3
    10.4
    Sequa
    40/9
    16/11
    29
    16
    1.39
    1.01
    0.07
    0.38
    10.3
    13.5
    SNECMA
    27/10
    31/9
    63
    68
    0.43
    0.45
    0.37
    0.24
    11.1
    11.9
    General Dynamics
    22/11
    12/12
    28
    14
    0.80
    0.81
    0.04
    6.28
    12.4
    10.8
    GKN
    19/12
    23/10
    28
    37
    0.68
    0.62
    0.04
    0.24
    12.1
    9.4
    Alliant Techsystems
    13/13
    6/13
    13
    10
    0.98
    0.63
    0.92
    1.33
    13.3
    10.6

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Automotive
     

    Company

    DaimlerChrysler
    736/1

    344/8

    722
    400
    1.02
    0.86
    0.12
    0.26
    9.2
    8.6
    TRW
    575/2
    412/5
    483
    324
    1.19
    1.27
    0.60
    0.54
    7.4
    7.8
    Bosch
    536/3
    395/7
    630
    429
    0.85
    0.92
    0.11
    0.21
    7.7
    7.2

    Denso

    529/4
    444/2
    468
    373
    1.13
    1.19
    0.18
    0.30
    6.7
    6.9

    Honda

    491/5
    424/4
    501
    372
    0.98
    1.14
    0.09
    0.17
    7.7
    6.6

    Toyota Motor

    472/6
    405/6
    414
    324
    1.14
    1.25
    0.39
    0.36
    6.2
    6.2

    General Motors

    467/7
    482/1
    458
    447
    1.02
    1.08
    0.74
    0.51
    7.2
    7.5

    Ford Motor

    307/8
    434/3
    370
    398
    0.83
    1.09
    0.50
    0.32
    8.4
    8.3

    Nissan Motor

    301/9
    179/11
    276
    166
    1.09
    1.08
    0.05
    0.16
    6.1
    6.2

    Yazaki

    264/10
    240/9
    311
    224
    0.85
    1.07
    0.02
    0.02
    6.3
    6.7

    Eaton

    253/11
    214/10
    232
    218
    1.09
    0.98
    0.17
    0.33
    9.3
    8.9
    Yamaha
    203/12
    117/14
    190
    151
    1.07
    0.78
    0.03
    0.02
    7.3
    8.6
    Aisin Seiki
    200/13
    165/13
    167
    155
    1.20
    1.06
    0.54
    0.51
    6.0
    6.8
    Lear
    169/14
    105/16
    155
    85
    1.09
    1.23
    0.52
    0.90
    9.2
    9.9
    Delphi Automotive Systems
    169/15
    108/15
    155
    101
    1.09
    1.07
    0.19
    0.25
    5.9
    6.6
    ITT
    167/16
    167/12
    185
    173
    0.90
    0.97
    0.08
    0.25
    8.9
    7.8
    Fiat
    163/17
    62/17
    160
    99
    1.02
    0.63
    0.17
    0.20
    10.8
    10.8
    Breed Technologies
    114/18
    42/18
    65
    25
    1.75
    1.68
    0.03
    0.04
    5.9
    6.3

