(Some numbers still preliminary)
Inventions and the innovation
process in Japan and the US:
Highlights from the US-Japan
Inventor Survey
Sadao Nagaoka* and John P. Walsh**
March 2008
•Professor, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University
Research Counselor, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry
** Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology
We would like to thank the research assistance by Naotoshi Tsukada, Wang Tingting
Connie Huang, Taehyun Jung and Yeonji No.
1
I. Design of Inventor Surveys
• Pioneered by PATVAL, followed by RIETI, GT/RIETI
• Survey inventors (rather than R&D managers) for
specific R&D projects
• Large sample, broad technology/industry coverage
• Comparative (JP-US, also Europe)
• Measures
– Inventor Career, Mobility, Background and
Motivations
– Invention Process, Collaboration
– Business objective of R&D, R&D strategy and
performance
– Uses of the Patent, Commercialization
2
Primary Sampling Frame –
OECD Triadic Patent Families
•
•
•
Triadic Patent Families
– Compiled by OECD
– Sharing, either directly or indirectly, at least one priority patent
applications in three patent offices
– Filed in EPO and JPO and granted in USPTO
Advantage of using the TPF
– Reduce home country bias
– Focus on economically important patents (Random sampling would
result in targeting most questionnaires to economically
unimportant patents. Filing in multiple jurisdictions works as a
threshold)
Disadvantage of using the TPF
– Select subset of inventions, and even of patented inventions.
Likely to be biased toward commercialized inventions
– Perhaps, bias against nonprofit, small, and/or independent
inventors?
3
Triadic patents in the total picture
•
Japan
– 8% in terms of the share of granted patents by Japanese
applicants
•
US
– 23% of US patent grants (any country of origin) are triadic [Jensen,
et al., 2005]
• Level of commercialization of triadic and non-triadic
patents in Japan according to the RIETI Survey
Triadic
non-triadic
The share of the patents used
internally by a firm (%)
56%
41%
The share of the patents licensed by
a firm (%)
23%
14%
4
Data
• Japan: 5,300 responses
– 20.6% response rate (27.1% adjusted for undelivered, ineligible,
etc.)
– triadic patents: approximately 70% (about 3600 responses)
– non-triadic patents: approximately 30%
– very important patents (selected from the JPO reports and the
essential patents of standards): roughly 120 patents
• US: 1,900 (all triadic)
– 24.1% response rate (31.8% adjusted)
• Comparisons based on triadic patent samples
• Created country-technology weights to adjust for
different composition across technology in each country
– Effects of the weighting quite small.
5
Table 1. Composition of the sample
Category Name
Chemical
Computer
Communications
Drug &Medicals
Electrical
&Electronic
Mechanical
Others
&
No.
Sub-Category Name
11
Agriculture, Food, Textiles
農業、食品、繊維
12
Coating
コーティング材料、処理方法、製品
内容
13
Gas
ガス
14
15
Organic Compounds
Resins
有機化合物
ゴム、樹脂、プラスチック加工
その他の化学
通信機器、システム（光通信を含む）
符号化、暗号化、画像処理
各種情報処理技術、アプリケーション、ビジネス特許、カーナ
ビ、マルチメディア、音声処理、データ圧縮、人工知能、デー
ターベース、情報セキュリティ
コンピューター周辺機器
情報記憶装置、メモリ
医薬
手術、医療機器
バイオ
その他の医薬・医療
チューナー、コンデンサー、増幅器等電子デバイス
電気照明デバイス、装置、イルミネーション
電気、光学、温度を用いた計量、実験装置
19
Miscellaneous-chemical
21
22
Communications
Computer Hardware
77
Computer Software
23
24
31
32
33
Computer Peripherals
Information Storage
Drugs
Surgery & Medical Instruments
Biotechnology
39
Miscellaneous-Drug&Med
41
42
43
44
45
46
Electrical Devices
Electrical Lighting
Measuring & Testing
Nuclears & X-rays
Power Systems
Semiconductor Devices
Apparel & Textile
原子力工学、X線、その他の放射線技術
電力供給、バッテリー、電動式モーター
半導体デバイス、製造プロセス、電子ロジック回路、超伝導
その他の電気分野
ガラス、石材、木材のカッティングなど各種加工技術
金属カッティング、接着などの加工技術、金具
モーター、エンジン、ブレーキ、バルブなどの部品
カメラ、プロジェクトなどの光学機器、デバイス
鉄道、船、タイヤ、エレベータ、リフト、宇宙飛行など
その他の機械分野
肥料、飼料、タバコ、食品加工
衣服繊維
68
Earth Working & Wells
Furniture, House Fixtures
Heating
Pipes & Joints
Receptacles
削孔・採鉱
家具、据え付け品
加熱
パイプ・継ぎ目
包装、容器
69
Miscellaneous-Others
その他(おもちゃを含む)
49
Miscellaneous-Elec.
