Top Patent Filers of 2018 – Software, Gaming and FinTech Companies Prominent Despite Questions Over Eligibility

In the 2018 calendar year, the number of standard patent filings in Australia in grew modestly, by 3.6%, to 29,960.  This growth was reflected in both direct national filings, up from 9,007 to 9,046, and National Phase filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), up from 19,898 to 20,914.  Meanwhile, the number of provisional applications filed fell once again, by 5.2% from 5,182 to 4,943.  Applications for the condemned innovation patent, however, increased from 1,816 in 2017 to 2,121 in 2018, although abuse of the system by Chinese applicants seeking government subsidies at home remains rife, probably accounting for nearly a quarter of all innovation patent filings.

Interestingly, despite continuing uncertainty amid rejections by IP Australia of applications directed to so-called computer-implemented business methods, companies with significant interests in software, gaming/gambling, and financial technology (‘fintech’) feature strongly among the top applicants for Australian patents in 2018.  These companies include Qualcomm, Aristocrat Technologies Australia, Apple, LG Electronics, Huawei, Accenture Global Solutions, Samsung, Visa International, Mastercard International, Facebook, and Google.

The fall in provisional filings is disturbing, and continues a trend that has been virtually unbroken since the start of the millennium – in 2000, the number of provisional applications filed hit a peak of 7,434, and has declined almost every year since then.  As far as I can tell, the number of provisional applications filed in Australia has not been below 5,000 since at least as far back as the mid-1980s.  The overwhelming majority of provisional applications are filed by Australian resident companies and individuals, and the number of filings thus reflects a combination of the amount of innovation taking place in the Australian economy, and the level of interest from Australians in protecting their ideas through the patent system.

Sadly, the decline in provisional filings does not surprise me, and is symptomatic of the malaise in the Australian market that I wrote about most recently in relation to the proposed merger of QANTM IP Ltd and Xenith IP Group Ltd.  Before this, I had written about Australians’ lack of business sophistication when it comes to IP, about the poor appreciation in this country of the value of IP and corresponding decline in per capita patent filings, and about the particular failures of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to identify, manage and protect their IP assets.  The situation is certainly not improving.

The top Australian applicant for standard patents in 2018 was, once again, Aristocrat Technologies, with 252 applications – up from 157 applications in 2017.  No other Australian resident company featured in the top 30 applicants, with the next most prolific Australian filer being CSIRO with 55 applications – encouragingly up from 45 in 2017.

Public research institutions also featured strongly among the top filers of provisional applications, with Monash University (44), the University of NSW (44), The University of Sydney (40), CSIRO (39), the University of Queensland (27), the University of Melbourne (21), the University of Western Australia (17), and the Queensland University of Technology (16) occupying eight of the top 10 spots.

For all the numbers, and further commentary, please read on.

Data Source

Each year IP Australia releases its annual IP Report, featuring official statistics on filings during the previous calendar year.  In 2018, the annual report was published in April.  In recent years, IP Australia has also released its IP Government Open Data (IPGOD) set at around the same time.  Obviously, neither of these data sources is yet available for the 2018 calendar year.

In preparing the data in the following tables, I have therefore relied on various searches via the online AusPat system, along with some additional offline processing and data matching.  Anybody who has ever attempted to use AusPat for any kind of patent filing analysis will be aware that this is not its intended purpose, and it therefore has some limitations compared to commercial databases, and bulk data sources such as the IPGOD data set.  For example, downloadable results tables are of limited size, and do not include applicant details such as address/country of origin information.  However, since top applicants have typically filed in previous years also, I have been able to obtain country information in most cases by matching of AusPat results with prior IPGOD data.

AusPat data does have the merits of being live and up-to-date.  Even so, given the limitations – and despite my best efforts – all of the following data should be considered preliminary and highly unofficial!

Patent Applications Filed in 2018

The following table summarises the total numbers of all types of patent applications filed in 2018.  The total number of standard applications is also broken down into direct filings (i.e. Convention applications, and applications filed without earlier priority claims) and national filings resulting from international applications originally filed under the PCT system.

