Dr Sara Holland – Supplementary written evidence (ENB0055)

Follow up evidence from Dr Sara Holland (Patent Attorney at Potter Clarkson), following an evidence session on Tuesday 15 May 2024.

Dear House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee,

I would like to thank you very much for inviting me to present evidence relating to Intellectual Property in the context of engineering biology.  I hope you found this useful.

I am following up with this formal written evidence, specifically to provide further information relating to a point raised by Viscount Stansgate. 

Based on information in DSIT’s Engineering Biology Vision it seemed that there was some disconnect in terms of investment raised by UK engineering biology companies and patents granted.  I pointed out that there were likely many reasons why a solid conclusion between two different data sets could not be reached.  A key reason being that the different data sets were taken over very different time periods and did not, based on what I see anecdotally, reflect the real situation in terms of patents filed.

Whilst I personally cannot comment on the investment landscape, I submit this additional evidence demonstrating that the UK is a leader in commercial engineering biology innovation.

I have been working for some time with Ashley Evans and his company Inevus Advanced Analytics Ltd, to conduct a robust, deep-dive into the patent situation in engineering biology.  After I gave evidence I asked Inevus to conduct some specific analysis focussing on the UK, and where the UK sits in terms of engineering biology patent filings with respect to other countries.  The results of this are in the attached report.

Whilst all large patent datasets are liable to some error (for example should a particular technology fall within engineering biology or not), Inevus Advanced Analytics have manually curated the engineering biology dataset and I believe this is to be a very robust tool with which to conduct analysis.

The dataset focuses on European patent filings.  Whilst we acknowledge that this will not capture companies that file only in their home territories such as the US and China, the  companies that do take a more global approach to their IP (and so are likely to be the more serious players) do tend to elect to file a European patent application.  The dataset therefore is expected to capture engineering patent applications that are filed by engineering biology companies that take their intellectual property seriously and is a good compromise to the alternative which would be to compile very large detailed datasets for all major patent territories, which would be unpracticable given the level of curation of the current dataset.

Period of active growth for UK Engineering Biology comparable to that of US and absent in many other countries

In terms of European patents published during 2004-2023 (and so filed between 2002-2021 due to an 18 month delay between filing and publicatoin), the UK ranks 5th in the world (i.e. patent applications filed by UK based companies), closely behind France, with Germany and Japan in 2nd and 3rd place, with the US clearly leading.

However, I would like to draw your attention to Figure 2, which sets out the number of European patents published each year since 2004 by applicants in each of the top 20 countries of origin, and Table 1 setting out the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).  The interesting point is the very evident and rapid growth in published patents filed by UK based companies since 2014. 

If we contrast this to the US, which the UK always compares itself to, we can see that although the UK has understandably lower absolute numbers of patent filings, the upward trajectory is very similar between the two countries, with the US having a CAGR of 7% and the UK 6% between 2014 and 2023.

Separately looking at the UK verses other countries such as Germany and France, it is clear that the UK is in a relatively unique (across Europe) period of strong growth, and engineering biology should be a focus for any government to ensure that this momentum is not lost.  Korea and China are growing rapidly in this context and the UK should ensure it does not fall behind.  The investment into the Engineering Biology Mission Hubs should help, provided that the outputs are appropriately commercialised.

UK-based inventors “inventing” for non-UK based companies?

Figure 3, which focuses on the nationality of the inventors, rather than location of the applicant (company), also shows interesting findings.  The upward trajectory is similar, but the overall numbers of filings are somewhat higher.  In 2023 we have 413 published European applications filed by a UK-based applicant, 497 published patent applications which name a UK-based inventor and 523 published patent applications which have at least one UK-based applicant or inventor.  This suggests that there may be an additional 92 (or 21% of the 523 European patent applications filed by a UK-based applicant or inventor) patent applications to which a UK-based inventor has contributed, but which has been filed by an applicant based outside of the UK.

This fits with the world-renowned research base that we have in the UK and reflects the collaborative nature of engineering biology.

