Geothermal Energy - Landscape Study by icelandgeothermal

Geothermal Energy Intellectual property landscape study Prepared for

Prepared by

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY INTELECTUAL POROERTY LANDSCAPE STUDY Summary by Iceland Geothermal and Arnason Factor Patent counts and statistics have for a long time been regarded as one of the main indicators of technical innovation and progress lead by such innovation. The Icelandic Geothermal Cluster decided last year to conduct a study on the landscape of patents in the geothermal sector with the purpose to aid and support constructive discussion about the Icelandic geothermal innovation development. When looking at the global patent development in general it is evident that it has been growing by numbers for a considerably long time. Patent filings and grant have actually been growing constantly over a very long period of time. During different time span this growth have been led by different countries and technology sectors. We have seen growth in Japan, US, S-Korea and now almost exponential growth in China. In the same way we have seen similar technology sector growth. Most recently software related. It appears in retrospect that this growth has been more or less synchronized with these countries economic/tech growth periods. At the moment we see a very interesting patenting growth in China. A growth rate which has not been seen anywhere ells before. The China growth is currently between 25-30% annually compared with a 5-6% global growth. Due to the economical size of China (world second largest economy) such a growth can, if it continues change the fundamentals of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intellectual property landscape and if the economic theories about the link between patents and economic growth holds this could also change the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic landscape.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY INTELECTUAL POROERTY LANDSCAPE STUDY Summary by Iceland Geothermal and Arnason Factor Having said that we in Iceland pride our self of our intellectual and economic prosperity and capabilities. Our economy has been growing steadily apart from some regular bumps. We have in many views a platform and an outlook that at least in relative terms almost everyone in the world envy us of. When discussing our Research and Development activities our focus and debate has very much and understandably been on the input side, in particular lack of financial support. We have claimed lack of governmental, industrial and private support. That however have been changing. We have on the other hand not so much discussed the output side and for that matter we have given almost no attention at all to the measurement indication that Patents can play. In attempt to provide a better foundation ground for a productive, solution-aimed and forward thinking discussion The Icelandic Geothermal Cluster in co-operation with Arnason Faktor Intellectual Property Consulting have engaged into co-operation to foster such discussion. One, but not the only step in that process was to get an objective view of the International landscape when it comes to Patent activities in the geothermal sector. In that purpose and in order to have the best footing possible we engage the international information service provider Clarivate Analyticsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (previously Thomson Reuters) to conduct an international patent landscape study for the geothermal sector.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY INTELECTUAL POROERTY LANDSCAPE STUDY Summary by Iceland Geothermal and Arnason Factor information and hopefully clear enough to see what we need to see and what can really help us in supporting, adding and developing the geothermal sector to become prosperous in the coming years. In the landscape mapping that is presented here it is possible to see certain trends. Some are more general and others are more geothermal industry specific. The most important are:

More general trends • General Patent filings and granting are growing • There are certain countries that have more patent growth than others (China) • In general we have experienced considerable growth in patenting in Iceland, though lead by 99% by foreign entities • We have over the last two decades seen no growth and in fact decline in patent activities by Icelandic entities Trends in the Geothermal Sector • There is clear indication of international growth of patents in the geothermal sector • The geothermal patent growth appears to be led by China • There appears to be certain trend that corporations active in the “oil exploring” appears to extend their patent claims into the geothermal sector • We see indications of growing geothermal patent activity in Iceland by foreign entities • We have only been able to identify two patent application by Icelanders filed within the geothermal space within the last two decades (20 years).

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY INTELECTUAL POROERTY LANDSCAPE STUDY Summary by Iceland Geothermal and Arnason Factor Having said that, we can also read from the data that in many ways we most likely find us at an early stage of an IP development in the geothermal sector. We still have almost every option to utilize the opportunities in front of us and claim or gain our position. However, if we ignore the indications in front of us and do nothing we run the risk that the play will change. It is our hope that this study may serve as one supporting factor for further discussion and development of geothermal IP development.

Reykjavik, 9 February 2018

Renewable Energy Cluster

Arnason Faktor

CONTENTS •

Objective and Scope

•

Taxonomy

•

Summary

•

Overview

•

Assignee Analysis

•

Technology Analysis

•

Themescape Map

•

EP-Pending Applications -Analysis

•

Appendix

Taxonomy Level 1

Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance

Well bore equipment

Level 2 Well casing Well head Well maintenance Drilling Well flow Well stimulation Well fluid Cementing New drilling technologies Ultra-deep drilling technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam piping/Two phase piping Steam turbine-generator Valves Condenser Pumps Gas removal system NCG treatment system Cooling towers Enhanced geothermal system (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

Related Keywords Casing Joints, Material, Flanges, Well Design, Packers, Sealant (use sealant with reference to casing) liners, production tubing Wellhead (X-Mas Tree),Well Head, Well Head Equipment, Well Head Logging, Well Head Control Valves,Well Head Shut In Valves Casing Inspection, Inspection Tools, Casing Repair Equipment, Well Treatment, Acid Treatment, Drilling Methods/Procedures, Directional Tools, Drilling Fluid, Drilling Mud, Drill Bits Well Flow Start Up, Well Flow Equipment, Well Shut In Methods, Well Flow Logging Equipment Well Stimulation Equipment And Method, Diverting Agent,Well AgentSupercritical Fluid, Supercritical Water (Scw), Fluid Corrosion Inhibitor, Scaling Inhibitor, Friction Modifier, CorrosionDiversion And Scaling, Handling, Tracers, Fluid Level Indicators, Chemical Treatment Of Injection Fluid, reinjection Cementing, Zonal Isolation, Plasma-Jet Rock Cutting, High-Energy Laser Beams, Hydraulic And Thermal Fracturing, Hydro Shearing, Fracking Ultra-deep drilling technologies Minerals Production, Geothermal Brine Vertical/Horizontal, Separator Intakes, Moisture Removers, Demisters, Control Equipment, Solid Material Separation Rock Mufflers, Devices, ConcreteRupture Mufflers,Disc, OtherPipe Type Of MufflersOver Ground/Underground Piping,Pipe Inspection Tools, Pipe Coatings, Pipe Over Pressure Expansion, Cladding, Hot Water Transmission Reaction/Impulse/Binary, Erosion/Corrosion Shields In Steam Path, Controls, Emergency Shut Down, Control Valves (for turbines), Blade Design, Stationary Blading Design, Inspection, Inspection Tools (for turbines only), Compressor System Steam Line Control Valves, Steam Line, Pressure Relief Valves/Equipment, Master Valve/Side-Tap Valve, Blowout Preventer Direct-Contact, Surface-Type, Gas Collection Shallow Or Ground Source Geothermal, Pump Internals, Pump Materials, Geothermal Pumps, Submersible Pumps, Liquid Ring Pump System Ejector System, Hybrid System Ncg Treating Equipment And Methods Water Cooled Towers, Air Coolers, Hybrid Towers Generation Of Geothermal Electricity Without The Need For Natural Convective Hydrothermal Resources. Down Hole Measurements, Acoustic Sensing Systems, Bore Hole Imaging, Seismic Monitoring, Stress Field, Micro Seismicity Centralizers

Summary PATENTING ACTIVITY

TECHNOLOGY GRANT SUCCESS

TIER I ASSIGNEES

ASSIGNEE TIER DISTRIBUTION

TOP INNOVATING COUNTRIES

TOP TECHNOLOGIES

Overview

Grant Success

Invention family status Grants Applications Utility model All

Total inventions 2595 2324 895 5814

•

The graphical representation indicates publication trend of patents and a breakup of utility models, applications and granted patents.

•

Since 2001, there has been a sharp rise in global filing indicating conducive environment for IP rights protection in this domain.

•

Grant success gives a complete picture of innovation than patent volumes alone. When considering this metric, it should be borne in mind that there is a bias against younger patent portfolios because they may have had insufficient examination time.

•

Granted patents constitute ~45% of inventions reflecting a relatively mature field, but still growing with a significant portion of patents still in prosecution.