Application Type	Filings
Provisional	4943
Innovation (all)	2121
Innovation (refused)	10
Standard (all)	29960
Standard (direct)	9046
Standard (PCT NPE)	20914

As I have already noted, abuse of the innovation patent system by Chinese applicants appears to have continued unabated in 2018.  While it is difficult to distinguish any legitimate Chinese-originating applications among the many that are (probably) filed merely to obtain a government hand-out, my best estimate is that around 500 of the 2,121 innovation patent applications filed in 2018 fall into the category.

While the Commissioner had earlier been making some efforts to curb the abuse, these efforts seem to have subsided somewhat, with only 10 innovation patents being refused before grant in 2018.

Standard Patent Applications

The following table lists the top 30 applicants for standard Australian patents (direct filings and PCT National Phase Entry combined) in 2018, along with their country of origin.  More than half of these top applicants are US-based, with just one Australian company – gaming system developer Aristocrat Technologies – and one New Zealand company – Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (which these days is a separate company from the well-known maker of home appliances) – making the list.

Rank	Applicant Name	Country	Filings
1	QUALCOMM	US	314
2	ARISTOCRAT TECH AUSTRALIA	AU	252
3	HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES	US	207
4	APPLE	US	197
5	LG ELECTRONICS	KR	175
6	NOVARTIS	CH	168
7	NESTEC	CH	149
8	COVIDIEN	US	148
9	BIOSENSE WEBSTER ISRAEL	IL	145
10	HUAWEI TECH	CN	119
11	COLGATEPALMOLIVE CO	US	113
12	BASF	DE	111
13	ACCENTURE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS	IE	100
14	SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS	KR	99
15	VISA INTL SERVICE ASSOCIATION	US	93
16	BOEING CO	US	86
17	MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC	JP	83
18	MASTERCARD INTL	US	82
19	BECTON DICKINSON & CO	US	74
20	SONY	JP	73
21	BEIJING DIDI INFINITY TECH & DEVELOPMENT	CN	71
22	CATERPILLAR	US	71
23	3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES CO	US	70
24	FACEBOOK	US	70
25	KIMBERLYCLARK WORLDWIDE	US	69
26	GOOGLE	US	69
27	FISHER & PAYKEL HEALTHCARE	NZ	69
28	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (US GOV'T)	US	66
29	GENERAL ELECTRIC CO	US	66
30	SIEMENS	DE	65

As I have already noted, a somewhat surprising feature of the above list is the extent to which companies whose products consist of software-based processes and services are continuing to show faith in the Australian patent system through filing of new applications, in view of the difficulties encountered by many applicants in relation to these technologies.  The legal position on patent-eligibility of inventions in this area remains uncertain, with a number of Federal Court appeals ongoing, so perhaps some of these companies are hoping for some more positive news this year.  The most optimistic appear to be business and financial services providers, such as Accenture, Visa, and Mastercard!

The table below lists the leading Australian applicants.  The top Australian applicant from outside the main leader-board is national research organisation CSIRO.  Other public research institutions, including a number of universities, also feature on this list.

Rank	Applicant Name	Filings
1	ARISTOCRAT TECH AUSTRALIA	252
2	COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION	55
3	BLUESCOPE STEEL	21
4	XARD GROUP	17
5	CSR BUILDING PRODUCTS	15
6	MONASH UNIVERSITY	15
7	NEWSOUTH INNOVATIONS	12
8	WEIR MINERALS AUSTRALIA	12
9	BREVILLE	12
10	SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC AUSTRALIA	11
11	UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA	10
12	UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND	10
13	AINSWORTH GAME TECH	9
14	COUNCIL OF THE QUEENSLAND INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH	9
15	UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY	9
16	WISETECH GLOBAL	9
17	TNBT HOLDINGS	9
18	NATIONAL ICT AUSTRALIA	8
19	DEAKIN UNIVERSITY	8
20	SILICON CONTROLS	7

Provisional Applications

The table below lists the top 20 filers of provisional applications in 2018.  The only significant non-Australian user of the Australian provisional application system is Illinois Tool Works (ITW).  I understand that ITW has a significance presence in Australia, including manufacturing subsidiaries, and I therefore presume that the Australian provisional filings, while owned by the US parent, are the result of inventions devised in Australia.