Private company, government non-profit and university applicants

There is much talk about the US university spin-out ecosystem, and so we wondered if there were proportionally more engineering biology applications filed by US universities than UK universities.  Figure 6 shows that there is no real difference, and if anything UK universities actually file proportionally more engineering biology patent applications than US universities. Appropriately implementing recommendations from the spin-out review would likely lead to an increased number of filings in the name of UK universities.

However, there is a tendency to focus on spin-outs and university originating research, as if that is where engineering biology comes from.  The analysis in the report shows that actually most engineering biology patent applications filed by US and UK applicants are filed in the name of a private company.  Innovation in engineering biology is now not solely the regard of academic institutions, and programmes such as Wilbe, Carbon13 and Entrepreneur first are enabling the formation and growth of companies entirely independently of university research.  We must not be blind to this and dedicate all resource to university originating innovation.

Engineering biology is a specific growth area for the UK

The upward trajectory shown for UK-based applicants filing patent applications relating to Engineering Biology is not a general trend seen for patent filings by UK companies overall.  Figure 9 shows the patent filings made by UK applicants across all technology areas; biotechnology; and specifically engineering biology.

Patent filing publication figures in engineering biology filed by UK based applicants has grown at 10.2% over the last 10 years, contrasting to only 3.7% for patent filings across all technology areas.

Engineering biology therefore is not just something that the UK is strong in relative to other countries, but engineering biology looks to be a key growth area within the UK (and matches my own anecdotal experiences).

Regional distribution

In total 57.6% of the UK-based applicants of the European patent applications filed in engineering biology have been filed from within the golden triangle.  This clearly highlights the region as a global hub for engineering biology, but also emphasises both the disparity between the golden triangle and the rest of the UK and the potential opportunities for the growth elsewhere in the UK. There are small regional hubs for engineering biology around the UK, typically located around the UK Synthetic Biology centres, in places such as Nottingham and Edinburgh, with perhaps the industrial focus of the Manchester “SYNBIOCHEM” centre helping secure Manchester as the area with the highest number of engineering biology patent filings outside of the golden triangle.  Aberdeen is also a stand-out regional area for engineering biology patent filings.

The regional distribution of the Engineering Biology Mission Hubs should help to continue to raise the rest of the profile of the UK.  However, anecdotally there is still a feeling that companies must relocate to the golden triangle to be successful, despite the very high cost of lab space and competition for talent.  Engineering biology should be an opportunity for the entire UK, providing skilled and less-skilled jobs for the whole country.

I hope that this additional analysis is useful to you, and Ashley and I are available should you have any further questions or require any additional insights.

17 June 2024

Synthetic Biology, Patent analytics: Investigating assignee/inventor country trends by Potter Clarkson LLP and Inevus Advanced Analytics LTD

Synthetic Biology – Assignee / inventor country trends

1 Methodology

This report analyses the patent landscape of synthetic biology (SynBio) patents at the European Patent Office (EPO), investigating assignee and inventor country trends. The dataset explores published EP applications during January 2004 - December 2023, where the EP application has an A1 or A2 kind code. In total 83,947 INPADOC patent families were identified via relevant IPC/CPC classifications and specialist keyword searches. The dataset was retrieved and exported using Questel Orbit during May 2024, with bespoke analysis carried out in June 2024.

The EP country limitation helps to retrieve a manageable number of search hits, whilst also ensuring a reasonably adequate sample, representative of the synthetic biology field. In some instances data cleaning was carried out via the Python & R programming languages to process the exported dataset. Only EP published applications with the kind codes A1 & A2 have been analysed to avoid counting publications such as corrections etc.

The analysis is delivered in two parts:

INPADOC Patent family counts - The analysis explores patent families, using the data from a singular EP family representative. Individual families are therefore only counted once.

Whilst the publications can be grouped by INPADOC patent families, to examine publication trends, data was judged to be complete for singular publications due to the searching procedures carried out.

EP (A1/A2) patent application counts – publication trends were analysed using the EP published applications identified, based on publication dates without patent family grouping.