Note: Granted means at least one granted patent in a family.

Grant Success with respect to Country of origin

• The graphical representation alongside indicates jurisdiction based grant success • Grant success rates in different countries or patent jurisdictions vary. In geothermal technology, South Korea has the highest rate – 73% and China has the lowest rate – 13%. • Part of this variation may be due to the age of the portfolios (China has the “youngest” overall portfolio), but also varying practices in the different patent authorities.

Note: Granted means at least one granted patent in a family.

Geographical Analysis on Source of Invention (1/2) • The charts alongside indicate country and regional analysis based on earliest priority country which is a good predictor of where the R&D originated. • Asia Pacific dominates this field with 55% of the overall patent collection having priority filings in that region primarily contributed by China, Japan and South Korea. • Comparatively far less overall priority filing activity has occurred in North America (26%) and Europe (16%). • Europe’s activity is majorly driven by Germany’s priority filings.

Geographical Analysis on Source of Invention (2/2) • The chart alongside indicates inventive activity over the past 20 years across different jurisdictions and the table indicates volume, average annual growth rate (AAGR) based on the priority filings. • Until 2010, USA was leading the innovation race in geothermal technology, however, it got surpassed by China since then. This can be ascribed to the inventor-friendly IP policies and infrastructure of China. • The data further indicates that Japan exhibit slow but steady growth over the timeframe of 1995 – present in the field of geothermal energy.

Source of innovation China United States Japan South Korea Germany

Inventions 1721 1449 735 674 348

AAGR (Last 5 Years) 29.2% -13.8% 2.2% -4.4% -27.8%

Filing trend

• USA, South Korea and Germany has negative Average Annual growth rate due to a declining trend in filings since 2009

Geographical Spread and Protection Countries China United States PCT Japan South Korea EPO Canada Germany Australia United Kingdom Mexico Russia Norway Brazil India France New Zealand Spain Taiwan Singapore Philippines South Africa Indonesia Italy Netherlands Austria Sweden Israel Switzerland Argentina Czech Republic Gulf Cooperation Council Hong Kong Poland Romania Hungary Malaysia Belgium Finland Vietnam Turkey Slovakia Denmark Luxembourg Thailand Iceland Colombia Greece Latvia United Arab Emirates

Priority filings 1721 1449 140 735 674 79 43 348 25 101 14 88 24 15 12 79 9 12 19 0 2 3 4 41 34 30 26 0 16 1 8 0 0 13 12 7 0 3 8 0 4 5 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1

Family filings 2003 1759 1199 882 726 671 520 425 376 218 208 178 161 152 131 84 56 53 52 43 42 42 40 40 31 23 23 20 17 16 15 15 13 12 12 9 9 8 7 7 6 4 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

% Filed as priority case 85.9% 82.4% 11.7% 83.3% 92.8% 11.8% 8.3% 81.9% 6.6% 46.3% 6.7% 49.4% 14.9% 9.9% 9.2% 94.0% 16.1% 22.6% 36.5% 0.0% 4.8% 7.1% 10.0% 102.5% 100.0% 100.0% 113.0% 0.0% 94.1% 6.3% 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 108.3% 100.0% 77.8% 0.0% 37.5% 114.3% 0.0% 66.7% 125.0% 66.7% 50.0% 0.0% NA NA NA NA NA

• The representation alongside has family member countries representing geographical reach of the technical field, i.e., where assignees choose to expand patent protection beyond the priority filing. • Enforceable coverage in specific national markets is essential because the laws of the country where the technology is used to have legal precedence over the technology's country of origin, i.e., priority country. The publication country is a good indication of the markets in which the patent holders plan to commercialize the patented technologies. • In total, these represent the most likely commercialization target geographies for this field. • China, Japan, and the United States appears to be the preferred markets in this field.

• About 12% of all the patent applications follow PCT filing route indicating likely intent to file globally.

Quadlateral & Trilateral Analysis

Earliest priority year 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

All inventions 86 61 68 84 72 81 59 103 111 144 180 239 317 340 445 444 516 563 534 494 499 363

Trilateral 5 2 2 3 6 6 3 2 8 5 6 12 9 17 10 9 6 16 3 1 0 0

Quadlateral 3 1 1 2 5 5 2 0 6 4 5 8 8 13 9 5 4 13 3 1 0 0

Rest 81 59 66 81 66 75 56 101 103 139 174 227 308 323 435 435 510 547 531 493 499 363

Trilateral Filing: Patent families having protection in the US, Europe, and Japan Quadlateral Filing: Patent families having protection in the US, Europe, Japan, and China

â&#x20AC;˘

Another indicator of commercialization intent is the number of patent families filed in Trilateral and Quadlateral authorities.

Assignee Analysis

Domain Shareholders by Sectors

•

The domain shareholder representation indicates the distribution of technology as per the type of assignee and thus it was categorized into Commercial, Academic and Government, Individual and Collaborations.

•

Around 55% of inventions are owned by Commercial assignees showcases an already established market and intent of commercialization on patents.

•

Only 10% of the assignees in this landscape are from the Academic & Government sector, suggesting only a limited amount of fundamental research and less possibility of development of new, disruptive technologies in this area.

•

About 9% (534 inventions) of the inventions are done by Collaborations in which Collaborations between Commercial and Academic & Government are 105 inventions only, 393 inventions in which Commercial-Commercial collaborations and 36 inventions having a Academic-Academic Collaboration.

Domain Shareholders by Portfolio Strength • The graph alongside represents the distribution of assignees divided into tiers by volume of inventions to reveal more information about the portfolio sizes. The doughnut shows the breakdown of the overall landscape with respect to portfolio size while the below table indicates the number of assignees in each tier and their cumulative volume. • Tier 3 players cover approximately 54% of the landscape, indicating constant development within the technological space from smaller players. • Individual inventors constitute a considerable chunk of this landscape-26%

Tier description Tier 1: Assignees with > 30 inventions Tier 2: Assignees with 15 - 30 inventions Tier 3: Assignees with < 15 inventions Tier 4: Individuals

Tier Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Total inventions 791 436 3194 1531

Number of assignees 10 20 2024

• The present tier distribution landscape also exhibit potential technology transfer opportunities across mainstream, medium/small-sized and individual players in Tier 1 95 96 terms of volume in this field.

Tier 1 Entities and Timeline Tier 1 Baker Hughes Halliburton Schlumberger Mitsubishi Toshiba Fuji Electric Sinopec Kolon Global Daesung Corona Corp

95 1 2 5 1 2

7 7 3 2

3 3 4 7 5 2

2 9 6 1 3

6 1 7 5 2

1 4 4 5 5 1

1 3 9 4 2 1

1 5 5 6 1

6 15 2 2

8 3 22 2 3 2

4 10 1 1

12 1 5 2 1 5

20 5 10 1 3 5

13 3 9 2 1 2

37 7 4 1 8 5 1 2 2 3

21 37 4 10 6 3 2

24 33 2 13 6

6 22

6 3 1 2

1 3 6 3 2 2

7 8 7 1 5

3 1

8 3

1 2

15 1 3

7 3 4

6 1 2 8 1 8 16

4 2

Total inventions 161 151 147 92 60 39 39 36 34 32

% Recency (inventions filed since 2010) AAGR (Last 5 Years) 67% 73% 18% 36% 45% 31% 100% 28% 91% 91%

19% 91% NA 149% 198% NA NA NA 27% 91%

•

The above heat maps show the filing activity of Tier 1 entities (filings > 30) over the past 20 years with the most recent activity. Tier 1 includes 10 Entities.

•

Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Schlumberger are the leading innovators in this technology space.

•

Sinopec with a recency of 100% is the late entrant in the market and appears to be emerging as a leading innovator in this technology sector. Other late entrants are Daesung and Corona Corp.

•

Toshiba has an AAGR of 198% which shows a significant investment in this technology space over the last five years.

