Global Patent Portfolios of the Top 25 Well-Funded AV Companies

Obtaining patent protection on a global scale can be costly. As each country is a sovereign jurisdiction, they have their own Patent Office, requiring a patent application to be filed and examined in the respective Patent Office in order to receive patent protection in that jurisdiction. While the same patent application can be filed in multiple countries for the same invention, the Patent Office lifetime fees for obtaining patent protection for a single invention in the 50+ major countries combined can cost over $500,000! For example, the Patent Office fees for the 20-year lifespan of one patent asset can accumulate to around $8,000 for a small entity in the United States, and $17,500 in China. As such, it is simply not practical to indiscriminately pursue international patent protection in all major jurisdictions. So, which countries should you consider for international protection of your invention?

The following table illustrates the global patent portfolios of the top 25 well-funded autonomous vehicle (AV) companies (according to CrunchBase, updated on May 9, 2020). The number of applications filed per country is listed below for each company based on publicly available databases. It should be noted that patent applications typically do not publish for 18 months after their filing date, so the number of patent assets listed here represents a snapshot of the number of patent assets owned by the company as of 18 months ago.

Rank based on CB Score	Entreprises	Year Founded	HQ	Office Locations	Applications Filed per Country	Total Applications Filed
1	Brain Corp	2009	San Diego, Californie	USA, The Netherlands, Japan	US (240); EP (12); CN (11); CA (7); KR (7); JP (6); TW (2); SG (1); IN (1); WO (44)	331
2	Waymo	2009	Mountain View, California	USA	US (603); CN (132); KR (125); EP (115); JP (106); AU (53); CA (52); SG (37); IL (12); HK (5); MX (2); ES (1); DK (1); DE (1); WO (193)	1438
3	Otonomo	2015	Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel	Israel, USA, Germany	US (1); EP (1); WO (4)	6
4	Tesla	2003	Palo Alto, California	USA, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan	US (693); EP (130); CN (104); JP (92); KR (35); CA (22); DE (21); HK (11); IN (4); AU (4); AT (3); GB (3); MX (3); TW (3); WO (146)	1274
5	Bolt Technology	2013	Tallinn, Harjumaa, Estonia	Click here	–	–
6	Nexar	2015	Tel Aviv, Israel	Israël	US (3); WO (2)	5
7	Mobileye, An Intel Company	1999	Jerusalem, Israel	Israel, Cyprus	US (255); EP (91); CN (49); KR (20); JP (19); CA (7); AU (7); IL (6); DE (5); IN (4); AT (4); BR (2); GB (2); SE (1); ES (1); WO (63)	536
8	Luminar	2012	Orlando, Floride	USA	US (120); EP (7); CN (7); JP (2); WO (14)	150
9	TuSimple	2015	San Diego, Californie	USA, China	CN (213); US (129); EP (3); AU (2); WO (52)	399
10	Seegrid	2003	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania	USA	US (21); EP (14); HK (7); JP (6); KR (5); CN (5); CA (5); ES (1); WO (13)	77
11	Cruise	2013	San Francisco, California	USA	US (9)	9
12	Argo AI	2016	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania	USA	US (42); DE (3); GB (1)	46
13	Cobalt	2016	San Mateo, California	USA	US (17); WO (2)	19
14	Nauto	2015	Pal Alto, California	USA, Ireland, Japan	US (24); EP (6); JP (5); CN (1); BR (1); WO (13)	50
15	Momenta	2016	Bejing, China	China, Germany	CN (75); US (3); WO (6)	84
16	Embark Trucks	2016	San Francisco, California	USA	–	–
17	Arrivée	2015	London, England	Germany, Netherlands, Israel, Russia, USA	GB (37); CN (5); WO (6)	48
18	AirMap	2014	Santa Monica, California	USA, Germany, Switzerland, France, Singapore	US (2); EP (1); KR (1); JP (1); CN (1); AU (1); WO (1)	8
19	Quanergy Systems	2012	Sunnyvale, California	USA, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, UK, UAE	US (16); CN (4); KR (4); EP (4); JP (4); SG (4); TW (4); WO (8)	49
20	Applied Intuition	2017	Sunnyvale, California	USA, Germany, Japan	–	–
21	Xiaopeng Motors	2014	Guangzhou, Guangdong, China	China, USA	CN (1074); WO (20)	1094
22	PrecisionHawk	2010	Raleigh, North Carolina	USA, Canada	US (6); CA (3); WO (3)	12
23	Innoviz Technologies	2016	Tel Aviv, Israel	Israël	US (25); EP (3); CN (3); KR (1); WO (10)	42
24	Ike	2018	San Francisco, California	USA	–	–
25	Wheels	2018	Los Angeles, Californie	USA	–	–

Among the top well-funded AV companies, Brain Corporation, Waymo, Tesla, Mobileye, and TuSimple are ones that hold the largest number of patent assets. Their patent portfolios include applications filed across the globe. The top chosen countries by these companies are as follows:

Brain Corporation – US (240), EP (12), CN (11), CA (7), KR (7), JP (6);
Waymo – US (603), CN (132), KR (125), EP (115), JP (106), AU (53), CA (52);
Tesla – US (693), EP (130), CN (104), JP (92), KR (35), CA (22);
Mobileye – US (255), EP (91), CN (49), KR (20), JP (19), CA (7), AU (7); and
TuSimple – CN (213), US (129), EP (3), AU (2).