Publication dates are used as an indicator of demand. Patent publication data looks forward, for example, peaks and troughs reflect changes in underlying filing activity from the years prior. See limitations section for further information.

1.1 Resident country details

This report provides resident country figures for each EP publication based on the assignee or inventor country. The data has been standardised to ensure that a specific country is only counted once for each family in section 2. In section 3, a single publication is only counted once for each resident country. The patent assignee can be an organization(s) and individual(s) that have an ownership interest in the legal rights a patent offers.

For figures related to assignee or inventor, the data was merged and duplicates were removed to ensure specific country codes are only counted once per publication. Patent databases do not provide this data field as standard. Bespoke data analysis was carried out to synthesise the data and standardise the format for correct counting procedures. Arguably the analysis of assignee or inventor country together provides the most comprehensive analysis. It also ensures capture of scenarios where headquarters may be offshore (assignee country) but the inventor country reflects R&D carried out in a specific resident country. The standardisation of counting procedures enables a fair and transferable methodology across the different resident countries identified.

2. Key Findings

2.1 INPADOC Patent Family Analysis

During the publication period 2004-2014, the United Kingdom was ranked 5th when analysing the assignee, inventor and assignee or inventor resident country for the INPADOC patent families identified. The difference between France in 4th place and the United kingdom in 5th is only 261 families, when examining the assignee OR inventor countries

2.2 EP (A1/A2) patent application analysis

2.2.1 Publication trends

The United Kingdom exhibits an increasing publication trend for assignee, inventor and assignee or inventor resident country (figs. 2, 3 & 4). When analysing the most complete residency figures (assignee or inventor country), in 2023 the United kingdom had 497 published EP applications and France 401 applications. The UK was second in Europe behind Germany. In 2023, the UK is ranked 5th overall (based on published EP application figures) behind Japan (504), China (666), Germany (672) and the United States (4359).

2.2.2 Compound annual growth rates (CAGR)

The United Kingdom is growing at a faster rate than two of the top ranked countries, Germany and Japan, during both publication periods of 2014-23 and 2019-23 (table 1). There is little to separate the United kingdom and Japan based on the publication figures in 2023. However, the United Kingdom is growing at a slower rate than China and South Korea. Whilst Germany’s CAGR is lower than the UK’s, figure 4 reveals elevated and consistent publication trends for German assignees and inventors.

2.2.3 Published applications per capita

Using the ratio of number of published European applications during 2023 per million inhabitants, the United Kingdom was ranked 12th (figure 5). This is quite far behind other European countries and the US in particular which leads the synthetic biology field. A mid table ranking for the UK in terms of innovative performance per capita.

2.2.4 Sector Analysis

The analysis carried out in figure 6 shows approx.67% of the published applications analysed had at least one company assignee and approx. 27% had at least one University assignee for the United States as resident country. The United Kingdom compares closely with approx. 71% and 24% respectively. Whilst the number of assignees in the United States are vastly higher, the UK has a comparable percentage of company & university stakeholders within the synthetic biology technology field.

The compound annual growth rates during 2014-2023 for UK universities was 7.6% and for companies 12.2%. The compound annual growth rates during 2014-2023 for US universities was 11.2% and for companies 6.7%. The rates of growth are quite similar but the US portfolio is much larger when compared with the UK.

2.2.5 UK resident SynBio trends compared with other UK resident areas

The synthetic biology field was shown to have a higher compound annual growth rate than biotechnology and UK assignee or inventor resident country publications generally. This suggests the synthetic biology field is an important innovative field with promising growth rates relative to UK patenting activity amongst assignees and inventors at the European Patent Office (EPO).

2.2.6 UK regional analysis

The mapping of synthetic biology UK assignees to UK ITL3 regions indicates hotspots in Oxfordshire & Cambridgeshire CC with an expectedly strong presence in the London area given the number of headquarters, etc. There is a much lower distribution of patenting activity across the country beyond these hotspots.

2.3 Summary

As a resident country the United Kingdom is positioned as a leading country for both patent family counts and growth rates of individual EP A1/A2 publications. Synthetic Biology is a fast growing field with many countries identified having strong growth when comparing compound annual growth rates. In 2023, the United Kingdom has been overtaken by China, based on the number of EP A1/A2 publications with either a resident assignee or inventor.