Tier 1 - Grant Success Tier 1 grant success Baker Hughes Halliburton Schlumberger Mitsubishi Toshiba Fuji Electric Sinopec Kolon Global Daesung Corona Corp

Grants

Applications

108 95 121 30 19 22 3 17 28 13

53 56 26 60 41 17 16 19 6 19

Utility model only

Total

% Granted

Average remaining life

161 151 147 92 60 39 39 36 34 32

67.1% 62.9% 82.3% 32.6% 31.7% 56.4% 7.7% 47.2% 82.4% 40.6%

13.1 13.3 7.9 7.7 9.7 8.5 12.4 10.7 15.9 15.7

• The table representats the grant success of Tier 1 various Tier 1 entities and as noted previously, while considering this metric, it should be borne in mind that there is a bias against younger patent portfolios because they may have had insufficient examination time • Grant success rate is one indicator of novelty but may also reflect the IP strategy and resources that an entity commits to patent prosecution. • The higher grant rates of Schlumberger, Daesung, Baker Hughes indicates high quality of the research in the geothermal energy technology.

Note: Granted means at least one granted patent in a family.

Clarivate IP Strength Index™ • At a high level, the metrics that make up the IP Strength Index cover the level of investment by the applicant, downstream 3rd party impact, commitment and success/patentability of the patent applications, the breadth of the technology covered by the invention and the age of the patent. Specifically, the Strength Index measures: • Geographic Filing Breadth

• Grant Success/Grant Commitment and Granted Patent Locations • Frequency of Citation by Downstream Patent Applications • Technical Breadth • Patent Age • These measurements are combined together statistically, typically self-referential to the dataset at hand, to provide an overall strength score per patent family. The family definition used is that specific to the Derwent World Patents Index™, which provides for a synonymous relationship between each family and an individual “invention” – e.g. one specific set of claims language in each legal jurisdiction in which protection has been sought.

• This IP strength index score is then aggregated across portfolios and technologies for benchmarking purposes.

Tier 1 Entities: Portfolio Quality

Tier 1 Baker Hughes Halliburton Schlumberger Mitsubishi Toshiba Fuji Electric Sinopec Kolon Global Daesung Corona Corp

Total inventions

Average remaining life

161 151 147 92 60 39 39 36 34 32

13.1 13.3 7.9 7.7 9.7 8.5 12.4 10.7 15.9 15.7

Novelty Score

Geographic filing breadth

Technical breadth score

Impact score

17.8 15.0 23.9 6.3 7.9 12.6 4.7 4.4 6.5 6.4

2.6 3.2 2.8 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0

2.6 2.8 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.1 1.5 2.9 3.2

18.67 15.22 24.42 3.84 5.44 6.97 2.79 3.02 6.40 3.83

Average IP analytics strength Score of Highest score scoring invention 53 59 29 14 22 24 23 10 32 27

121 126 101 80 116 91 48 36 76 39

•

The table above represents the portfolio quality of various Tier 1 Entities in terms of various quantitative parameters.

•

Baker Hughes and Halliburton have high IP strength portfolio, whereas Baker Hughes and Schlumberger exhibit high family citations.

•

Daesung and Corona Corp showcase a healthy average remaining life which shows that their technology is recent and has a good space to evolve.

Tier 1 Entities: Portfolio Quality •

Even more attractive than high strength portfolios are those portfolios that are both high strength and recent, i.e., have longer inforce life.

•

Typically, Strength and Recency are inversely proportional, and especially those closest to the High Strength/High Recency upper righthand quadrant are of particular interest.

•

Baker Hughes and Halliburton have a portfolio which has higher than expected combinations of IP analytics Strength and average remaining life.

•

Daesung and Corona Corp have the highest remaining life but falls short in terms of IP strength score which may be due to several factors which work against the younger portfolios.

Tier 1 Entities: Filing Strategy

•

Another ranking methodology is to plot Technical Breadth – the average number of technical categories addressed by all patent families in an entity’s portfolio, against Filing Breadth – the average number of countries in which all patent families in the portfolio are filed. Both parameters reflect potential commercial value of the IP.

•

Based on this approach, Halliburton, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger rank high in combined technical and filing breadth.

•

Corona Corp and Sinopec have portfolio with high technical breadth but on the lower side of filing breadth.

Tier 1 Assignee - priority country and family member countries

BAKER HUGHES HALLIBURTON SCHLUMBERGER MITSUBISHI TOSHIBA FUJI ELECTRIC SINOPEC KOLON GLOBAL DAESUNG CORONA CORP

159 69 91

1 81 6 5 2

87 55 39 39

1 1 16

16 1

1 2

14 27 13 4 1

158 108 140 118 1 127 60 3 6 7 89 11 4 57 7 7 39

33 59 45 3 8 2

34 73 41

1 8 17

11 52 35 2 1

46 27 32

12 35 22 1

13 2 3

40 21 27

24 3 14

10 4 4 1

2 15

1 2 2 2 7

6 5 3

1 1 6 6

6 1 1

1 1

2 1

1 1

36 34

4 1

2 6

39 36 34

Sw ed en Arg en tin a Gu lf C oo pe r Co ation un cil Ma lay sia Be lgi um Vie tna m

Ca na da Ge rm an y Au str ali a Un ite dK Me ingdo m xic o Ru ssi a No rw ay Bra zil Ind ia Fra nc e Ne w Ze ala Sp nd ain Ta iw an Sin ga po re Ph ilip pin es So uth Afr ica Ind on esi a Ita ly

Jap an So uth Ko rea EP O

Un ite dS tat PC es T

Family member countries

Me xic o Ch ina

Fra nc e Ca na da Ita ly

Un ite dK ing EP do O m

Tier 1

Ch ina Un ite dS Jap tates an So uth Ko rea PC T

Priority Countries

•

The representation above indicates the priority country and family member countries of filings by tier 1 entities. Purple color represents priority countries and green color represents family member countries.

•

Halliburton is the only company which is taking the PCT route for most of its filings, it shows their intent to protect and commercialize their technology globally

•

Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger whose major chunk of priority filings comes from USA (their home country) have protected their technology globally, covering almost every major market.

•

South Korea is completely dominated by Daesung and Kolon Global (Korean companies) and it is the only market in which no other foreign player is present.

10 1

1 1

3 1

1 1

Tier 2 Entities and Timeline Tier 2 Shanxi Kelin Energy Tianjin University Weatherford International Ormat Technologies Prad Res & Dev Sofitech Nippon Steel Ohbayashi Gumi Rehau General Electric Altarock Energy Earth to Air Systems Simbol Tianjin Donglihu Energy Technology China Univ of Petroleum Hunan Zhongda Jingwei Geothermal Dev Tec Nalco Foro Energy Kigam Korea Inst Geoscience & Mineral Tracto-Tech

3 2

3 1

1 1

1 2

2 2

4 3

3 1

1 1 5 1

1 1 1 1

2 4 2

1 5 2

1 2 3 3

1 1

1 2 2

1 1 1 4

18 2

1 2

12 3 1 5 3

3 5 4 5

6 3

1 2 4 1 5

1 1

3 1 8 3

2 2 2 3 3

2 2 2 4

1 7 1 2

3 3 1

3 18

5 1

1 2

4 2

8 1

6 2

1 3

1 4 2

1 2 2 2

1 2

1 2 6 1

2 10 18

Total inventions

% Recency (inventions filed since 2010)

30 30 30 29 29 26 24 22 22 20 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 15 15 15

100% 77% 73% 41% 31% 0% 21% 73% 32% 60% 32% 5% 16% 100% 89% 100% 11% 47% 67% 20%

•

The above heat maps show the filing activity of Tier 2 entities (filings 15 – 30 inventions) over the past 20 years with the most recent activity.

•

Shanxi Kelin Energy, Tianjin University and Weatherford International are the leading innovators amongst tier 2 entities in Geothermal technology

•

Shanxi Kelin Energy, Tianjin Donglihu Energy Technology and Hunan Zhongda Jingwei Geothermal Dev Tec have recency of 100% each and are the prominent emerging entities.