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Biotech/Pharmaceuticals
     

    Company

    GlaxoSmithKline
    269/1
    150/9
    374
    208
    0.72
    0.72
    6.31
    6.60
    8.4
    8.6
    Pharmacia
    178/2
    222/3
    349
    332
    0.51
    0.67
    16.64
    10.10
    10.4
    9.6
    Isis Pharmaceuticals
    175/3
    61/16
    115
    40
    1.52
    1.54
    27.02
    36.74
    5.9
    6.7
    Merck
    170/4
    190/4
    265
    226
    0.64
    0.84
    10.23
    9.84
    6.5
    6.4
    Pfizer
    168/5
    157/7
    259
    199
    0.65
    0.79
    5.76
    5.81
    9.4
    9.3
    Aventis
    154/6
    345/1
    375
    733
    0.41
    0.47
    7.34
    3.85
    10.2
    9.8
    Schering
    147/7
    68/15
    112
    78
    1.31
    0.87
    6.10
    5.52
    8.2
    8.7
    Roche
    139/8
    223/2
    263
    282
    0.53
    0.79
    17.60
    16.12
    8.6
    8.5
    Eli Lilly
    125/9
    168/6
    174
    205
    0.72
    0.82
    7.51
    9.43
    8.5
    8.7
    AstraZeneca
    94/10
    105/12
    204
    170
    0.46
    0.62
    7.11
    5.52
    9.4
    8.5
    Novartis
    93/11
    180/5
    186
    310
    0.50
    0.58
    11.45
    6.01
    8.8
    9.6
    Abbott Laboratories
    88/12
    155/8
    133
    166
    0.66
    0.93
    6.83
    5.01
    9.2
    9.4
    Novo Nordisk
    75/13
    84/13
    183
    132
    0.41
    0.64
    3.92
    6.79
    7.8
    8.2
    Affymetrix
    70/14
    13/23
    27
    7
    2.60
    1.94
    17.15
    12.06
    8.1
    6.6
    Bristol-Myers Squibb
    63/15
    123/11
    117
    160
    0.54
    0.77
    10.38
    9.25
    9.8
    8.6
    BioNumerik Pharmaceuticals
    53/16
    5/24
    23
    5
    2.32
    0.99
    23.70
    18.23
    3.0
    9.3
    Alliance Pharmaceutical
    52/17
    50/20
    15
    18
    3.44
    2.83
    10.67
    11.51
    8.2
    6.9
    General Hospital
    48/18
    52/19
    64
    54
    0.75
    0.96
    30.09
    35.88
    7.3
    8.2
    Takeda Chemical
    43/19
    57/17
    86
    97
    0.50
    0.59
    11.47
    3.23
    8.2
    9.1
    Xoma
    42/20
    27/22
    16
    14
    2.61
    1.88
    28.75
    45.11
    5.3
    5.5
    American Home Products
    41/21
    136/10
    98
    115
    0.42
    1.18
    13.58
    9.84
    8.1
    7.0
    Schering-Plough
    40/22
    54/18
    63
    78
    0.64
    0.69
    15.70
    10.28
    7.0
    10.0
    Incyte Genomics
    37/23
    71/14
    149
    77
    0.25
    0.92
    9.42
    10.29
    3.9
    4.9
    Alza
    37/23  
    42/21
    41
    40
    0.90
    1.06
    4.44
    2.95
    10.3
    10.8

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Chemicals
     

    Company

    Procter & Gamble
    584/1
    773/1
    475
    411
    1.23
    1.88
    1.53
    1.81
    10.8
    10.3
    3M
    558/2
    703/2
    494
    541
    1.13
    1.30
    2.14
    2.34
    10.6
    10.6
    DuPont
    318/3
    402/3
    539
    496
    0.59
    0.81
    8.01
    4.52
    9.6
    9.6
    BASF
    283/4
    317/4
    725
    598
    0.39
    0.53
    1.58
    1.93
    10.1
    10.3
    Bayer
    182/5
    251/5
    467
    523
    0.39
    0.48
    4.07
    2.04
    10.3
    9.4
    Bridgestone
    166/6
    98/12
    187
    132
    0.89
    0.74
    0.53
    1.25
    10.7
    10.6
    Dow Chemical
    158/7
    181/7
    184
    230
    0.86
    0.79
    6.47
    4.39
    10.8
    9.8
    Cabot
    140/8
    33/18
    50
    19
    2.79
    1.74
    3.34
    5.67
    11.9
    10.2
    Shin-Etsu Chemical
    133/9
    128/10
    199
    190
    0.67
    0.67
    0.62
    0.36
    6.9
    7.3
    Agfa
    131/10
    130/8
    222
    186
    0.59
    0.70
    0.07
    0.13
    7.2
    7.4
    E.ON
    124/11
    120/11
    247
    218
    0.50
    0.55
    0.88
    0.78
    8.7
    9.0
    Ciba Specialty Chemicals
    116/12
    67/17
    176
    84
    0.66
    0.79
    1.15
    1.00
    10.4
    10.6
    L’Air Liquide
    110/13
    74/15
    126
    88
    0.87
    0.84
    0.68
    0.85
    9.0
    9.6
    Rohm and Haas
    103/14
    236/6
    136
    205
    0.76
    1.15
    1.51
    0.67
    9.1
    7.6
    Air Products & Chemicals
    100/15
    79/14
    108
    80
    0.93
    0.98
    2.01
    1.29
    10.1
    9.2
    Dow Corning
    92/16
    130/8
    143
    167
    0.64
    0.78
    0.95
    0.85
    9.9
    9.7
    Mitsubishi Chemical
    85/17
    91/13
    127
    147
    0.67
    0.62
    0.65
    0.96
    7.6
    7.7
    Sumitomo Chemical
    78/18
    73/16
    173
    156
    0.45
    0.47
    1.17
    1.29
    9.2
    8.1