51
52
53
54
55
Materials Processing & Handling
Metal Working
Motors, Engines & Parts
Optics
Transportation
59
Miscellaneous Mechanical
61
Agriculture, Husbandry, Food
63
64
65
66
67
JP
US
1.6%
2.2%
1.2%
3.3%
3.4%
5.7%
4.4%
1.6%
0.4%
1.8%
0.6%
3.2%
4.4%
12.1%
7.8%
2.1%
3.4%
2.1%
3.3%
3.5%
2.3%
2.4%
1.2%
2.5%
2.6%
3.0%
2.0%
4.7%
3.5%
3.3%
2.8%
3.7%
4.0%
2.7%
2.0%
3.4%
2.4%
2.1%
0.5%
1.4%
2.3%
1.8%
1.5%
6.2%
4.9%
1.7%
2.1%
5.2%
6.3%
2.1%
1.5%
2.4%
1.7%
3.2%
2.1%
4.7%
2.9%
1.7%
2.9%
2.6%
2.9%
2.2%
1.7%
2.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.7%
1.0%
6.4%
3,658
1912
6
II. Inventor
Table 2 Basic profile of the surveyed inventors and their organizational affiliations
Trilateral patents
Europe
Japan
Sample size
Academic
background
US
3,658
9,017
University graduate (%)
86.0
1,912
93.7
Doctorate (%)
12.4
44.9
26
1.5
5.4
2.8
Age (years old)
39.5
52.7
45.4
Employed at large corporation (251 or more employees) (%)
87.8
81.1
70.6
8.7
14.0
22.5
2.3
2.2
3.2
0.7
0.1
2.2
0.5
2.1
Female (%)
Employed at small or medium-sized corporation(%)
Organizational
Institutions of higher education(%)
affiliation
National research institutes or other government organs (%)
Foundations and other organizations (%)
Source: RIETI Inventor Survey (2007) for Japan, Europe’s PatVal for EU (covering six countries:
Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands).
Note: The inventors who have no organizational affiliations are extremely rare.
76.9
7
Figure 1 Inventor mobility- Within 5 prior year, have you
worked for another employer? (%)
30
Yes(secondment)
25
Yes (employment)
20
15
25.7
10
6
5
4.6
0
JAPAN
US
8
ult
ur
e,
Bi
o
Hu tec
M s b hno
ea a n
su dr l og y
rin y,
g Fo
&
o
M Te d
et st
al
i
W ng
or
M
k in
at
g
er
ial
R e Dr
s
c ug
Pr
oc Tra ept a s
es
n
c
Su
sin spo l es
rg
r
g
ta
er
y
Co & H tion
&
m a
M
ed mu ndlin
ica ni g
l I ca t
ns
i
tru ons
m
en
Se
t
m
Re s
ic
si n
on
s
du
In c t
f o or
Al
rm
at Dev l
El ion ic
ec
S es
t
Nu rica tor
ag
l
c
O lear Dev e
rg
a n s & i ces
i
XC c
M om Com ray
ot
or p u t p o s
u
s,
e
E n r S n ds
gi n oft
wa
e
Co Po s & re
m we Pa
pu r
r
te Sy ts
r P st
er em
ip s
Co
he
r
m
pu
Co als
te
r H atin
ar g
dw
El
ar
ec
e
tr
O
ica
pt
l L ics
i gh
t in
g
Ag
ric
Figure 2. Share of the inventors who moved in last 5 years before the invention
(%, bar: Japan line: US)
experience of working in another firm within 5 years
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
9
Figure 3. Inventors’ Mobility, From-To [in
Biotech, US]
60
57.14
Move from:
57.14
University
50
50
50
Competitor
42.86
Non-competitor within the
same industry
40
Hospital
28.57
30
20
14.29
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
A firm more than 250
employees
A firm less than 250 employees
University or college
Move to
10
Figure 4. Source of mobility in Japan (% of the moved
inventors)
univ
40
Move from:
national or reginal
research organization,
including national projects
private foundations others
34
35
32
30
customers
25
suppliers
20
competitor
17
15
14
14
13
14