Tier 2 Entities: Portfolio Quality Tier 2 Shanxi Kelin Energy Tianjin University Weatherford International Ormat Technologies Prad Res & Dev Sofitech Nippon Steel Ohbayashi Gumi Rehau General Electric Altarock Energy Earth to Air Systems Simbol Tianjin Donglihu Energy Technology China Univ of Petroleum Hunan Zhongda Jingwei Geothermal Dev Tec Nalco Foro Energy Kigam Korea Inst Geoscience & Mineral Tracto-Tech

Total inventions

Average remaining life

Geographic filing breadth

Novelty Score

Technical breadth score

30 30 30 29 29 26 24 22 22 20 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 15 15 15

10.7 11.7 14.4 9.6 9.6 2.5 8.0 12.9 11.5 13.4 12.1 8.6 12.3 7.5 17.5 17.3 7.2 12.7 13.5 10.5

1.0 1.0 2.4 2.4 3.8 6.0 3.3 1.0 1.6 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.4 1.8 1.3 1.9

2.9 4.5 10.6 22.4 22.4 36.6 19.8 10.1 9.0 16.2 14.6 21.3 16.3 7.5 2.5 1.3 29.5 18.5 12.1 11.1

2.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.4 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.7 4.1 2.4 1.7 2.4 4.5 4.7 1.2 3.4 2.4 2.0

Citation impact (average Average IP analytics age weighted) strength score 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.8 1.5 3.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 2.6 0.3 0.3

9 22 48 36 47 16 34 23 25 47 33 27 22 15 46 41 41 50 31 26

Score of Highest scoring invention 19 57 105 86 101 52 105 44 54 114 79 68 45 42 60 54 105 91 81 55

•

The table above represents the portfolio quality of various Tier 2 Entities in terms of qualitative parameters

•

China Univ of Petroleum and Hunan Zhongda Jingwei Geothermal Dev Tec have the highest average remaining life.

•

Prad Res & Dev is leading in most of the above qualitative parameters with Foro Energy having the highest IP analytics strength portfolio amongst the Tier 2 Entities

Tier 2 Entities: Portfolio Quality •

As mentioned earlier, even more attractive than high strength portfolios are those portfolios that are both high strength and recent, i.e., have longer in-force life.

•

Typically, Strength and Recency are inversely proportional, and especially those closest to the High Strength/High Recency upper righthand quadrant are of particular interest.

•

China Univ of Petroleum, Weatherford International, Hunan Zhongda Jingwei Geothermal Dev Tec, General Electric and Foro Energy have portfolios with higher than expected combinations of IP analytics Strength and average remaining life.

Technology Analysis

Technical Categories Yield Level 1 category

Level 1 category Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance Well Bore Equipment

Total inventions

Level 1 category % representation in collection

2890 4653

49.7% 80.0%

â&#x20AC;˘

The above table shows the volume of level 1 categories and the representation of level 1 categories in the complete dataset.

â&#x20AC;˘

Further, the table on the right shows the volume of level 2 categories and the % of level 2 categories within the respective level 1 categories. Also, one invention can fit into multiple segments and subtechnology categories.

Level 2 sub-categories

Well Casing Well Head Level 1 category Well Maintenance Drilling Well Flow Well Drilling, Extraction Well Stimulation and Maintenance Well Fluid Cementing New Drilling Technologies Ultra-deep Drilling Technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam Piping/Two Phase Piping Steam Turbine-Generator Valves Condenser Well bore equipment Pumps Gas Removal System NCG Treatment System Cooling Towers Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

Total inventions 563 243 Level 2 sub-categories 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

% of Level 1 category 19% 8% 24% 48% 7% 3% 43% 11% 4% 2% 9% 8% < 1% 50% 22% 19% 10% 44% 1% 1% 1% 2% 22% 1%

Tot

Timeline of level 2 Sub Categories Level 1 category

Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance

Well bore equipment

Level 2 sub-category Well Casing Well Head Well Maintenance Drilling Well Flow Well Stimulation Well Fluid Cementing New Drilling Technologies Ultra-deep Drilling Technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam Piping/Two Phase Piping Steam Turbine-Generator Valves Condenser Pumps Gas Removal System NCG Treatment System Cooling Towers Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

5 3 14 17 5 1 29 11

8 2 8 12 4 1 16 8

8 1 4 15

12 1 13 20 5 2 32 7

9 6 12 24 6 1 29 7

8 6 18 31 2

6 1 10 16 1

14 5 18 20 3

22 6

17 10 3

24 5

13 6 17 31 8 2 29 11

16 2 26 76 3 2 40 19 2

10 9

5 3 2 12 14 5 6 12

2 5 3

1 6 3

2 7 9

9 8

32 9 20 83 3 2 32 12 1 5 9 11

28 14 34 74 7 2 55 10 1 4 13 20

32 10 35 89 12 4 77 11 16 4 14 16

19 8 7 6 8 2 2 1

15 15 5 5 17 2 3

31 21 8 9 28 2 2 3

34 15 8 5 29

31 37 18 10 40

1 7 7 1 9 15 5 6 21 1 3 1

12 13 23 38 5 4 49 14 2 1 7 4

10 1

1 2 14 1

28 25 6 15 24 1 5

2 1 1 9

1 16 13 2 6 8 1 15 17 10 14 12 5

1 5 16 13 1 5 10 2

7 1

8 4 1 75 13 20 4 39 3 1 30

95 35 30 12 73 1 1 45

29 17 46 91 14 10 114 22 12 5 31 26 1 153 129 174 47 67 71 52 32 56 22 27 34 114 122 167 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 12 2 60 60 72 1 2 2

36 18 46 112 17 4 102 19 10 9 18 25 1 189 66 67 30 155 4 2 7 15 87 4

49 51 57 42 48 47 11 16 22 26 31 23 56 75 74 52 51 43 122 123 136 90 92 60 17 24 27 9 19 2 8 9 13 7 2 100 120 127 87 82 39 23 26 20 18 12 25 13 7 20 12 10 11 5 7 11 2 3 3 20 22 18 17 15 13 31 22 39 37 55 35 3 2 1 1 217 222 187 219 239 207 101 100 93 89 96 67 74 94 72 95 101 97 43 37 35 39 53 41 191 181 208 223 220 171 6 2 3 3 4 2 3 5 4 3 1 4 5 6 9 4 9 4 10 9 3 2 9 9 94 111 108 94 85 57 1 2 4 3 6

Total inventions

% Recency (inventions filed since 2011)

AAGR (last 5 years)

563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

52% 53% 50% 45% 51% 52% 45% 40% 61% 46% 40% 57% 50% 56% 53% 61% 54% 58% 43% 42% 57% 55% 55% 57%

8% 16% 5% -2% 20% 8% -3% -6% 23% 4% -3% 23% NA 6% 10% 10% 14% 8% 13% 1% 22% 41% 0% 40%

•

The table alongside indicates patenting activity over time (priority filings/year) for all of the Level 2 categories.

•

New Drilling Technologies and Valves appear to be having the most recent filings in the overall geothermal technology landscape.

•

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and Centralizers have the highest Average annual growth rate in the last 5 years, depicting a good level of R&D being done in this field

Level 2 Sub Categories- Portfolio Quality

Level 1 category

Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance

Well bore equipment

Average IP analytics strength score 29 30 34 36 39 39 30 31 40 29 29 25 19 21 22 23 21 21 28 25 22 27 31 36

Average remaining life 11.2 10.6 11.2 11.4 11.6 12.3 11.1 10.2 13.9 11.9 10.9 10.9 9.8 10.9 11.2 11.1 10.7 11.2 10.4 9.4 10.5 12.6 11.8 11.9

Total inventions 563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

Level 1 category

â&#x20AC;˘

The table alongside indicates the overall qualitative summary of technical categories in terms of IP analytics strength score and average remaining life.