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Computers
     

    Company

    IBM
    5561/1
    4580/1
    2927
    2101
    1.90
    2.18
    0.97
    1.25
    5.6
    5.9
    NEC
    2413/2
    1794/2
    2117
    1390
    1.14
    1.29
    0.72
    0.72
    4.9
    5.0
    Hewlett-Packard
    1576/3
    1124/4
    1044
    653
    1.51
    1.72
    0.85
    1.38
    6.1
    6.5
    Fujitsu
    1496/4
    1452/3
    1236
    1052
    1.21
    1.38
    0.55
    0.67
    6.0
    5.7
    Compaq Computer
    1133/5
    991/6
    426
    354
    2.66
    2.80
    1.19
    1.18
    4.6
    5.8
    Hon Hai
    1112/6
    55/20
    397
    37
    2.80
    1.47
    0.00
    0.00
    4.1
    5.1
    Sun Microsystems
    1109/7
    747/7
    468
    266
    2.37
    2.81
    2.07
    1.80
    4.8
    4.3
    Microsoft
    1028/8
    721/8
    357
    211
    2.88
    3.42
    3.07
    2.18
    4.3
    4.5
    Cisco Systems
    911/9
    123/19
    133
    25
    6.85
    4.94
    1.15
    0.90
    5.8
    4.9
    Xerox
    659/10
    999/5
    573
    662
    1.15
    1.51
    1.09
    0.97
    7.0
    6.5
    Seiko Epson
    569/11
    365/11
    409
    242
    1.39
    1.51
    1.27
    0.82
    7.0
    7.2
    3Com
    509/12
    158/16
    178
    48
    2.86
    3.28
    0.38
    0.76
    4.7
    5.2
    Ricoh
    473/13
    477/10
    438
    367
    1.08
    1.30
    0.33
    0.35
    5.8
    5.8
    Seagate Technology
    472/14
    226/13
    295
    125
    1.60
    1.81
    1.11
    0.63
    6.8
    6.4
    OKI Electric
    354/15
    162/15
    290
    130
    1.22
    1.25
    0.28
    0.60
    5.0
    5.1
    Dell Computer
    266/16
    246/12
    94
    88
    2.83
    2.81
    0.06
    0.10
    4.9
    4.8
    NCR
    233/17
    225/14
    142
    137
    1.64
    1.65
    0.49
    0.67
    7.5
    6.6
    EMC
    210/18
    157/17
    87
    45
    2.41
    3.51
    1.33
    1.77
    5.4
    5.5
    Apple Computer
    208/19
    494/9
    91
    184
    2.29
    2.69
    0.87
    1.41
    6.1
    5.2
    Unova
    194/20
    144/18
    123
    66
    1.58
    2.19
    0.57
    0.15
    8.8
    7.9