From the information above, United States (2004), China (509), Europe (351), Japan (223), Korea (187), Canada (87), and Australia (62) appear to be the most popular patent filing jurisdictions for the top five well-funded AV companies. The total number of applications these five companies filed in these countries accounts for about 86% (3423) of the sum of applications filed by the companies. This may reveal that competition in the AV space is a common theme in these countries. Some companies allocate most of their filings in countries where their offices are located (e.g., Tesla – located and filed applications in US, EP, CN, DE, AU, JP, HK, KR, and TW), while some companies pursue patent protection in foreign jurisdictions based on other factors (e.g., Nexar – located in Israel, filed applications in US without any Israeli filings; and Mobileye – located in Israel and Cyprus, filed applications in US, EP, CN, KR, JP, CA, AU, etc.).

Emerging startups also pursue foreign patent protection, albeit to a lesser extent than more established companies. For example, Momenta with 84 total assets and its headquarter in China, pursued some patent protection in the United States in addition to China; Argo AI with 46 total assets and its headquarter in the US, pursued some patent protection Germany and the United Kingdom in addition to the US; and Innoviz Technologies with its headquarter in Israel pursued patent protection in the US, Europe, China and Korea without filing any patents in Israel.

AV companies looking to develop international patent protection for their innovations can leverage the international strategies employed by the top five well-funded AV companies. While an emerging upstart may not ultimately pursue all five of the most common jurisdictions (i.e., United States, China, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, and Australia) due to cost or other considerations, these five countries may provide a defendable starting point from which to choose jurisdictions for patent protection. AV companies can then consider factors such as the technical and legal infrastructure of each country, market adoption, potential competitors, potential investors, and the significance of the invention (foundational vs. niche) to ultimately select countries for patent protection.

Clause de non-responsabilité

Ce blog est mis à disposition par Foley & Lardner LLP ("Foley" ou "le cabinet") à des fins d'information uniquement. Il n'a pas pour but d'exprimer la position juridique du cabinet au nom d'un client, ni de fournir des conseils juridiques spécifiques. Les opinions exprimées dans cet article ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de Foley & Lardner LLP, de ses partenaires ou de ses clients. En conséquence, n'agissez pas sur la base de ces informations sans demander l'avis d'un avocat agréé. Ce blog n'est pas destiné à créer, et sa réception ne constitue pas, une relation avocat-client. Communiquer avec Foley par le biais de ce site web, que ce soit par e-mail, par un billet de blog ou par tout autre moyen, ne crée pas une relation avocat-client pour une quelconque question juridique. Par conséquent, toute communication ou matériel que vous transmettez à Foley par le biais de ce blog, que ce soit par e-mail, par billet de blog ou de toute autre manière, ne sera pas traité comme confidentiel ou propriétaire. Les informations contenues dans ce blog sont publiées "EN L'ÉTAT" et ne sont pas garanties comme étant complètes, exactes ou à jour. Foley ne donne aucune garantie, expresse ou implicite, quant au fonctionnement ou au contenu du site. Foley rejette expressément toute autre garantie, condition ou déclaration de quelque nature que ce soit, expresse ou implicite, découlant d'un statut, d'une loi, d'un usage commercial ou autre, y compris les garanties implicites de qualité marchande, d'adéquation à un usage particulier, de titre et d'absence de contrefaçon. En aucun cas Foley ou l'un de ses partenaires, dirigeants, employés, agents ou affiliés ne pourra être tenu responsable, directement ou indirectement, en vertu de toute théorie de droit (contrat, délit, négligence ou autre), envers vous ou toute autre personne, pour toute réclamation, perte ou dommage, direct, indirect, spécial, accessoire, punitif ou consécutif, résultant de ou occasionné par la création, l'utilisation ou la confiance en ce site (y compris les informations et autres contenus) ou tout autre site tiers ou les informations, ressources ou matériels accessibles à travers de tels sites web. Dans certaines juridictions, le contenu de ce blog peut être considéré comme de la publicité pour les avocats. Le cas échéant, veuillez noter que des résultats antérieurs ne garantissent pas un résultat similaire. Les photographies ne sont utilisées qu'à des fins de représentation et peuvent inclure des modèles. Les portraits n'impliquent pas nécessairement le statut de client, de partenaire ou d'employé actuel.