â&#x20AC;˘

New Drilling Technologies and Well Stimulation have high average remaining life along with good IP analytics strength score which means in recent times these categories are gaining good momentum.

Level 2 Sub Categories- Portfolio Quality

•

The graphical representation alongside indicate overall portfolio based on level 2 categories on a plane defined by Recency and IP Analytics Strength Index.

•

The top right quadrant marked by High IP strength score and High average remaining life is the most desirable. Technologies falling under this quadrant have a good future scope for development.

•

New Drilling Technologies, Well Stimulation, Well flow and Centralizers are the categories to have a close look on in the geothermal energy technology landscape.

Level 2 Sub Categories - Tier 1

Level 1 category

Level 2 sub-category

Well Casing Well Head Well Maintenance Drilling Well Flow Well Drilling, Extraction Well Stimulation and Maintenance Well Fluid Cementing New Drilling Technologies Ultra-deep Drilling Technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam Piping/Two Phase Piping Steam Turbine-Generator Valves Condenser Well bore equipment Pumps Gas Removal System NCG Treatment System Cooling Towers Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

Total inventions

% Tier 1 contribution

563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

16% 12% 23% 25% 34% 41% 18% 31% 20% 3% 11% 13% 21% 5% 14% 10% 18% 7% 19% 31% 14% 3% 20% 21%

L S ER C RP BA HE TON ERG HI RI O G CO L T G B S R U C I G A A C E E N N UN R H LIBU LUM SUB HIB I EL OP L S LO AES ORO KE J H IT BA HA SC M TO FU SIN KO D C

19 23 2 4 45 54 122 105 27 14 11 13 63 58 7 38 10 10 1 5 11 1 1 1 5 6 1 2 9 10 1 9 12

75 4

1 1 51 2

22 12 38 94 20 5 46 40 4 1 9 5 1 1 5 15 15

4 2

1 2 6 1

28 2

2 23

1 6

16 34 7 18 13 4 8 4

10 44 11 22 2 2 4 4

8 27 6 13 5 3 3

8 9 9 14 4 2 5 6

5 1 15 4 11 4 16

1 7

•

The category emphasis table alongside shows the number of inventions in each category for Tier 1 entities. Also, each of the level 2 subcategory as a percentage of the level 1 category is shown in this table.

•

Schlumberger, Baker and Halliburton within the Tier 1 entities appears to have a well spread out portfolio across all technological areas.

•

Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Schlumberger, appear to have majority of their expertise in level 1 category “Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance” whereas other companies such as Mitsubishi, Toshiba and Fuji Electric appear to have expertise in level 1 category “Well bore equipment”

13 1 7 5

3 2

2 4 21 4 1 24

26 3 7 2 19

5 26 9 23 32

Level 2 Sub Categories - Tier 2

Total inventions

% Tier 1 contribution

563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

16% 12% 23% 25% 34% 41% 18% 31% 20% 3% 11% 13% 21% 5% 14% 10% 18% 7% 19% 31% 14% 3% 20% 21%

L NA IO T A Y RN GIES TE RG ITY I O E N I M OL RS D EN EV EL GU IN IVE FOR HN & D I E L C T N H S KE U S H TE ER AS XI RE EC IN U TH MAT ON BAY AN IANJ FIT EA AD HA PP R H I H R O S T W O P S N O RE 1 10 1 6 6 3 2 6 1 2 1 1 12 2 11 6 3 1 1 1 17 5 11 5 9 2 1 3 1 9 4 8 2 1 4 6 10 18 11 11 2 1 2 8 8 11 23 1 2 2 1 1

16 13 9 3 11

19 12 12 16 21

10 7 1

3 10

4 9

9 6 1 10

2 1 9

2 1 5

15 5

1 4

C TE EV D AL M ER H OT GE

AL GY ER LO IN O &M HN CE EC T N E I Y I M E SC RG EU W S EO NE OL JING M E G R E T Y U A E ST ST RIC ERG IN GD LIH SY FP CT N IR GY NG IV O HON EA CH LE E A R R E O Z N -TE D CK NE KO TO L U AL O E O N N R I R O H A T BO NA ALC RO IGAM RAC NJ NE RT IN TA GE AL EA SIM TIA CH HU N FO K T 8 3 3 7 6 3 2 2 2 3 1 4 4 3 1 9 2 10 1 1 8 1 9 7 2 14 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 5 3 1 12 4 7 1 13 17 5 3 8 1 3 13 1 9 4 8 1 1 19 1 1 5 2 2

2 6 1 2 5

7 8

13 7 3 9

13 8 8 8 9

1 1 9

5 8 7 4 12 1 1

6 4 3

2 3

1 1

The category emphasis table alongside shows the number of inventions in each category for Tier 2 entities. Also, each of the level 2 sub-category as a percentage of the level 1 category is shown in this table.

•

Weatherford International and Ormat Technologies within Tier 2 entities appear to have a well spread out portfolio across all technological areas.

•

Simbol appears to be in market of Extraction of Mineral, even ahead of Tier 1 entities.

2 14

•

Level 2 Sub Categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Priority Countries (1/2)

Level 1 category

Level 2 sub-category

Total inventions 563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

ina Ch 157 101 153 239 29 4 198 64 18 24 33 161 3 1009 315 441 187 888 8 4 30 18 266 8

tes ta S d ite an Un Jap 191 86 314 702 108 53 545 130 81 14 139 75 2 246 173 130 62 253 19 19 8 31 290 8

41 4 47 54 9 1 149 10

14 62 2 254 235 56 94 249 12 18 16 57 1

ea y or K an rm uth T e o S G PC 64 14 15 6 3 5 33 21 29 49 57 79 2 4 16 1 1 7 62 54 42 6 11 11 2 2 5 13 4 1 7 28 4 39 5 1 1 343 226 13 143 16 14 160 6 14 58 7 5 424 47 21 1 1 1 9 1 24 1 78 130 54 1 2 2

m do ds nd iK ng y n rla lan ia lia a r n a e e e d a a e a d c ico and d z il e it ite th rw aiw str str ssi O na taly l an az ex Un Ru EP Fr Ca I Ne Au Sw Au No T Sw Br M Po 22 5 7 14 3 1 4 1 5 4 4 3 1 17 3 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 25 9 11 6 3 2 1 1 4 4 13 1 2 1 3 45 14 17 19 11 5 13 4 6 8 13 2 5 4 8 1 14 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 43 18 20 17 8 8 6 4 10 6 8 5 1 11 5 1 13 7 18 22 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 3 7 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 12 12 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 21 16 32 20 13 10 13 24 15 2 6 5 10 2 3 6 11 32 5 5 9 11 4 1 6 4 8 3 11 3 1 19 9 2 3 3 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 4 7 12 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 25 46 12 16 10 6 10 2 6 6 3 3 2 7 1 3 1 4 1 1 4

13 1

22 3

2 1

563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

1 1 1 3

1 1 1

Ze ala Cz nd ec hR ep ub Fin lic lan d Hu ng ary Slo va kia Ind on es ia Tu rk ey Be lgi um So uth Af ric De a nm ark Ice lan d Ph ilip pin es Ar ge nti na Co lom bia Gr ee ce La tv ia Lu xe m bo urg Un ite dA ra bE m ira tes

Total inventions

Ne w

Level 2 sub-category

Ro m an ia Sp ain

Level 1 category

Ind ia

Level 2 Sub Categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Priority Countries (2/2)

1 1 4 5 3

1 1 1

1 1

1 3

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

2 1

1 1

1 2

1 1

2 1

1 1

2 5

2 5 1 2 10

2 1

6 1 1 1 3

1 1 2 3 1 5

1 3

4 1 1

1 2 1

1 1

1 1 1

2 2

Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance

Well bore equipment

Well Casing Well Head Well Maintenance Drilling Well Flow Well Stimulation Well Fluid Cementing New Drilling Technologies Ultra-deep Drilling Technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam Piping/Two Phase Piping Steam Turbine-Generator Valves Condenser Pumps Gas Removal System NCG Treatment System Cooling Towers Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

