Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

The Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes statement

Abstract

The reporting quality of patent landscapes is inadequate. The Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes (RIPL) checklist can improve reporting quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Number of publications mentioning the term “patent landscape” or “intellectual property landscape” in the title, abstract or key words.
Figure 2: RIPL checklist development flow diagram.
Figure 3: Participant recruitment and participation.

References

  1. Smith, J.A., Arshad, Z., Thomas, H., Carr, A.J. & Brindley, D.A. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 210–214 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grant, E. et al. World Pat. Inf. 39, 3–10 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bubela, T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 202–206 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan, A.-W. & Altman, D.G. Lancet 365, 1159–1162 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M. & Altman, D.G. PLoS Med. 4, e78 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glasziou, P., Meats, E., Heneghan, C. & Shepperd, S. Br. Med. J. 336, 1472–1474 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Neumann, P.J., Stone, P.W., Chapman, R.H., Sandberg, E.A. & Bell, C.M. Ann. Intern. Med. 132, 964–972 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kilkenny, C. et al. PLoS One 4, e7824 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kilkenny, C., Browne, W.J., Cuthill, I.C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D.G. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000412 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D.G. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–269, W64 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G. & Moher, D. Br. Med. J. 340, c332 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Husereau, D. et al. Value Health 16, 231–250 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brazma, A. et al. Nat. Genet. 29, 365–371 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goodacre, R. et al. Metabolomics 3, 231–241 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Plint, A.C. et al. Med. J. Aust. 185, 263–267 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Turner, L. et al. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11, MR000030 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moher, D. et al. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64, 718–742 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bowman, P.A. & Greenleaf, D. Int. J. Pharm. 186, 91–94 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lundin, P. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 493–497 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Petering, J., McManamny, P. & Honeyman, J. N. Biotechnol. 28, 538–544 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kalpana Sastry, S. et al. J. Intellect. Prop. Rights 16, 139–153 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Agarwal, P. & Searls, D.B. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 865–878 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Korting, H.C., Blecher, P., Schäfer-Korting, M. & Wendel, A. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 25, 1068–1071 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sternitzke, C. Res. Policy 42, 542–551 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smidt, N. et al. Neurology 67, 792–797 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Prady, S.L., Richmond, S.J., Morton, V.M. & Macpherson, H. PLoS One 3, e1577 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. UK Intellectual Property Office. Eight great technologies: a summary of the series of patent landscape reports. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eight-great-technologies-the-patent-landscapes (2014).

  28. World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). Guidelines for preparing patent landscape reports http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_946.pdf (2015).

  29. Oldham, P. The WIPO Manual on Open Source Patent Analytics (2016). https://wipo-analytics.github.io

  30. Moher, D. et al. PLoS Med. 7, e1000217 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hsu, C.-C. & Sandford, B.A. Pract. Assess., Res. Eval. 12, 1–8 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moher, D. et al. Syst. Rev. 4, 1 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the input from the experts who participated in the Delphi study during the development of this guideline and to Irene Kitsara (World Intellectual Property Organization) for comments on this manuscript. We are also grateful to the Equator Network for assistance with early work that established the need for this guidance. This study is funded primarily by the UK Medical Research Council via J.A.S.'s DPhil funding. The authors also acknowledge support from the CASMI Translational Stem Cell Consortium (CTSCC) and the SENS Research Foundation. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A Smith.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

D.A.B. is a stockholder in Translation Ventures Ltd., IP Asset Ventures Ltd. and Biolacuna Ltd., companies that, among other services, provide biomanufacturing, regulatory and financial advice to pharmaceutical clients. D.A.B. also is subject to the CFA Institute's codes, standards and guidelines, so he must stress that this piece is provided for academic interest only and must not be construed in any way as an investment recommendation. Additionally, at time of publication, D.A.B. and the organizations with which he is affiliated may or may not have agreed and/or pending funding commitments from the organizations named herein. J.A.S. has consulted with life science–focused companies, including some involved in patent landscaping. A.T. is the owner of Patinformatics LLC.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures 1, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, and Supplementary Text (PDF 515 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, J., Arshad, Z., Trippe, A. et al. The Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes statement. Nat Biotechnol 36, 1043–1047 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4291

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4291

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing