Content uploaded by Ove Granstrand
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ove Granstrand on Jul 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Ove Granstrand 2016
History of Patenting and IP Management
- The case of Japan12
Ove Granstrand
Chalmers University of Technology,
Department of Technology Management and Economics
SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
e-mail ovegra@chalmers.se
Contents:
1 Paper outline
2 Historical overview of Japanese patenting
3 IP resources
4 IP organization
4.1 Organizational options for IP in general
4.2 Patent and IP organization and management in large Japanese corporations
5 Patent management and patent culture
6 IP organization at Toshiba Corporation
7 Summary and conclusions
1 Outline
This paper addresses historical developments in the organization and management of
Intellectual Property (IP) resources and activities in large Japanese corporations. Special
attention will be paid to what can be called a patent culture in those corporations. Such corporate
patent cultures have developed during a long period of time in connection with a process of
catching up with the West as described in Granstrand (1999) and they were considerably
strengthened in connection with a US initiated emergence of a pro-patent era internationally
from the 1980s onwards. Increases in IP resources and various developments in IP organization
and management in large Japanese corporations then took place, spurred not the least by the
1 This article is an adaption and extension of material in Granstrand (1999), especially Chapter 2, 5 and 8.
2 The editorial assistance of Jacob Moos is gratefully acknowledged.
2
History of Patenting and IP Management
outbreak of ”patent wars”, notably with large US corporations in the 1980s – 1990s as part of
what has been referred to as the pro-patent era. Patent wars escalated in the following decades,
especially in the electronics and mobile communications area, involving besides US and
Japanese companies, large and small, also Korean and Chinese companies as well as European
companies, who started to sue each other in a patent war with ultimately no clear national
“frontiers”.3
Accordingly, IP resources increased substantially in Japan and elsewhere, and the IP
organizations became upgraded, more centralized, more comprehensive, and moreover
received increased attention by top management, technology management and business
management. Apparently Japan, as a result of a successful catch-up and a pro-patent era,
developed still another area of management in which Western companies had much to learn.
This paper finally briefly addresses the possible future development of IP management
and the further evolution of corporate management. With the increasing role of intellectual
property and intellectual capital and the further emergence of what we can call intellectual
capitalism (see Granstrand (1999)), it is conceivable that some form of distributed intellectual
capital management or knowledge management will develop, engulfing IP management.
2 Historical overview of world wide and Japanese patenting
We have looked to see what nations are the greatest, so that we can be like them. We asked
ourselves ”What is it that makes the United States such a great nation?” We investigated and
found that it was patents, and we will have patents.
K. TakahashiFirst Director General of Japan Patent Office (JPO), appointed 1885
The patent system is one of the world’s oldest economic institutions and its history can
be subdivided into eras as illustrated in Table 1, where possible future eras are indicated as well.
(The patent system in a global patent era might conceivably for instance be subjected to
international disruption and even abolishment, at least partially.) As seen in Table 1 the patent
system as we know it essentially originated in Europe and then diffused around the world. As
far as we know no patent like systems appeared independently elsewhere, like in China or India
or in any primitive societies, although more general IP notions as secrets and identity marks
and symbols did.
3 The use of terms like ’war’ may appear as populist, but in fact military language and analogies may to some
extent serve as useful metaphors in competitive and adversary contexts, and has in fact considerably influenced
management language and thinking in general, as has sports language.
3
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 1 Eras in the history of patents and intellectual property (IP)
Era
Characteristics
1. Non-patent era
Ancient cultures
(Egypt, Greece etc.)
Emergence of science separated from technology.
Emergence of cultural and industrial arts.
Secrecy and symbols emerging as recognized IP.
No patent-like rights or institutions for technical inventions.
2. Pre-patent era
Middle ages to
Renaissance
Emergence of universities.
Secrecy, copyright and symbols (artisan trademarks/names) as dominant IP, also
collectively organized.
Emerging schemes to grant privileges and remunerate disclosure. Extensions of mining
laws to inventions.
3. National patent era
Late 15th to late 18th
century
Breakthrough of natural sciences.
Local codifications of patent laws (Venice 1474, England 1623 etc.).
Regulation of privileges.