189 114 200 372 41 9 285 84 25 27 48 175 3 1061 346 466 197 923 9 5 32 20 312 13

235 105 384 846 133 61 618 177 86 21 143 88 3 306 214 164 75 301 20 19 10 34 368 14

165 72 255 525 86 36 446 117 56 17 94 54 1 243 127 84 50 191 11 15 5 20 258 9

57 10 63 105 13 2 195 19 1 2 34 71 2 288 259 66 106 266 12 21 18 2 62 1

69 8 38 67 4 1 76 6 2 15 10 45 1 357 149 163 61 431 2 1 10 24 80 1

81 43 121 268 40 11 204 82 18 10 41 21 1 189 59 50 24 98 2 5 4 10 152 6

85 42 137 280 40 18 192 76 25 4 33 21 2 83 26 43 2 77 10 1 2 3 107 7

31 6 39 98 6 5 90 34 2 6 32 8

62 30 105 179 27 14 147 60 15 7 28 18

237 22 8 8 52

57 36 34 10 57 2 1 1 10 67 1

1 1 142 2

44 17 64 132 28 7 78 31 2 1 10 10 1 29 12 22 7 32

75 1

35 25 61 126 16 6 82 35 7 2 20 7 2 22 24 20 7 9 1 3 1 40

20 12 31 61 6 40 13 4 1 8 14 1 34 40 23 15 55 1 1 1 27 1

25 10 49 95 23 8 65 35 1 2 9 3 1 14 3 12 13

22 15 38 86 9 3 64 20 6 1 5 8

19 9 30 47 5 3 44 6 3 1 9 10

9 6

6 2

1 1

18 15 15 1 20 1 1

28 24 10 4 18 1 1 1 1 14 2

20 6 3 4 16

12 16 5 8 9 1 3 1 2 7

17 2 2 1 7

18 11 1 4 6

1 34 2

4 23 2 16 19 1

8 2 14 17 1 2 25 4 1

6 3 6 15 4

Ta iw an Sin ga po r Ph e ilip pin So es uth Af r Ind ica on es ia

Fr an ce Ne w Ze ala Sp ain nd

Ca na da Ge rm an y Au str ali a Un ite dK ing M do ex m ico Ru ssi a No rw ay Br az il Ind ia

So uth Ko EP rea O

Jap an

Level 2 sub-category

Un ite dS PC tate s T

Level 1 category

Total inventions

Ch ina

Level 2 Sub Categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Family Member Countries (1/2)

17 2

2 2 5 1 20

1 1 8

10 7 10 22 2 1 19 3 1 3 2 11 1 7 4

1 1 6

1 1 5 9 1 1 15 1

11 5 1 8 16 2 9 6 1 4 1 7

8 1 12 23 1

3 4 5 15 3

23 2 1 2 4 3

15 2 1 1 5 4

7 3 7

9 11 4 8 7 1 3

1 6 1

Level 2 Sub Categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Family Member Countries (2/2) il nc u Co

Level 1 category

Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance

Well bore equipment

Total inventions 563 243 697 1375 193 75 1243 309 120 67 261 381 14 2321 1029 867 461 2068 47 48 65 76 1002 28

n tio lic a b s d r rg u d ou lan ina a ep oope Kong ia rk an a d i y n b r m l i r s R a r m d a t n y e e a d k e m n l n a e d h C ri n n iu a lan g ga alay m tz t h i e a e e c f t k e i t a g l v s l n n n la y l m l r a x a g e e It Ne Au Sw Isr Sw Ar Cz Gu Ho Po Ro Hu M Be Fin Vi Tu Slo De Lu Th 3 1 5 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 7 6 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 12 5 7 5 4 11 7 9 2 1 2 4 4 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 7 6 3 7 5 4 7 8 3 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 8 12 16 12 8 9 3 3 1 4 6 2 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 10 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 9 3 4 5 2 3 5 2 2 2 10 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 3 3

Technical categories – Most Prolific Assignees • The next 2 slides show the top 5 assignees for each level 2 sub-technology categories based on volume. • Most of the entities in top 5 assignees in each level 2 sub-technology are in the Tier 1 bucket.

• Schlumberger is present in the top 5 Assignees in most of the level 2 sub-technologies of geothermal technology landscape based on volume • In New Drilling Technologies, Altarock Energy (Tier 2) is closely following the top companies- Halliburton and Baker Hughes. • In Extraction of Minerals– Simbol (Tier 2) is the market leader. • In Enhanced geothermal system (EGS)– Henan Yuanfang Hot Dry Rock Exploration (Tier 3) and Altarock Energy (Tier 2) are amongst the Top 5 Assignees. • Almost all the sub categories of Level 1 category “Well Drilling, Extraction and Maintenance” are led by Baker Hughes, Halliburton or Schlumberger.

Technical categories - Most Prolific Assignees (1/2) Level 2 sub-category

Well casing

Well head

Well maintenance

Drilling

Well flow

Well stimulation

Top 5 entities HALLIBURTON SCHLUMBERGER BAKER HUGHES DAESUNG WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL SCHLUMBERGER HAMPTON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS SINOPEC WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL SHELL OIL HALLIBURTON BAKER HUGHES SCHLUMBERGER WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL PRAD RES & DEV BAKER HUGHES HALLIBURTON SCHLUMBERGER WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL FORO ENERGY BAKER HUGHES SCHLUMBERGER HALLIBURTON WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL PRAD RES & DEV HALLIBURTON BAKER HUGHES SCHLUMBERGER ALTAROCK ENERGY SOFITECH

Total inventions 23 22 19 13 10 12 11 9 6 5 54 45 38 12 11 122 105 94 17 14 27 20 14 9 8 13 11 5 5 4

Level 2 sub-category

Well fluid

Cementing

New drilling technologies

Ultra-deep drilling technologies

Extraction of Minerals

Separators

Top 5 entities BAKER HUGHES HALLIBURTON SCHLUMBERGER MITSUBISHI ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES SCHLUMBERGER HALLIBURTON SOFITECH HUNAN ZHONGDA JINGWEI GEOTHERMAL DEV TEC PRAD RES & DEV HALLIBURTON BAKER HUGHES ALTAROCK ENERGY FORO ENERGY SCHLUMBERGER BEIJING INST EXPLORATION ENG LIANYUNGANG TIANMING EQUIP CO LTD HALLIBURTON SCHLUMBERGER EXXONMOBIL SIMBOL HALLIBURTON ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES SCHLUMBERGER UNION OIL CO MITSUBISHI ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES SHANGHAI KAISHAN ENERGY EQUIP CO LTD ZHEJIANG KAISHAN ENERGY EQUIP CO LTD TOSHIBA

Total inventions 63 58 46 28 18 40 38 23 13 11 10 10 9 8 4 3 2 1 1 1 19 11 10 9 7 23 7 6 6 6

Technical categories - Most Prolific Assignees (2/2) Level 2 sub-category

Silencers

Steam piping/Two phase piping

Steam turbine-generator

Valves

Condenser

Pumps

Top 5 entities COMISION FEDERAL ELECTRICIDAD SCHLUMBERGER SINOPEC YANG HYUB CO LTD HALLIBURTON DAESUNG REHAU KOLON GLOBAL TIANJIN UNIVERSITY MITSUBISHI TOSHIBA MITSUBISHI FUJI ELECTRIC CORONA CORP SHANXI KELIN ENERGY SCHLUMBERGER TIANJIN UNIVERSITY TOSHIBA SINOPEC HALLIBURTON CORONA CORP TOSHIBA MITSUBISHI TIANJIN UNIVERSITY FUJI ELECTRIC CORONA CORP KOLON GLOBAL TIANJIN UNIVERSITY DAESUNG SINOPEC

Total inventions 2 1 1 1 1 26 21 21 19 16 44 34 27 26 13 15 12 11 11 10 23 22 18 16 13 32 24 21 19 16