Non-competitor within the
same industry
13
related firms
10
7
7
6
5
5
3
6
6
3
3
2
0
0
large firm
other firms
0
oth
small firm
11
Figure 5. Inventor Functional Affiliation
80.0
70.0
69.7
JAPAN
60.0
US
59.6
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
16.9
14.4
12.2
10.0
8.2
7.4
6.0
2.5
3.0
0.0
Independent R&D unit
R&D sub-unit affiliated with
manufacturing unit*
Manufacturing
Software development
Other
Note: The “Other” category includes design and engineering sectors.
12
Inventor motivations
• What motivates inventors?
• How important are financial rewards directly tied to the
commercial success of the invention work?
• Asked for Likert-scale scores on a variety of motivations:
– Satisfaction from solving technical problems; Satisfaction from
contributing to progress of science; Society good
– Generating value for firm; It is my job
– Prestige/reputation; Recognition from co-workers; Recognition in
my profession; Career opportunities
– Monetary rewards; Beneficial working conditions
• Note: be careful about potential Socially Desirable
Response [SDR] bias
13
Figure 6. Inventor Motivations
JP: above bar
Satisfaction from solving
tech. problems
90.9
86.54
Satisfaction from
contributing science
62.0
61.7
Generating value for my
firm
64.3
78.2
29.4
33.5
Career advance
Prestige/ reputation
19.8
Beneficial working
condition
21.9
16.9
36.4
US
23.2
21.6
Monetary rewards
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
%High (4 or 5), weighted
60.0
70.0
80.0
JP
90.0
100.0
14
III. Characterizing the Invention
Process
•
•
•
Nature of Project
– Product vs. process
– Invention process (targeted vs. serendipity)
Time
– How long the research lasted until the patent application
– How many man-months the research required
Outcome
– Product vs. Process
15
Figure 7. Technological Goal of Research Project
70
60
60
50
45
JAPAN
US
40
30
27
20
20
14
13
9.9
10
8.2
1.8
1.8
0
Creating a new product
Improvement of an existing
product
Creating a new process
Improvement of an existing
process
other
A.2 What would best describe the type of innovation your research was expected to realize?
16
Figure 8. Product vs. process patents
60
JAPAN
50
50
US
44
40
31
29
30
25
21
20
10
0
Product
Process
D.6. What would best describe the type of the invention?
%Yes, weighted
both
17
Figure 9. Invention Process (Targeted v. Serendipity)
JP: above bar
50.1
Targeted achievement of a
research project
49.8
23
Expected by-product of a
research project
11.5
3.5
Unexpected by-product of
a research project
US
11.1
JP
10.8
Related to my job, and
then developed further
11.4
11
No R&D Involved
14
0
10
20
%Yes, weighted
30
40
50
60
18
Figure 10. Man months for an Invention
25
21.0
20.1
20
19.2
19.1
18.3
18.2
16.8
16.0
JAPAN
15
US
14.4
13.2
10
6.2
5.6
5
4.5
4.1
1.8
1.5
0
Less than or
equal to 3
man-month
4-6 man
months
7-12 man
months
13-24 man
months
25-48 man
months
49-72 man
months
73-96man
months
97 man
months or
more
D.16. How many man-months did the research leading to the patent require, including those of co-inventors?