Rank	Applicant Name	Country	Filings
1	MONASH UNIVERSITY	AU	44
2	NEWSOUTH INNOVATIONS	AU	44
3	UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY	AU	40
4	COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION	AU	39
5	NORMAN L MATTHEWS	AU	33
6	BREVILLE	AU	30
7	UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND	AU	27
8	UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE	AU	21
9	UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	AU	17
10	QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECH	AU	16
11	RESMED	AU	13
12	ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS	US	13
13	BIONOMICS	AU	12
14	LA TROBE UNIVERSITY	AU	11
15	ADAM MCGREGOR GARDNER	AU	11
16	ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECH	AU	11
17	FASTBRICK IP	AU	11
18	SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC AUSTRALIA	AU	9
19	UNIVERSITY OF TECH SYDNEY	AU	9
20	FLINDERS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA	AU	9

I have already commented on the prevalence of public research institutions on this list.  The one other point I would note is that the two individual applicants (Normal Matthews and Adam Gardner) are prolific self-filers of provisional applications.  How many of these filings ever result in further applications, or any granted rights, is less clear.

Innovation Patent Applications

The table below lists the top 20 filers of innovation patent application in 2018.  While the innovation patent system was established primarily for the benefit of Australian small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the largest single user has long been, and remains, Apple Inc – headquartered in the US, and consistently one of the three most valuable companies on the entire planet!  (And then people wonder why IP Australia and the Productivity Commission have been gunning for the innovation patent system for some time.)

Even so, Australian applicants are far more prevalent on this list than on the list of top standard patent applicants, so there is no question that a number of Australian SMEs do find value in the innovation patent system that they perhaps do not see in the ‘mainstream’ system.

Rank	Applicant Name	Country	Filings
1	APPLE	US	38
2	MACAU UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECH	MO	27
3	LG ELECTRONICS	KR	18
4	BEYOND ARCHITECTURAL	AU	15
5	NAN ZHANG & WEI MIN LIU	AU?	10
6	JAIN (UNIVERSITY)	IN	9
7	ZELDA THERAPEUTICS OPERATIONS	AU	8
8	PRITAM GAJKUMAR SHAH	IN	8
9	CCL SECURE	AU	8
10	AUSSIE FOOD TO YOU	AU	8
11	NESTEC	CH	7
12	TTI MACAO COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE	MO	7
13	PETER KELLY FAMILY	AU	7
14	BISSELL HOMECARE	US	7
15	DYSON TECH	GB	6
16	MOR DESIGNS	TW	6
17	OXTI	TW	6
18	BRIAN HINSON	AU	6
19	KILMALLOCK ACT	AU	5
20	PICKDELSO OY	FI	5

There are a couple of further points worth noting about the above list.  First, I have placed a question mark next to the country of origin of Nan Zhang and Wei Min Liu.  Although these applicants have provided an Australia address, it is possible that this is merely a mailbox, and they are actually based in China.  We may never know, because their 10 applications are all the ones that were refused by IP Australia in 2018, so no further details will ever be published.

Second, while the Indian Jain University and Dr Pritam Gajkumar Shah each has a separate entry in the table, they are actuall co-applicants on eight applications.  Thus, while each one individually earns a spot in the top 20, they have collectively filed only nine applications.

---

Before You Go…

Thank you for reading this article to the end – I hope you enjoyed it, and found it useful.  Almost every article I post here takes a few hours of my time to research and write, and I have never felt the need to ask for anything in return.

But now – for the first, and perhaps only, time – I am asking for a favour.  If you are a patent attorney, examiner, or other professional who is experienced in reading and interpreting patent claims, I could really use your help with my PhD research.  My project involves applying artificial intelligence to analyse patent claim scope systematically, with the goal of better understanding how different legal and regulatory choices influence the boundaries of patent protection.  But I need data to train my models, and that is where you can potentially assist me.  If every qualified person who reads this request could spare just a couple of hours over the next few weeks, I could gather all the data I need.

The task itself is straightforward and web-based – I am asking participants to compare pairs of patent claims and evaluate their relative scope, using an online application that I have designed and implemented over the past few months.  No special knowledge is required beyond the ability to read and understand patent claims in technical fields with which you are familiar.  You might even find it to be fun!

There is more information on the project website, at claimscopeproject.net.  In particular, you can read:

1. a detailed description of the study, its goals and benefits; and
2. instructions for the use of the online claim comparison application.

Thank you for considering this request!

Mark Summerfield

Tags: Australia, Patent analytics