Level 2 sub-category

Top 5 entities

MITSUBISHI FUJI ELECTRIC Gas removal system HTE WATER CORP TOSHIBA SELMAN & ASSOC LTD ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES MITSUBISHI NCG treatment system TOSHIBA FUJI ELECTRIC SHANGHAI KAISHAN ENERGY EQUIP CO LTD MITSUBISHI TOSHIBA Cooling towers TIANJIN UNIVERSITY UNIV BEIJING TECHNOLOGY UNIV CHINA MINING & TECHNOLOGY HENAN YUANFANG HOT DRY ROCK EXPLORATION ALTAROCK ENERGY Enhanced geothermal system (EGS) KIVERDI INC ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES UT-BATTELLE LLC BAKER HUGHES HALLIBURTON Sensing and Measuring Systems SCHLUMBERGER SHANXI KELIN ENERGY WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL BAKER HUGHES HALLIBURTON Centralizers SHANGHAI XINLIAN PUMP VALVE CO LTD EURODRILL GMBH SANDIA CORP

Total inventions 4 3 3 2 2 10 8 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 9

7 5 2 2 75 51 37 14 13 4 2 2 2 1

Technology Category Cross-Correlation Matrix • A cross-correlation matrix of categories vs. categories can highlight the degree of co-occurrence of category pairs. • If an invention appears in two categories, it contains subject matter relevant to both. • Areas with high co-occurrence may suggest some linkage such as “cause & effect” that may be worth exploring further. • However, from an IP protection perspective, such highly correlated intersections are “crowded” and may present a greater challenge to innovation. • Areas with little co-occurrence may represent “white space” that could be further developed, but only if merging of the concepts makes sense technically and commercially.

Well casing Well head Well maintenance Drilling Well flow Well stimulation Well fluid Cementing New drilling technologies Ultra-deep drilling technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam piping/Two phase piping Steam turbine-generator Valves Condenser Pumps Gas removal system NCG treatment system Cooling towers Enhanced geothermal system (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

563 93 159 246 33 18 191 108 28 12 25 34 216 34 88 8 195 3 1 14 74 9

93 243 65 123 32 3 94 28 10 7 16 24 1 70 23 70 9 82 2 2 1 4 43 5

159 65 697 365 69 40 322 101 41 12 43 43 183 37 109 17 168 6 2 3 3 148 6

246 123 365 1375 103 37 409 145 67 59 58 51 4 300 74 156 20 201 10 3 3 24 344 23

33 32 69 103 193 5 83 13 12 3 6 14

18 3 40 37 5 75 54 17 20 1 12 1

30 9 29

3 4 3

48 3 1

8 1 1

1 91

4 13

191 94 322 409 83 54 1243 120 64 23 96 104 2 320 178 134 67 281 20 16 12 29 183 3

108 28 101 145 13 17 120 309 17 7 16 10

28 10 41 67 12 20 64 17 120 3 10 6

12 7 12 59 3 1 23 7 3 67 2 2

25 16 43 58 6 12 96 16 10 2 261 33

90 6 18 4 53

7 7 10

14 8 6 4 13

5 28 2

15 28

32 35 13 25 49 7 13 3 5 23

25 4

10 9

34 24 43 51 14 1 104 10 6 2 33 381 1 143 148 101 78 161 24 20 14 1 42

1 4

1 14 3 4 1 1

216 70 183 300 30 3 320 90 7 14 32 143 3 2321 298 427 157 951 9 5 17 16 320 6

34 23 37 74 9 4 178 6 7 8 35 148 4 298 1029 269 312 478 18 28 27 9 84 1

88 70 109 156 29 3 134 18 10 6 13 101 1 427 269 867 155 539 9 2 23 5 176 3

8 9 17 20

67 4 4 25 78 157 312 155 461 299 11 28 24 1 35

195 82 168 201 48 8 281 53 25 13 49 161 1 951 478 539 299 2068 15 6 40 20 269 1

rem ova l sy ste NC m Gt rea tm ent sys Co tem olin g to we rs Enh an ced geo the Sen rm al s sin y st ga em nd Me (EG asu S) Cen rin tra g Sys lize rs tem s

Ga s

Pu mp s

Co nd ens er

pip ing /Tw op Ste ha am se p tur ipin bin e-g g en Val era ves tor

Ste am

Cem en ting Ne wd rillin g te chn Ult olo ra-d gie s eep dri llin g te Ext chn rac tio olo no gies fM i n era Sep ls ara tor s Sile nce rs

We ll st imu lati on We ll flu id

We ll flo w

We ll h ead

We ll ca

sin g

Cross-correlation of technical category

We ll m ain ten anc e Dri llin g

Tech VS Tech Matrix

3 2 6 10 3 1 20

1 2 2 3 1 1 16

7 24

13 20

3 14

9 18 9 11 15 47 10 2 1 7

5 28 2 28 6 10 48 1

17 27 23 24 40 2 1 65 1 6

1 3 3

14 4 3 24 1 4 29 5 15 10 5 1 16 9 5 1 20 1 1 76 10

74 43 148 344 91 13 183 28 28 9 23 42 4 320 84 176 35 269 7 2 6 10 1002 4

9 5 6 23

3 2

6 1 3 1

4 28

ThemeScape® Analysis

About ThemeScape®

Typical Applications

• ThemeScape® is powerful tool that provides a qualitative and visual overview of the main subject matter presented in the data collection. • ThemeScape® employs algorithms that analyze the content of patents (e.g. the title, abstract and claims fields), and places patent records into different locations based on their technical similarity to each other. • Within a map, each dot represents an invention. Inventions with similar contents are enclosed in a contour. The distances between inventions are determined by similarity or dissimilarity in their technical content: the closer in location, the more similar. • Map coloration corresponds to record density: white for highly populated, green for moderately populated, and blue for open space. • This tool is reliant on statistical “word/phrase frequency” methods and algorithms → rapid, but lacking in “human” judgement. • Develop preliminary sense of technology addressed in the domain • Understand the inter-relation of various technical categories to derive core research focus areas • Identify whitespaces present in the domain • Understand the technological shifts trough slicing across various priority years

Sample ThemeScape

ThemeScape – Overall Technology •

The representation alongside showcases distribution of core geothermal technologies on a ThemeScape

•

In the ThemeScape map shown alongside, key themes in the patent collection noted include technologies related to: • Well drilling • Sensor Technologies • Steam Turbine/Condenser

• Power generation • Pumps/ Valves/ Heat exchangers • Well fluids

Analysis of Pending EP Applications

Overall Timeline Invention family status Grant Applications Utility model All families

96 2

97 2

98 3 1

99 2

00 3 1

01 4

02 3 2

03 3 2

04 3

05 9 3

15 3

06 19 6

07 36 12

08 26 11 1 38

09 30 15 1 46

10 21 16

11 26 12 1 39

12 52 25 2 79

13 20 20

14 8 17

15 1 12

Inventions / patent families 288 158 5 451

Note- Grant means patent is granted in jurisdication other than EP

Note: Granted means at least one granted patent in a family.

â&#x20AC;˘

There are a total of 451 patent families which have at least one pending EP applications.

â&#x20AC;˘

Out of theses 451 patent families, 288 have been granted in some other country other than EU.

â&#x20AC;˘

158 patents are only in application stage and have not been granted anywhere.

Tech Categorization Level 1 category

Level 2 sub-categories Well Casing Well Head Well Maintenance Drilling Well Flow Well Drilling, Extraction Well Stimulation and Maintenance Well Fluid Cementing New Drilling Technologies Ultra-deep Drilling Technologies Extraction of Minerals Separators Silencers Steam Piping/Two Phase Piping Steam Turbine-Generator Valves Condenser Well bore equipment Pumps Gas Removal System NCG Treatment System Cooling Towers Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Sensing and Measuring Systems Centralizers

Total inventions 47 31 72 185 28 6 138 42 13 6 28 14 0 132 38 36 16 67 2 3 2 7 117 4

â&#x20AC;˘

Drilling, Well Fluid, Steam Piping/Two Phase Piping and Sensing & Measuring systems are the top 4 categories having maximum number of count.