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Electrical/Electronics
     

    Company

    Canon
    1977/1
    1961/1
    1938
    1581
    1.02
    1.24
    0.52
    0.53
    7.9
    7.4
    Toshiba
    1769/2
    1413/4
    1340
    1104
    1.32
    1.28
    0.68
    0.65
    5.8
    6.0
    Sony
    1694/3
    1424/3
    1436
    1087
    1.18
    1.31
    0.36
    0.35
    5.5
    5.7
    Samsung
    1602/4
    1251/6
    1571
    1043
    1.02
    1.20
    0.19
    0.18
    5.4
    5.6
    Hitachi
    1480/5
    1569/2
    1244
    1198
    1.19
    1.31
    0.67
    0.82
    6.8
    6.6
    Matsushita Electric
    1427/6
    1265/5
    1372
    1081
    1.04
    1.17
    0.50
    0.66
    6.1
    6.0
    Siemens
    1392/7
    764/10
    1497
    878
    0.93
    0.87
    1.11
    1.01
    6.9
    7.2
    Mitsubishi Electric
    1145/8
    1190/7
    1060
    1044
    1.08
    1.14
    0.53
    0.77
    6.0
    6.0
    Koninklijke Philips Electronics
    1078/9
    893/9
    1017
    819
    1.06
    1.09
    0.53
    0.66
    5.8
    6.3
    Eastman Kodak
    777/10
    894/8
    883
    885
    0.88
    1.01
    0.29
    0.38
    8.0
    8.2
    Sharp
    742/11
    566/13
    640
    483
    1.16
    1.17
    0.83
    0.84
    5.4
    5.5
    General Electric
    606/12
    681/11
    819
    765
    0.74
    0.89
    0.63
    0.63
    9.9
    9.5
    Tyco International
    510/13
    658/12
    395
    466
    1.29
    1.41
    0.57
    0.65
    9.2
    9.7
    Tokyo Electron
    476/14
    210/16
    188
    105
    2.53
    1.99
    0.21
    0.11
    6.3
    5.5
    Minolta
    317/15
    241/15
    334
    223
    0.95
    1.08
    0.06
    0.04
    7.0
    6.7
    Murata
    285/16
    177/18
    303
    181
    0.94
    0.98
    0.24
    0.24
    7.5
    7.6
    Sanyo Electric
    254/17
    190/17
    257
    186
    0.99
    1.02
    0.29
    0.57
    5.7
    6.1
    Brother
    245/18
    177/18
    225
    182
    1.09
    0.97
    0.03
    0.04
    6.3
    6.2
    Trimble Navigation
    217/19
    146/20
    85
    49
    2.55
    3.00
    0.19
    0.26
    6.7
    5.4
    Raytheon
    216/20
    299/14
    227
    302
    0.95
    0.99
    0.56
    0.86
    8.3
    8.2
    Emerson Electric
    196/21
    139/21
    213
    178
    0.92
    0.78
    2.22
    1.04
    10.9
    10.2
    Alps Electric
    193/22
    90/22
    205
    94
    0.94
    0.96
    0.03
    0.07
    5.7
    6.2

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Semiconductors
     

    Company

    Micron Technology
    3731/1
    1276/2
    1469
    498
    2.54
    2.56
    2.20
    1.25
    5.6
    5.4
    Advanced Micro Devices
    2363/2
    940/4
    1055
    395
    2.24
    2.38
    0.75
    1.13
    4.9
    5.1
    Intel
    1797/3
    1432/1
    813
    523
    2.21
    2.74
    0.82
    0.90
    5.3
    5.0
    Taiwan Semiconductor
    1383/4
    349/9
    514
    159
    2.69
    2.19
    0.28
    0.28
    3.8
    4.2
    Texas Instruments
    1130/5
    1007/3
    729
    626
    1.55
    1.61
    1.87
    1.28
    6.7
    6.5
    United Microelectronics
    952/6
    344/10
    538
    192
    1.77
    1.79
    0.08
    0.28
    3.5
    4.2
    LSI Logic
    770/7
    466/6
    325
    197
    2.37
    2.37
    1.06
    1.78
    5.0
    6.0
    Hyundai Electronics
    745/8
    536/5
    591
    353
    1.26
    1.52
    0.41
    0.28
    5.1
    5.2
    STMicroelectronics
    593/9
    454/7
    539
    349
    1.10
    1.30
    0.86
    0.98
    6.7
    6.5
    Semiconductor Energy Laboratory
    499/10
    221/12
    164
    111
    3.04
    1.99
    3.58
    1.73
    5.8
    6.2
    Vanguard International Semiconductor
    390/11
    171/14
    131
    62
    2.98
    2.76
    0.16
    0.26
    3.8
    3.8
    Xilinx
    316/12
    185/13
    114
    62
    2.77
    3.00
    0.90
    1.19
    5.4
    5.2
    National Semiconductor
    286/13
    351/8
    187
    204
    1.53
    1.72
    1.07
    1.56
    5.8
    5.8
    Altera
    268/14
    138/15
    97
    40
    2.76
    3.44
    5.06
    2.14
    7.2
    6.5
    Chartered Semiconductor
    261/15
    53/18
    79
    25
    3.30
    2.07
    0.14
    0.22
    3.5
    4.5
    Lam Research
    228/16
    67/17
    81
    29
    2.81
    2.28
    1.42
    0.80
    6.6
    6.3
    Cirrus Logic
    223/17
    224/11
    112
    100
    1.99
    2.24
    1.47
    1.36
    6.7
    5.8
    Cypress Semiconductors  
    188/18
    130/16
    113
    64
    1.66
    2.03
    1.42
    1.06
    5.6
    5.2