19
Figure 11. Calendar year for an invention
60
57
51
50
JAPAN
US
40
30
28
23
20
10 11
10
2.5
4.0
3.8
2.9
0.7 0.7
0.5 0.3
0.5 0.3
0.2 0.2
6 year
7 year
8 year
9 year
0
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
1.6 1.3
10 years or
more
D4 How many months did the research leading to this patent last until its application?
20
Figure 12. External Co-inventors, by
organization type
%Yes, unweighted
21
Figure 13. Formal/Informal Collaborations
(excluding co-inventors), by organization type
%Yes, unweighted
22
D.12. Excluding co-inventors, how important were the following sources of knowledge for suggesting
the research that led to the patented invention? (%yes)
Figure 14A: Sources of InformationSuggesting New Project
Competitors (e.g. knowledge from
its products)
7.0
51
US (above)
JP
7.8
Suppliers
29
27
Customers or Product users
54
Non-University Public Research
Organization
2.5
11
6.1
University and Education
15
Your firm excluding co-inventors
38
62
Standard documents, such as
those from ISO (standards,
contributions)　4.9
8.7
technical conferences and
workshops
11
24
2.5
Trade Fair or Exhibition
22
28
Patent Literature
Scientific and Technical Literature
39
57
0
10
%High (4 or 5)
20
30
40
50
60
23
D.13. Excluding co-inventors, how important were the following sources of knowledge for
contributing to the completion of the research that led to the patented invention? (%yes)
Figure 14B: Sources of InformationContributing to Project Completion
4.6
Competitors (e.g. knowledge from its products)
35.1
9.4
suppliers
JAPA
30.9
19.8
Customers or Product users
1.9
Non-University Public Research Organization
44.7
9.3
5.0
University and Education
12.2
40.2
Your firm excluding co-inventors
5.3
Standard documents, such as those from ISO (standards, contributions) Technical conferences and workshops
2.0
Trade Fair or Exhibition
2.0
Patent Literature
63.4
10.8
20.0
19.5
24.9
58.1
33.8
Scientific and Technical Literature
0.0
%High (4 or 5)
US
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.1
50.0
60.0
70.0
24
Figure 15.
Business objectives of the research (%Yes)
70
67
JAPAN
60
US
49
50
40
30
23
24
24
20
10
7.9
3.6
2.6
0
Creating a new business line*
Enhancement of existing
business line
Enhancement of the
technology base of the firm
or the long-term cultivation
of technology seeds, not
associated with current
business
other
25
B
Nu iote
at
cle ch
er
ar no
ial
l
s
s
& ogy
Pr
X
oc
-r
es
ay
si n
s
Co g & D r
Se mp Ha ugs
u
n
m
ic ter dlin
on
Su
H
du ar g
rg
ct dw
er
o
a
y
&
Po r D re
e
M
ed wer vi c
ica
S es
O l In yst
rg
an stru ems
i
Co c C men
m om ts
pu
p
te oun
r
d
Co M Sof s
m eta twa
pu
r
l
te Wo e
r P rk
er ing
ip
he
El
ra
ec
ls
tr
ica
Co l D Al
e l
m
m vi c
un
e
ica s
El Rec tion
ec
s
e
M t ric pt a
ea
c
su al L l es
rin i gh
g
M
& t ing
ot
Te
or
st
s,
in
En
Co g
g
i
In
fo nes atin
rm
g
&
Ag
at
Pa
ric
i
on
rt
ult
St s
ur
or
e,
ag
Hu
sb
Re e
an
dr sins
y,
Fo
od
Tr
O
an
sp pt ic
or s
ta
tio
n
M
Figure 16. Share of projects for enhancing technology base,
bar: Japan line: US
Enhancement of technology base
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
26
IV. Business objectives of R&D
and commercialization process
• R&D for enhancing the existing business of a
firm is more common in Japan
• R&D for enhancing the technology base or for
cultivating seeds is much more common in US
– Especially in semiconductors, information storage,
computer software, optics
→US more focused on exploiting technological
opportunities and/or building absorptive
capacity?