The UK has a comparable percentage of University stakeholders when compared with the United States and similar compound annual growth rates, suggesting a healthy environment for startup development and good potential for university spinoffs, etc. However, the UK is an average performer at best when innovation is judged on published applications per capita. The distribution of published applications by UK region revealed prominent hotspots in Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and the City of London with a significant drop off in other regions.

The United Kingdom will require further progress in Synthetic Biology innovation to maintain pace with the top countries identified and consolidate its leading position. Development of innovative hubs in Synthetic Biology beyond the hotspots of Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and London will enhance the innovative potential of existing stakeholders. Developing the UK’s position as a leader in Synthetic Biology and keeping pace with the high rates of growth and innovation occurring in several territories identified.

3. INPADOC Patent Family Analysis

3.1 Assignee & inventor analysis

The assignees or inventors of patent families are assigned a country code. This is typically determined by the country of the assignee address or inventor details of the person(s) or organisation(s) involved [1]. The UK assignee or inventor country designation represents a UK resident assignee or inventor. The overall totals of the top 20 assignee, inventor and assignee or inventor countries are disclosed in figure 1. The totals indicate the number of patent families with at least one specific country resident. The assignee or inventor country figures were produced to supplement the restricted analysis of just looking at assignee country or inventor country in isolation.

Figure 1. Top 20 assignee/inventor countries based on identified EP synthetic biology patent families published 2004-23.

3.2 Key findings

Figure one reveals the UK is ranked 5th based on the counts of UK families where there is at least one UK assignee, inventor and assignee or inventor. The United States is a leading country in Synthetic Biology. The difference between France in 4th place and the United kingdom in 5th is only 261 families, when examining the assignee or inventor countries.

4. EP (A1/A2) patent application analysis

4.1 Assignee country publication trends

The publication trends of the top 20 synthetic biology assignee countries were investigated in figure 2, based on published EP applications during 2004-2023. For each country relevant applications are only counted once by their specific publication date.

Figure 2. The publication trends of the top 20 assignee countries, based on EP A1/A2 published applications during 2004-2023.

4.1.1 Key findings

The UK has a rapidly increasing publication trend since 2015. In recent years the UK has overtaken France. In 2023 the United kingdom had 413 published EP applications whilst France had 322 published applications. The UK is currently second in Europe behind Germany. In 2023, the UK is ranked 6th overall (based on publication figures) behind Korea (446), Japan (498), Germany (566), China (609) and the United States (3926).

4.2 Inventor country publication trends

The publication trends of the top 20 synthetic biology inventor countries were investigated in figure 3, based on published EP applications during 2004-2023. For each country relevant applications are only counted once by their specific publication date.

Figure 3. The publication trends of the top 20 inventor countries, based on EP A1/A2 published applications during 2004-2023.

4.2.1 Key findings

The UK has a rapidly increasing publication trend since 2015. In recent years the UK has overtaken France. In 2023 the United Kingdom had 497 published EP applications and France had 401 published applications. The UK is currently second in Europe behind Germany. In 2023 the UK is ranked 5th overall (based on published EP application figures) behind Japan (504), China (666), Germany (672) and the United States (4359).

4.3 Assignee OR inventor publication trends

The publication trends of the top 20 synthetic biology assignee or inventor countries were investigated in figure 4, based on published EP applications during 2004-2023. For each country relevant applications are only counted once by their specific publication date.

The publication figures for each year encompass published EP applications with at least one inventor or assignee from the specific country identified. These figures represent the most complete dataset as assignee country figures are supplemented with inventor country data.

Figure 4. The publication trends of the top 20 assignee or inventor countries, based on EP A1/A2 published applications during 2004-2023.

4.3.1 Key findings

The UK has a rapidly increasing publication trend since 2015. In recent years the UK has overtaken France. In 2023 the United Kingdom had 523 published EP applications and France had 421 published applications. The UK was second in Europe behind Germany. In 2023 the UK is ranked 4th overall (based on published EP application figures) behind China (683), Germany (734) and the United States (4444). Japan is ranked 5th (522), a negligible difference with the UK.

