Part II: Short-term Vs. Long-term IP Landscape Analysis and How to Select the Optimal Time Scope
May 20, 2025
best practices intellectual property
In Part I of this three-part series, we explained why IP landscape analysis matters, described the key objectives in such analyses, and summarized the notable differences in advantages and limitations between short-term and long-term analysis. In this post, we examine those differences in greater more detail, specifically the depth and relevance of the insights each provides and the strategic implications of choosing one over the other.
The optimal time scope for IP landscape analysis is a function of your business objectives. If you need to set and clarify your long-term strategy, then (as you would expect), long-term analysis is called for. However, if you are grappling with near-term strategic adjustments – for example, product evolution – then short-term analysis is required. So, the foundational question is, “What is the problem that we are trying to solve?’
That said, it is important to understand in detail the differences – in methodology, required resources, results, and more – between analyses with short or long time scopes. There may be edge cases where these differences are highly consequential in terms of the benefits obtained through the analysis. And even if not, understanding the differences helps ensure that the study you conduct aligns with your needs and business goals for maximum impact
The Big Picture vs. the Latest Trends: Key Differences in Approach
Choosing between a short-term or long-term landscape study is a strategic decision that directly influences the depth and relevance of the insights gained. For purposes of time-scope selection, 17 considerations stand out:
| Consideration | Long Term Duration | Short Term Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensiveness | A broad understanding of historical background and long-term trends | Focus on recent developments and current shifts |
| Breadth of Coverage | Insight into the entire patent landscape across all years, ensuring no gaps | Emphasis on recent innovations, with a risk of missing older but valuable patents |
| Data Volume and Complexity | High data volume, requiring advanced tools and longer processing time | Smaller datasets, making analysis faster and more straightforward |
| Trend Analysis | Visibility into the evolution of technologies over time | Insights into the latest advancements, with limited historical context, potentially overlooking long-term patterns |
| Depth of Insight | A thorough exploration of patents, offering a deeper understanding of the IP landscape | Targeted analysis of recent patents, focused on immediate trends |
| Resource Intensity | Higher demand for resources and expertise due to the larger scope | Lower resource requirements, enabling faster completion |
| Competitive Intelligence | A long-term view of competitors’ strategies and market positioning | A sharper focus on competitors’ recent strategic moves and market shifts |
| Emerging Technologies | Inclusion of older technologies, which may dilute focus on emerging trends | Clearer identification of cutting-edge technologies and opportunities |
| Strategic Planning | Supports long-term strategy by highlighting technological evolution | Better suited for short-term strategic adjustments |
| Geographical Analysis | Historical view of key regions and technological trends | Insights into emerging regions and potential regions with low penetration |
| Market Size Estimation | Historical market growth patterns and long-term size estimation | Current market size and recent growth trends |
| Legal Landscape | Overview of historical legal challenges, major legal precedents and changes in patent law | Focus on recent legal changes, litigation trends and newly granted patents in that domain |
| Risk Assessment | Identification of long-term risks and stability factors | Immediate risks and short-term vulnerabilities |
| Extensiveness | Offers a holistic view, capturing the full spectrum of technological developments | A focused snapshot of the current market and technology landscape |
| Inventor Analysis | Insight into inventors’ career trajectories and long-term impact | A view of recent inventors and their immediate contributions |
| Citation Analysis | Broader citation trends over decades | Recent citation patterns and relevance |
| Cost and Resource Allocation | Higher costs and resource needs due to larger datasets and complex analysis | Lower costs and quicker results with a more focused approach |
As the chart illustrates, selecting the optimal time scope for an IP landscape study is not a one-size-fits-all decision. It requires a careful balance between depth and immediacy, historical context and current trends.
By aligning the study’s duration with strategic objectives—whether long-term for comprehensive trend analysis or short-term for immediate market insights—organisations can extract the most valuable intelligence. Ultimately, the right approach ensures informed decision-making, strengthens competitive positioning, and maximises the impact of innovation efforts.
In the third and final post in this series, we will look at two landscape analyses that illustrate how time scope affects the type and depth of insights an analysis provides. Stay tuned!
Back to Expertise