27
Figure 17. Characteristics of R&D by business objectives (Japan)
70%
63%
60%
57%
52%
50%
41%
40%
34%
34%
30%
28%
27%
21%
20%
15%
23%
13%
10%
0%
core businesses
non-core
businesses
new businesses
In-house utilization ratio (%)
Strengthening
the corporate
technological
base
Top 25% in economic value (%)
Importance of science and technology papers in the conception of
inventions
Note: “In-house utilization" indicates the ratio of inventions used in the products or production processes of the firm in question.
“Top 25% in economic value” refers to the ratio judged by the inventors to fall in the nation’s economic top quarter of the
technology accomplishments. “Importance of science and technology papers in the conception of invention” refers to the
responses stating that such papers are very important in inspiring the invention.
28
Figure 18. The relationship between the man month and the value of
the patent by business purpose
Economic value
3.9
core businesses
new businesses
Strengthening the corporate
technological base & cultivating seeds
線
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
ln(manmonth)
2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Based on the survey in Japan
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
29
Figure 19. Use of the inventions
US
7.3
Has this patent been exploited commercially by
yourself or any of your co-inventors for starting a
new company?
JAPA
4.0
Use of the invention
23
If Yes, does it include cross-license?
19
13
Has this patent been licensed?
23
51
Has the applicant/owner ever used this patent for
its product or for its production?
56
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
30
Ag
r
a t i cu N u
er ltu cl
ial r e ea
r
s
Pr , Hu s &
oc sb X
es a n -r
si n dr ay
g y, F s
&
oo
Bi Han d
ot dl
i
e
Co M chn ng
m et ol
pu al
o
t
W gy
Co er
o
m Per rkin
pu i p g
te he
r S ra
of ls
tw
Su
ar
rg
e
er Me
D
y
a
r
u
s
&
gs
M urin
ed g
ica &
A
l I Te ll
n
M
st stin
ot
or Tra rum g
s,
e
En nsp nts
o
gin r t
es ati
& on
O
Pa
rg
an
rt
In ic C Co s
Se for om ati
m ma p ng
ic
on t ion oun
du S d s
El cto tora
ec r
t r De ge
ic
v
Co al ice
D
s
m
m evic
un
i es
R e cati
Po ce ons
we pt a
r S cl e
ys s
Co
te
m
m
pu
te R e s
r H si
a r ns
dw
El
ec
ar
e
tr
O
ica p
l L t ic
i gh s
t in
g
M
Figure 20. Share of patents used for startups, bar: Japan line: US
starting a new company
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
31
Figure 21A. Estimated Number of Patents Use in
60.0
Commercializing the Invention (own and others)
50.0
48.1
JAPA
N
US
44.9
40.0
30.0
22.5
20.0
15.5
20.4
14.8
10.0
12.9
3.0
11.9
1.8
1.9
1.4
0.0
1 domestic
patent
2 to 5
6 to 10
11-50
51-100
101-500
0.4
501-1000
0.1
more than
1001
F.5.How many domestic patents are jointly used, together with your patent in the commercial application of the
invention?
32
Bi
ot
ec
h
& Ele Re nol
M ct ce og
ed ri p y
Ag
ic c t a
ric M al al D cle
ult ea Ins ev s
t ic
ur su
e, rin rum es
Hu g & en
sb T ts
an es
dr tin
y, g
Fo
od
M
et R
al es
M
at
W ins
N
er
or
uc
ial
kin
s Or lea
Pr ga rs D g
oc ni & ru
es c C X- gs
sin o ra
g mp ys
& ou
Ha n
Tr
nd ds
an
l
Po sp ing
we or t
r S ati
Co
ys on
m
te
pu
ms
te
rH
ar A
Co
dw ll
m
ar
pu
El te Co e
ec r at
t r So ing
i
f
Co cal twa
L
r
m
m igh e
Se
un t in
m
ica g
M ico
tio
ot n
or du
s, ct O ns
Co En or pt
m gin Dev ics
pu es ic
In ter & es
fo P Pa
rm er rt
at iph s
ion e
r
St als
or
ag
e
Su
rg
er
y
Figure 21B: % of the Sectors where Commercialization
Requiring more than 10 Patents, by Sector
patent form a product(greater than 10 patents)
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
33
Figure22.