4.4 Exploring growth rates

To further drill down into the findings from figure 4 related to assignee or inventor country figures, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was calculated in table 1.

Table 1. Summary statistics and CAGR of the top 20 countries identified for assignee OR inventor country, sorted by 2023 total published applications.

[A]Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) calculated based on 2014-2023 & 2019-23 publication periods. Values above 5% have been bolded. CAGR is a representative figure only.

Table 1 shows the United Kingdom is growing at a faster rate than two of the top ranked countries, Germany and Japan, during both publication periods of 2014-23 and 2019-23. There is a negligible difference between the United Kingdom and Japan based on the publication figures in 2023. Given the rate of growth amongst Chinese and Korean assignees and inventors, the United Kingdom will require further progress to maintain pace with the top countries identified and consolidate it’s leading position. Whilst the CAGR of Germany is lower when compared with the UK, figure 4 reveals elevated and consistent publication trends for assignees and inventors based in Germany.

4.5 Published applications per capita

To assess the innovative performance of the assignee or inventor countries identified in table 1, the number of published patent applications with kind code A1 or A2 can be related to the size of the country’s population. Figure 5 shows the resident country ranking based on the ratio of number of published European applications during 2023 per million inhabitants, capped to the top 20.

Figure 5. EP applications per million inhabitants for assignee and/or inventor resident countries, published during 2023.

The data analysis in figure 5 is based on the resident country covering either a resident assignee or inventor, such that a country is only counted once per published application. The population figures were sourced from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division [2]. The United Kingdom is ranked 12th, with a noticeably lower ratio than the United States and to a lesser extent Germany which have been identified as key territories. The UK is ranked 2nd in Europe based on publication counts in 2023 (Table 1 & Figure 4). However, figure 5 reveals there are many European countries with much higher ratios of published applications per capita for synthetic biology related EP published applications (A1/A2 kind codes) during 2023.

4.6 Sector Analysis

The top 3 types of assignee sectors were investigated for the UK and as a comparison country, the United States. Data was retrieved from PATSTAT (the EPO’s patent statistical analysis database [3]) for the United States. The sectors were manually assigned for the UK by processing the data exported from Questel Orbit. It was found that data coverage was not adequate to extend the analysis beyond the US when relying on PATSTAT data. For example some assignees had missing data or were ‘UNKOWN’. The following data analysis represents a subset or sample from which approximate conclusions can be drawn as a guide. The analysis applies to assignee country only, inventors aren’t classified by sector. Figure 6 shows the breakdown by sector of assignees based in the US & UK.

Figure 6. The breakdown by top 3 sectors of assignees based in the US & UK.

The analysis carried out in figure 6 reveals for the United States, approx.67% of the published applications analysed had at least one company assignee and approx. 27% had at least one university assignee. The United Kingdom compares closely with approx. 71% and 24% respectively. With complete data the figures for the US may be even higher.

The assignees involved in the company and university sectors were analysed to investigate publication trends and assess if there are growing publication trends and levels of innovation using patent counts as a proxy. The publication trends are shown in figures 7 & 8.

Figure 7. The publication trends of UK company and university assignees (2004-2023).

Figure 8. The publication trends of UK company and university assignees (2004-2023).

In figures 7 & 8, there is evidence of increasing publication trends for both UK & US company and university assignees (based on the available data). For both countries the University & Company trendlines are peaking in 2023. Whilst the US is vastly larger in SynBio patent portfolio size than the UK, there are similarities in the breakdowns of University involvement and both exhibit positive growing trendlines.

The compound annual growth rates during 2014-2023 for UK universities was 7.6% and for companies 12.2%. The compound annual growth rates during 2014-2023 for US universities was 11.2% and for companies 6.7%. The rates are similar but the US portfolio is much larger than the UK.

