Following the new line of papers on patents introduced with my last post, and considering that comparing databases and tools is going to be part of my research, obviously I had to look for existing work on this topic.
This led me to a 2020 paper written by Araujo, Moura, and Quintella, which provides a structured comparison of six widely used systems, contrasting free and paid solutions for gathering patent data.
Although the paper is written in Portuguese, it found it is so well written that I was able to understand everything clearly, so don’t be afraid to take a look, especially if you are a Spanish speaker =)
Pires, E. A., Ribeiro, N. M., & Quintella, C. M. (2020). Patent Search Systems: Comparative Analysis Between Espacenet, Patentscope, Google Patents, Lens, Derwent Innovation Index and Orbit Intelligence. Cadernos De Prospecção, 13(1), 13.
https://doi.org/10.9771/cp.v13i1.35147
Patent search tools to test
The paper begins to underlining the growing role of intellectual property in knowledge economies. Patents are not just legal instruments, but also a primary source of technological information, often revealing the state of the art well before journal publications [Cris-Note: This is related to the requirement for a patent to be granted. The solution must not be disclosed in any previous publication, as maintaining novelty is essential.].
A good patent search can reveal:
- Technical details of innovations,
- Key inventors and assignees,
- Market and geographical priorities,
- and Potential technology transfer opportunities.
The literature cited highlights how patent information underpins competitive intelligence and strategic decision-making. Prior comparative studies have mostly focused on free systems, leaving a gap in understanding how these compare with commercial platforms. This paper addresses that gap by analysing both categories.
The Method:
The study compared six systems:
- Free: Espacenet, Patentscope, Google Patents, Lens
- Paid: Derwent Innovation Index, Orbit Intelligente
Thirteen criteria were used:
- Coverage: number of authorities and documents
- Search fields
- Classification systems supported: IPC, CPC, etc.
- Export formats and limits
- Analytical tools available
In addition to feature comparison, the authors tested the systems with eight IPC codes (one from each main section) to evaluate retrieval performance for patent documents and families. All searches were conducted on the same day to control for database updates.
Key Points:
The main results obtained were:
- Orbit offered the widest coverage, followed by Espacenet and Lens. Free tools provide substantial global coverage.
- Patentscope stood out among the free systems for multilingual search expansion.
- Espacenet offered the broadest authority coverage.
- Google Patents provided excellent accessibility with machine translation and integration with non-patent literature.
- Paid systems allow larger and more flexible data exports and offer advanced statistical analysis.
- For Patent Families, Lens and Orbit performed similarly, both outperforming Derwent in the number of retrieved records.
- Only Orbit provides advanced customisable analytical dashboards. Among free tools, Lens offers the richest set of quick visualisations.
Limitations & What’s left to explore:
The study is based on a single search per IPC code per system on one day, this snapshot approach may not fully capture differences in update frequency or interface evolution.
Moreover, the usability experience (learning curve, integration with workflows, etc.) is not quantitatively assess, although it clearly matters in practice.
Conclusions:
The paper concludes that the gat between free and paid patent search tools is narrowing, especially in terms of coverage and basic analysis. However, commercial platforms still offer:
- Better export capabilities,
- Deeper analytical features,
- More robust handling of large datasets.
For researchers, free tools offer impressive functionalities. Yet, for institutions or companies with more complex needs, Orbit remains the most powerful option.
From a knowledge management perspective, this evolution is encouraging: more researchers can access high-quality patent information without prohibitive costs.
See you in the next paper =)