Unlocking the Competitive Intelligence Hidden Within Patent Portfolios

Jared Engstrom, Head of Patent Development, talks about the growth in Red Hat’s portfolio, how he has used Cipher custom classifiers and how the Cipher Portfolio Optimisation model has improved their understanding of the competitive landscape. Jared manages Red Hat’s portfolio, the harvesting of new invention disclosures as well as moving them through the patent process. He is also responsible for the strategy around what patents Red Hat files, how they are maintained and how they are used to protect the company and support the open-source community.

What types of strategic business questions do you need to consider?

You need to understand where your risk is as a company – for many companies, it’s tied to your products and offerings and the revenue you generate. Understanding that risk naturally helps you understand where to build fortifications and defenses.

In our case, we have a patent portfolio used for defensive purposes only and understand where we have risk exposure due to the markets we operate in and what other companies do in those spaces. We need to answer these questions at a fine level of granularity.

How have you answered that kind of strategic business question in the past?

We recently hit an inflection point. As a smaller company over the previous 10-15 years or so, we were largely concerned with building up the size of our portfolio. We also knew we had a handful of key threats out there, so much of our time and energy was focused on ensuring we were well-prepared to defend against those particular threats.

As we’ve hit this inflection point, where we’re a bigger company with a sizeable patent portfolio and in many more markets and tech spaces, we’ve got to have a broader view of patent risk in general. We need to answer questions about our risk and ensure that we align our defensive measures in each of our relevant spaces proportional to the relative risk.

What was your approach, and how did that change when Cipher was introduced?

We did do an analysis in the past, where we looked at other companies. We assembled a spreadsheet of 100+ companies that we thought either had products that were similar to ours or they competed in some of our spaces. We did a bunch of manual analysis that took us months and months to build, and it gave us some insights about where some of our risks were, but it was static data and hard to update and maintain.

Once we learned about Cipher, it was sort of an ‘aha’ moment where we realized that we could dynamically monitor, measure, see trends, and better understand what the world looks like, but do it through our lens, through our taxonomies. Seeing the world through that lens gives us a better ability to act on that information because we are already familiar with it and know it aligns with our business strategy.

How did you find that process of taking your view of the technologies of interest into a Cipher taxonomy?

The process was straightforward. We defined the technologies and provided examples of patents that met the definitions for the different technology areas. We were under some time pressure to finish the project before the end of our last fiscal year, and we managed to work through the whole thing in what I think was less than a month. And it wasn’t a full-time effort on the part of the Red Hat team. The Red Hat team certainly put in a lot of time and effort, but the Cipher team did all the heavy lifting. It would have taken us several months of nearly full-time effort to do that on our own.