4.7 UK SynBio compared with other UK areas

For further context the UK publication trends where an EP A1/A2 publication had at least one Assignee, Inventor or one of the Assignee or Inventors being UK resident was investigated to assess the rate of growth of SynBio patenting activity, shown in figure 9.

Figure 9. The publication trends of UK resident assignees and inventors for the UK generally with no subject matter limit, the biotechnology field and the synthetic biology field.

In figure 9 the data is based on published EP A1/A2 kind code specs. The WIPO technology concordance was used to search Biotechnology patents using the EPO full-text search database (EPAB 2024/24). The synthetic biology data is a bespoke project exported from Questel Orbit. The specialist fields of Biotechnology and Synthetic Biology appear to be growing at a faster rate which was investigated in table 2.

Table 2. The compound annual growth rates during 2014-23 of EP A1/A2 publications with UK resident assignee or inventors within the UK generally, the biotechnology field and the synthetic biology field.

[A]Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) calculated based on 2014-2023 publication periods. Highest values have been bolded. CAGR is a representative figure only.

Table 2 indicates the synthetic biology field is growing at a faster rate in the UK than biotechnology and the UK overall (no subject matter limit) when comparing the CAGR of EP published applications (A1or A2 kind code specifications), published during 2014-2023. There are higher levels of publications by UK resident assignees or inventors within the synthetic biology field, with an increasing trendline.

4.8 UK regional analysis

The identified UK dataset for SynBio EP published applications (A1/A2 kind codes) with a UK resident assignee was mapped to UK postcodes using GeoJSON data obtained from the Office of National Statistics. Inventor address data was not used. This enables UK postcodes to be mapped to ITL3 regions (a replacement to the Eurostat system) [4] as shown in figure 10. The data below excludes the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and overseas territories beyond direct UK borders. The analysis is only possible with assignee address data.

Figure 10. SynBio published EP applications (A1/A2) mapped to UK ITL3 regions based on postcode data derived from assignee addresses. The top 20 ITL3 regions are also highlighted, based on EP (A1/A2) publications published during 2004-23.

The UK map in figure 10 indicates hotspots in Oxfordshire & Cambridgeshire CC with an expectedly strong presence in the London area given the number of headquarters, etc. There is a somewhat low key distribution across the country. The totals are derived from counting the ITL3 region of each UK resident application of every EP A1/A2 publication identified. If a patent publication had more than one assignee based in specific areas, the publication could be counted multiple times to reflect this.

5. Limitations

The accuracy of the analysis carried out is dependent on the coverage of the databases used; Questel Orbit & PATSTAT& EPO full-text search. The databases cannot guarantee they are error free and complete. The dataset is subject to the standard 18-month publication delay, due to the publication routines and examination timeframes of patent offices. Therefore, the dataset represents a snapshot in time. The use of EP patent publications organised by INPADOC families acts as a proxy to retrieve prominent patent families within the synthetic biology field. The analysis identifies key trends with a standardised methodology, it is not intended to be exhaustive due to complexity issues. Furthermore, previous attempts to map synthetic biology landscapes have shown a high difficulty level [5].

The dataset aims to capture key technologies within the synthetic biology field which broadly encompass engineering biology. In doing so the dataset captures broader biotechnology patents which form the background from which synthetic biology technologies have emerged e.g. protein engineering, genetic engineering and much more, including biofuels, etc. A major part of the dataset methodology relies on using patent families within entire highly relevant IPC/CPC classification codes which have been assigned to the patent portfolios of prominent synthetic biology companies identified. This was further supplemented with keyword searches to extend the scope of the analysis, sufficiently balancing the need for precision and recall.

5.1 Data accuracy – UK Map

The UK map dataset does not account for changes of premises amongst businesses, companies which have moved headquarters offshore, etc. Manual checks of the EPO register were carried out where address data had errors or to confirm multiple entries.

17 June 2024

6. References

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744924/

[2] Source of population figures: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

[3] https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/business/patstat#:~:text=The%20PATSTAT%20product%20line%20forms,consists%20of%20two%20individual%20databases.

[4] https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat

[5] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/483826v1.full.pdf