Reasons for patenting (very important
share,%)
70
60
60
JAPAN
US
50
44
40
30
20
20
22
20
16 16
14
11
7.8 8.6
10
22
11
6.7
5.5
1.7
0
Internal
exploitation of
the patented
technology
Blocking
Prevention of
inventingaround
Licensing to
generate
licensing
revenues
Cross-licensing Pure defense
Corporations’
Inventors’
reputation
reputation
Reasons for patenting
34
Figure 23. Appropriation Strategies (%, very high)
15
Product/Process complexity
4.1
Collaboration with the firms
with complementary
technologies
6
7.4
34
F10.Commercialization strategy
Patents enforcement
8
US
19
Secrecy
JAPAN
16
17
Complementary
sales/service capability
16
17
Complementary
manufacturing capability
23
44
First mover’s advantage in
commercialization
26
First mover’s advantage in
the follow-up development of
complementary technologies
and the patent portfolio
36
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
35
D.17 What are the sources (shares in %) of the funds for the research leading to
this patent, including that for personnel?
Figure 24. Finance Shares of R&D Projects
2.4
Funds from venture
capital or angels
0.1
Suppliers for parts,
materials,
equipments,
software etc
0.5
0.6
US
JAPAN
2.4
Customers or
product users
1.3
0.7
Other companies
1.3
Government
Research Programs
or other government
fund
3.2
1.9
Internal funds of the
patent applicants
(including his
subsidiaries
87
94
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Note: Averages not adjusted for project size. Internal funds
includes debt or equity funding
100
36
cle
ar
s
C
om & X
Ag
m u - ra
M a ri c u
n ys
te ltu
ria
r e B io icat
t
io
ls
,
Pr Hus ech ns
n
oc
b
e s a n d o l og
M si ng r y, F y
ea &
su H ood
ri n a n
g d
Po & T l ing
w e es
r S ti n
ys g
te
ms
O
rga
A
nic
Co ll
Co a ti
m p ng
Co
ou
nd
mp
Re s
u
t
C o er
si n
s
Co m pu Har
m te r d w
pu
ar
e
t S
In er P of tw
fo
Su
rm eri are
rg
at phe
er
ion ra
y&
St ls
M
or
ed
ag
ica
e
D
ru
E le l Ins
gs
ct tru
r
ic m
Se E lec al D ent
m i t ri e v s
co ca i c
nd l L es
uc i gh
to
t in
Mo
M e r De g
to
rs
, E ta l v i c e
ng W o s
in
es rk in
g
&
Pa
r ts
Tr
a n O pt
i
sp
or cs
R e ta
ce tion
pt
ac
le
s
Nu
Figure 25. The share of venture capital finance of R&D bar: Japan line: US
venture capital
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
37
Figure 26. Financial Constraints on Business R&D,
Spillover and Government R&D support in Japan
core businesses
35%
33%
non-core businesses
29%
30%
28%
25%
24%
new businesses
22%
16%
15%
10%
Strengthening the
corporate technological
base
19%
20%
17%
16%
14%
14%
8%
6%
5%
5%
2%
1%
0%
R&D investment
constrained
Commercialization
investment constrained
Publication of a
scientific/technical
paper
Government support
38
V. Tentative conclusions
Key findings in terms of similarity and difference of
US and Japanese invention and innovation
process
High similarity between US and Japan despite
large institutional differences:
- Relatively small contribution from universities
as inventors and collaborators
- Inventor motivations
- Proportions of product vs. process patents
- Time input for inventions
- Level of use of patents
- High proportion of inventions the idea for which
do not originate from R&D etc.
39
Key differences
- High inventor mobility in US
- More use of patents for startups in US
- More exploratory R&D with more
serendipities by US firms
- More license in Japan
- More emphasis by US firms on FMAs and
patent enforcement relative to
complementary manufacturing and sales
capability
40