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Telecommunications
     

    Company

    Lucent Technologies
    2485/1
    1701/2
    1445
    881
    1.72
    1.93
    1.31
    1.78
    5.4
    5.4
    Motorola
    2035/2
    2148/1
    1241
    1193
    1.64
    1.80
    0.63
    0.76
    5.4
    5.5
    Ericsson Telephone
    1651/3
    714/3
    775
    320
    2.13
    2.23
    0.99
    1.32
    5.2
    5.8
    BCE
    1024/4
    369/5
    472
    179
    2.17
    2.06
    0.89
    1.09
    4.8
    4.9
    AT&T
    875/5
    566/4
    343
    135
    2.55
    4.18
    1.07
    1.12
    4.6
    4.8
    Nokia
    630/6
    259/8
    306
    163
    2.06
    1.59
    0.49
    0.53
    5.3
    5.3
    Alcatel
    478/7
    319/7
    423
    285
    1.13
    1.12
    0.79
    1.06
    6.4
    6.7
    Qualcomm
    451/8
    350/6
    111
    63
    4.06
    5.56
    0.71
    1.47
    6.7
    6.4
    Verizon Communications
    375/9
    147/11
    93
    74
    4.03
    1.99
    0.73
    1.75
    5.9
    6.1
    Cabletron Systems
    253/10
    116/12
    41
    17
    6.18
    6.98
    2.00
    2.39
    5.2
    4.5
    MCI Worldcom
    216/11
    193/10
    82
    63
    2.64
    3.05
    0.99
    1.13
    4.7
    4.6
    Nippon Telegraph & Telephone
    168/12
    204/9
    127
    120
    1.32
    1.70
    2.04
    2.15
    4.6
    5.0
    Ciena
    109/13
    30/17
    26
    6
    4.18
    4.61
    1.73
    1.97
    5.0
    4.1
    JDS Uniphase
    100/14
    57/15
    52
    36
    1.93
    1.61
    2.21
    1.31
    7.1
    7.5
    Qwest Communications International
    97/15
    105/13
    29
    33
    3.33
    3.16
    0.34
    1.13
    4.1
    5.0
    British Telecommunications
    95/16
    78/14
    70
    60
    1.35
    1.31
    3.36
    3.54
    6.5
    5.9
    BellSouth
    92/17
    52/16
    27
    19
    3.42
    2.80
    0.30
    0.45
    5.1
    5.7

    *average

    Indexing Innovation

    Technology Review has teamed with CHI Research of Haddon Heights, NJ, to produce the Patent Scorecard, an industry-by-industry ranking of corporate patent portfolios. CHI combines the number of a firm’s patents with other indicators to flesh out this deeper picture of innovation. Here are the specifics:

    Technology Strength: This figure, the basis of the rankings, provides an overall assessment of a firm’s intellectual-property power. It is calculated by multiplying the number of a company’s U.S. patents by its Current Impact Index (see below).

    Number of Patents: The total number of U.S. patents awarded, excluding design and other special-case inventions.

    Current Impact Index: This measure showcases the broader significance of a company’s patents by examining how often its U.S. patents from the previous five years are cited as “prior art” in the current year’s batch. A value of 1.0 represents average citation frequency; so 1.4 would indicate a company’s patents were cited 40 percent more often than average, and so on.

    Science Linkage: Patents sometimes cite scientific papers as prior art. This value shows the average number of science references listed in a company’s U.S. patents. A high figure indicates the company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

    Technology Cycle Time: An indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property, defined as the median age (in years) of the U.S. patents cited as prior art in the company’s patents.

    Keep Reading

    Most Popular

    A Roomba recorded a woman on the toilet. How did screenshots end up on Facebook?

    Robot vacuum companies say your images are safe, but a sprawling global supply chain for data from our devices creates risk.

    A startup says it’s begun releasing particles into the atmosphere, in an effort to tweak the climate

    Make Sunsets is already attempting to earn revenue for geoengineering, a move likely to provoke widespread criticism.

    10 Breakthrough Technologies 2023

    Every year, we pick the 10 technologies that matter the most right now. We look for advances that will have a big impact on our lives and break down why they matter.

    These exclusive satellite images show that Saudi Arabia’s sci-fi megacity is well underway

    Weirdly, any recent work on The Line doesn’t show up on Google Maps. But we got the images anyway.

    Stay connected

    Illustration by Rose Wong

    Get the latest updates from
    MIT Technology Review

    Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

    Thank you for submitting your email!

    Explore more newsletters

    It looks like something went wrong.

    We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.