Top 20 Assignees and their Timeline Top 20 Assignees Halliburton Baker Hughes Schlumberger Prad Res & Dev Hampton Intellectual Property Holdings Nalco Rehau Altarock Energy General Electric Greenfield Master Haka.Gerodur Jansen AG Toshiba Bp Exploration Foro Energy Chevron Exxonmobil Itrec Los Alamos Nat Security Lvdi Master

95 1

00 2

01 1

04 1

1 1

2 1

06 2 1 2 1

07 2 1 1 10 2 3

1 1 1

2 1 2

08 1 1

09 2 9 1 1

1 1 1 1 2

1 2 2

10 2 4 1

11 3 6 2 2

1 2 2

12 27 4 3

13 9 6 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 2

1 2 1 1 1

3 2 1

15 1 1

2 1 1 1 2

14 1

Total inventions 53 28 19 11 10 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3

% Recency (inventions filed since 2010) 79% 61% 47% 55% 0% 29% 33% 40% 40% 60% 40% 60% 40% 25% 75% 67% 33% 100% 100% 67%

Appendix

Source Data and Collection Building â&#x20AC;˘ Search string creation and quality control. â&#x20AC;˘ The creation of the search strings for patent collections was performed iteratively, with the results of each generation of search string reviewed and evaluated to inform and tailor the search to become more accurate.

â&#x20AC;˘ As each search string is created, the results are sampled and reviewed for relevancy, and keywords and classifications amended as appropriate. Further, the results of each string are data mined for further key terms of interest, synonyms and alphanumeric technology classification codes of relevance, which are then incorporated in revised search strings. This process is repeated for each search until revisions perform only minor variations in results. At this point, the search string is locked in its configuration.

Assumptions and Definitions • The study is constructed around the Derwent World Patents Index database structure. DWPI uses “patent families” as the definition for each record, rather than individual patent publication documents. Each invention-related patent application and granted patent is added to the DWPI family record as it is published. This being the case, all counts of records in the study refer to patent families or inventions, and not to individual patent documents. For example, the European application, European granted patent and the US granted patent for a single invention family is counted as “1” in all the analyses in this report unless otherwise noted. • This provides a more accurate measure of the level of inventive activity from an entity within the technical space, and a truer picture of the overall level of innovation across the field as a whole. • As each DWPI record contains potentially many individual publication events, this report uses the earliest known priority filing date for each patent family. The tables and charts included in the report use this date unless otherwise noted, because it provides the most accurate indication of the time of the inventive activity. • A single patent only provides a statutory monopoly for the patented technology within the legal jurisdiction of the authority that granted the patent. This means that inventors must file applications for a patent in each jurisdiction where they foresee a need for protection. • Priority refers to the first application for a particular invention which when filed at any patent office becomes the “priority application”, with the date of this event defining the priority date. The patent office location of the first filing is defined as the priority country. The priority filing provides the patent applicant with a grace period to file on the same invention in other patent jurisdictions without loss of the “novelty” requirement for patentability. • Data for 2015-2017 is incomplete due to 18 months publication lag. It has been highlighted in all the table and charts.

Patent Applicant Naming Variations • Assignee names appearing on patent documents are also inconsistently formatted. To the extent possible, such formatting anomalies are regularized during the assignee clean-up process, which benefits from the name standardization provided by the Derwent World Patents Index (DWPI) as well as employing additional automated and manual review. Assignee name reformatting reduces the heterogeneity in assignee names to a more manageable and more instructive level.

• Assignee names attached to patent documents reflect the ownership at time of document publication. Changes in ownership (reassignments) that occur after publication may or may not be reflected in the US reassignment field or in the INPADOC legal status field. To the extent the information is available in these two fields; the assignee name will be updated to reflect the reassignments. It is also expected that in US applications, many assignees will be “unknown” because assignees may not have been registered with the US PTO before publication. Usually the absent assignee can be inferred by checking ownership of other patent family members, or by observing assignments in other records by the same inventor. All of these methods are used to improve the quality of the assignee data to be used for analysis. • Lastly, company name changes, acquisitions and mergers, and hidden relationships are expected to affect true ownership of patent documents that may not be reflected in the collection data per se. For selected higher volume or critical assignees, we may rely on information from the Derwent Patent Assignee Code (PACO) system, and also may obtain information on acquisitions and other company transactions from outside sources, such as Hoovers Online Business Information and selected company web sites.

Glossary (1/3) • Publication – In most countries, a patent application is published 18 months after the priority date. For example, all pending EPO and JPO patent applications are published 18 months after the priority date. Prior to a change in rules under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, USPTO patent applications were held in confidence until a patent was granted. Patent applications filed at the USPTO on or after 29 November 2000 are required to be published 18 months after the priority date. However, there are certain exceptions for the publication of pending patents. For example, an applicant can ask (upon filing) for the patent not to be published by certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country. • Publication date - The date on which the patent application is published (i.e. the information is available to public). This normally occurs 18 months after the priority date. • Priority - Priority is a term reflecting the first instance in which a new invention is registered or filed at any patent authority. Related terms include priority filing location (the patent authority in which the first registration takes place), earliest priority filing date (the earliest known date on which the patent was first registered). • Priority Country (Earliest priority country) - Priority country is where the patent is first filed before being (possibly) extended to other countries. (In all jurisdiction-wise charts and tables earliest priority country is used, except Family Member Geographic Analysis and Geographic Protection Analysis tables) • Earliest Priority Year - Earliest priority year is the filing year of the earliest member of the patent family. (In all timeline charts earliest priority year is used)

Glossary (2/3) • Family member Country - Countries where members of patent family are published • % filed from 2010 (Recency) - Ratio of the number of inventions filed from 2010 to the total inventions in case of Indian dataset and from 2006 in case of Non-Indian dataset

• Grant - A temporary right given by the authorized body for a limited time period (normally 20 years) to prevent unauthorized use of the technology outlined in the patent. A patent application does not automatically give the applicant a temporary right against infringement. A patent has to be granted for it to be effective and enforceable against infringement. • Granted Patent - Patent family which has received at least one granted member in the family • Published Applications - Patent family which has only published applications in the family • Grant Success % - Ratio of the number of granted family members to the total number of inventions • Citations - Citations may be made by the examiner or the applicant/inventor. They comprise a list of references that are believed to be relevant prior art and which may have contributed to the "narrowing" of the original application.

• Family member Country - Countries where members of patent family are published • % filed from 2010 (Recency) - Ratio of the number of inventions filed from 2010 to the total inventions in case of Indian dataset and from 2006 in case of Non-Indian dataset

Glossary (3/3) • Grant - A temporary right given by the authorized body for a limited time period (normally 20 years) to prevent unauthorized use of the technology outlined in the patent. A patent application does not automatically give the applicant a temporary right against infringement. A patent has to be granted for it to be effective and enforceable against infringement. • Granted Patent - Patent family which has received at least one granted member in the family • Published Applications - Patent family which has only published applications in the family • Grant Success % - Ratio of the number of granted family members to the total number of inventions • Family Citation Count - Total number of patents citing the patent family

• Impact Score – It is a score given to a patent on the basis of forward citations per year of the patent. • Novelty Score – It is a score given to a patent on the basis of granted status of the patent family which varies according to the jurisdiction where the patent is granted. • Technical Breadth- It is score given to a patent based on the number of technological categories a patent covers in the landscape. • Filing Breath- It is a score given based on the number of jurisdictions in which the family members are filed. • Remaining Life (Years to Expiry) - Number of years remaining for the expiry of the earliest filed member of the family

Feedback & Comments Atul Dhaka | India Atul.dhaka@Clarivate.com Shamsher Singh | India Shamsher.singh@Clarivate.com Jack Hopwood | London Jack.Hopwood@Clarivate.com

Prepared by Clarivate Analytics for Arnason Faktor - CONFIDENTIAL