Conscious stimulation of technical progress at national level, linked to economic
policies (e.g. mercantilistic).
4. Multinational patent
era
Late 18th to late 19th
century
Emergence of modern nation-states.
Industrialization.
Continued international diffusion of the patent system.
Local anti-patent movements.
Emerging international patent relations (e.g. disputes).
5. International patent
era
Late 19th to late 20th
century
Emerging industrial and military R&D.
International coordination of IP (Paris Convention 1883, World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) 1970, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 1970, European Patent
Convention (EPC) 1973 and establishment of the European Patent Office (EPO) 1977,
etc.). Separate IP regimes in socialist countries and less-developed countries..
6. The pro-patent and
emerging IC era
Late 20th century to ?
Intellectual capital (IC) surpasses physical capital for many entities. Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of IPRs (TRIPS) and establishment of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) 1995.
Intensified international competition.
Global activism for IP from industrial countries, especially from the USA, together
with IP reform work.
Almost worldwide adoption of the patent system.
Increased international patenting. Increased criticism of the patent system.
7. The global patent
and IP/IC era
? to ?
Global IP-system reforms. Global harmonization and integration of IP.
Emergence of supra-national and global patents, IP offices and clearing procedures or
international disruption, partial abolishment and institutional substitution?
?
4
History of Patenting and IP Management
In the era since industrialization took off in Europe, Japan like no other major country,
has swung from extreme isolationism under the Tokugawa military rule to extensive
international engagement. The turning point was the proclamation in 1868 of the Meiji
restoration (or rather ”renovation” in Japanese). Although Japan’s transformation and techno-
economic achievements since World War II are remarkable indeed, the pendulum’s momentum
and pace of change were probably higher a century earlier. The long preceding period of
isolationism, which lasted for more than two centuries, probably also paved the way for its
contrary movement to some extent. The foundations of many current practices in Japan were in
fact laid in the decades after Meiji (e.g. wearing Western suits, competing fiercely in industry).
Japan’s willingness and ability to absorb foreign things without being culturally subdued have
been remarkably high ever since. This has indeed been the case regarding foreign technology.
While the Tokugawa dynasty tried to perpetuate its power by preserving the status quo –
including forbidding technical innovations – the absorption, development and control of new
technologies are at the heart of modern Japan’s policies for establishment of her power and
economic security in the world economic order. Thus, the course of isolationism and
technological stagnation has been reversed with Meiji as a turning point. To a considerable
extent, new technologies also brought about the Meiji restoration. The superiority of US
military technologies, dramatically demonstrated by Commodore Perry when his naval ship
prompted Japan to open up in 1852, had a profound effect on Japanese leaders, just as the
superiority of US military and industrial technology had on the formation of Japanese post-war
policies.
Japan, with her scarcity of natural resources, has centered her economic development
around intellectual resources (intellectual capital), especially in science and technology. Thus,
in the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) vision of the ”Strategy for Trade and
Industry” in the 1980s, it was proclaimed that Japan should now establish herself as a
Technological State, having succeeded in establishing herself first as a trading nation and later
on as an industrial nation. Japan has become a symbol of what some authors label ”techno-
nationalism” (for this concept, see Nelson and Rosenberg 1993, p.3, and also Ostry and Nelson
1995).
It is to be expected that a nation lacking natural resources but aspiring to modernize will
sooner or later emphasize intellectual resources and their property protection as indigenous
S&T achievements start to become relatively more important. Concomitant with Japan’s
techno-economic developments since the Meiji restoration has been the introduction and
development of an IPR system, including a patent system, patterned on Western systems. An
excellent account of these developments is given in Rahn (1983). A chronology is given in
Table 2. One may note the early introduction of an Intellectual Property Right (IPR) system and
the continual developments of it in compliance with international legal developments as well
as with domestic industrial developments. Certain asymmetries with other countries have been
5
History of Patenting and IP Management
kept from time to time in order to favour domestic industry and its build-up of a technology
base. However, a large number of licensing contracts were signed after World War II, which in
retrospect proved to be a considerable bargain for the Japanese (by some called ”the greatest
bargain ever”).
