In my previous blog post, I explained how preparing articles looking at patent applicants, patent recipients, and attorney firm performance over calendar year 2019 had got me thinking about where ‘new’ Australian patent applicants come from, in the literal sense of where they are located geographically? I also noted that IP Australia’s annual IP Government Open Data (IPGOD) release includes geographical information, in to the form of latitude and longitude coordinates, for Australian-resident applicants. In particular, the most recent release, IPGOD 2019, includes location data for most Australian applicants going back over more than three decades, up until the end of 2018.
From this data, I have generated two interactive maps. In the previous article I presented the first, showing the geographical distribution of new applicants that used the services of a patent attorney versus those that filed their own applications.
In this article, I present the second map, showing the distribution of new client acquisitions by ten leading Australian patent attorney firms. The maps shows that, unsurprisingly, metropolitan applicants that engaged an attorney showed a distinct – though not universal – tendency to choose a firm with a local physical office. Interestingly, comparing with the other map of self-filers versus those that engaged an attorney, an absence of local patent attorneys does not appear to be a major influence on whether applicants chose to self-service, rather than tracking down an attorney – the distributions of self-filers and those who engaged an attorney look very similar. On the other hand, among leading firms it is clear that some do a better job than others of reaching out to acquire clients in regional areas.
From this data, I have generated two interactive maps. In the previous article I presented the first, showing the geographical distribution of new applicants that used the services of a patent attorney versus those that filed their own applications.
In this article, I present the second map, showing the distribution of new client acquisitions by ten leading Australian patent attorney firms. The maps shows that, unsurprisingly, metropolitan applicants that engaged an attorney showed a distinct – though not universal – tendency to choose a firm with a local physical office. Interestingly, comparing with the other map of self-filers versus those that engaged an attorney, an absence of local patent attorneys does not appear to be a major influence on whether applicants chose to self-service, rather than tracking down an attorney – the distributions of self-filers and those who engaged an attorney look very similar. On the other hand, among leading firms it is clear that some do a better job than others of reaching out to acquire clients in regional areas.