Innovation Momentum – Methodology 

Introduction and Context 

This methodology section is designed to provide clarity and insight into the data processes used in the LexisNexis Innovation Momentum report, without making any commitments or guarantees.

Data Source 

The data presented in the Innovation Momentum report was derived from the LexisNexis^® PatentSight+™ database. This is a unique resource that includes:

• Worldwide patent data from various patent offices.
• Manually checked and curated corporate ownership information, originally derived from business registers and annual reports. Our expert researchers, fluent in multiple global languages, validate and enrich this information to ensure patent families are accurately assigned to their ultimate commercial beneficiaries.

Relying on this source ensures that the data is up to date and the results are consistent and reproducible.

The Innovation Momentum Methodology

The Innovation Momentum was developed as a method to identify and recognize the top patent owners, without discriminating between small and large portfolios. It considers small, high-quality, and well-maintained large portfolios. This methodology​​:

• is applicable across categories such as technologies, industries, patent owners, or geographical regions.​​
• is consistent with the existing PatentSight indicators;​​
• changes year-on-year;​​
• identifies young, strong, small patent portfolios;​​
• identifies large, well-maintained patent portfolios;​​
• does not depend on non-patent or third-party data;​​

The Innovation Momentum Calculation

Referring to the chart above, a portfolio has​

• a Technology Relevance of TR₁ ​for a Reporting Date 2 years ago; and​
• a Technology Relevance of TR₂ ​for the current Reporting Date.​

The Technology Relevance for the current Reporting Date is split into three portions:​

• The Technology Relevance from ​2 years ago in today’s terms.​
• An expected increase or decrease in the Technology Relevance that may have occurred ​
  • due to the increase or decrease in Portfolio Size and​
  • due to the increase or decrease in the average Technology Relevance​ across the database
• The portion that exceeds expectations, defined as the “momentum”.​

Innovation Momentum Data Selection

Data Retrieval Timing

• The last Reporting Date of the previous calendar year (12/31/2025) is used as the reference point.
• The Reporting Date concept allows us to “travel back in time” and to analyze a patent portfolio as it was in the past.

Inclusion Criteria for Patent Owners

• Owners must have at least 10 active patent families to be included.
• Active patent families are defined as those with:
  • At least one granted or pending patent (actively maintained/ fees paid) in the reporting timeframe.

Handling Subsidiaries and Parent Companies

• A parent company and all its subsidiaries are merged into a single Ultimate Owner.
• This ensures that innovation performance reflects actual R&D activity rather than corporate structuring.

Standard Parent-Subsidiary Treatment

• A parent company and all its subsidiaries are considered as a single Ultimate Owner for Innovation Momentum report purposes.
• Example: Bosch includes patents from BSH Hausgeraete GmbH, Bosch Automotive Systems and other R&D subsidiaries.

Separate Lists for Universities & Public Research Institutes

• Universities & Public Research institutes are mentioned separately from corporate entities.
• Two separate lists are created:
  • Corporate Top 100: The 100 strongest corporate patent owners based on the Innovation Momentum methodology.
  • Universities & Public Research: Institutions that would have made it into the Top 100 Corporate list but are listed separately.
• This ensures a clear distinction between corporate innovation and academic/public research contributions.

Industry Categories

The following are the industry categories of the patent owners identified for the Innovation Momentum report:

1. Pharmaceuticals
2. Information Technologies
3. Chemicals and Materials
4. Electronics
5. Semiconductors
6. Medical Technologies
7. Consumer Goods
8. Engineering
9. Automotive
10. Biotechnologies
11. Technology R&D
12. Appliances
13. Conglomerates
14. Academics and Public Research

Special Cases:

Hybrid Companies: For companies like Tesla, Samsung, GE, and Siemens:

• Categorization based on the industry they are primarily known for.
• Example: Tesla is categorized under Automotive, not Electronics.

Academics and Public Research

For entities like Harvard, ETRI Korea, etc.:

• These are categorized separately, irrespective of any focus technology area.

Private R&D-driven companies are categorized under Technology R&D.

Consistency of Data Results

At LexisNexis Intellectual Property Solutions, we are committed to maintaining the accuracy and reliability of our reports. Each report undergoes a thorough review process by a team of subject matter experts, who rerun the search queries multiple times to ensure reproducibility. This review process is designed to ensure our published reports are as accurate and reliable as possible while acknowledging the limitations of the original data sources, such as inconsistencies and timeliness.

It is important to note that each report represents a snapshot of data at a specific point in time. Patent data evolves daily: patents that were active yesterday may have lapsed or expired today, while pending patents may have been granted in the interim. Ownership of patents also changes frequently. As a result, the representation of companies in a report may shift over time as a result of these updates.