The IPR system in Japan came into extensive use in the post-war period as one of the
general means in the national and corporate innovation systems for catching up and forging
ahead. This was accomplished through the analysis of existing patents, licensing in and
improving imported technologies, mostly through many small improvements that were readily
and extensively patented. Throughout this process, patent managerial skills, resources and
methods (for example patent mapping method for navigating in densely patented technological
areas) were continually developed. Also, Japan has in various governmental and private ways
supported the ongoing international harmonization of IPR laws. However, while one may say
that large parts of Japan’s industry have become leaders in patenting and IP management, Japan
has not been a leader in developing the basic IPR legal framework.
6
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 2 Chronology of the evolution of the Japanese IPR system until 1980
Year(s) IPR-related event
1603-1868 The Tokugawa period with military rule and feudal system under the Tokugawa family.
1633 Adoption of a policy of national seclusion.
1718 The proclamation of a new law, which forbade ”new things”, i.e. technical innovations
(Shinkihatto no ofuregaki – ”Ordinance Prohibiting Innovations”).
1852 Commodore Perry visits Japan, leading to the re-opening of the country.
1867 Yukichi Fukuzawa1) reported on the existence of patent laws in the US and Europe.
1868 Proclamation by Emperor Meiji of the modernization of Japan (Meiji ishin – ”Meiji
Renovation”).
1871 Promulgation of the first Japanese Patent Law. Failed in the absence of applications for a whole
year and was abrogated.
1884 Promulgation of the first Japanese trademark law.
1885 Promulgation of the Patent Monopoly Ordinance, modeled on American and French law, after
extensive preparations by Korekiyo Takahashi (who later on served as Finance Minister (twice)
and Prime Minister). However, foreigners were barred from obtaining patent rights.
1885 Establishment of the Japanese Patent Office. K. Takahashi became its first Director General.
1886 1384 applications were filed and 205 patents granted.
1888 Improved patent and trademark laws replaced the first ordinances. Promulgation of a design
ordinance, modeled on English law.
1899 Japan became a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which
had come into force in 1883. Foreigners became admitted to the Japanese industrial property
system.
1905 Enactment of a Utility Model Law, inspired by German law.
1909 Revision of the four industrial property laws: the Patent Law, the Utility Model Law, the Design
Law and the Trademark Law. A new section on employee inventions stated that the patent right
belonged to the employer.
1921 Grand-scale revision of IPR laws, introducing novelties, such as first-to-file priority instead of
the first-to-invent priority, employee ownership of patent rights instead of employer ownership,
and an opposition system.
1935 Law for the Prevention of Unfair Competition entered into force, together with the ratified
Hague revision from 1925 of the Paris Convention.
1938 Establishment of Japan Patent Association, an organization of leading Japanese companies.
1950 ”Foreign Investment Law” and the ”Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law” were
enforced to regulate technology imports and foreign exchange for the reconstruction and
renovation of Japanese industry. A period of substantial technology imports started, mainly from
the USA, but also from Europe.
7
History of Patenting and IP Management
1958 Japan becomes the leading country in terms of number of patents and utility model applications
filed per year. (A position retained since, at least up until 2013.)
1960 Enactment of revised IPR laws. Special injunction and damages as remedies for infringement
were introduced.
1971 Revision of the Patent Law, allowing seven years for the request for examination and laying-
open of the application.
1974 Liberalization of technology imports.
1976 Adoption of the product patent and the multiple claims system (although allowing only
dependent sub-claims).
1978 Japan acceded to the PCT, and JPO became one of the international searching authorities under
the PCT.
Sources: Compiled from Doi (1980), Rahn (1983), with the assistance of A. Mifune and K. Norichika.
Notes:
1) See a 10 000-yen bill from the 1990s for his picture.
8
History of Patenting and IP Management
Around the turn of the millennium Japan had amassed substantial financial resources by
world standards and also controlled considerable physical resources through foreign direct
investments, foreign holdings and other means. Still she was more dependent upon her
intellectual capital (including goodwill and ”relational capital” in relations with her neighbours)
than most countries and regions of the world. IP has also become recognized as an issue of
economic security at the national level in the same way it has been recognized as an issue of
corporate economic security in several large corporations.
The developments in the IPR systems and IPR relations between Japan and the USA are
summarized in Table 3. In the 1980s, patent-related trade friction between the USA and Japan
grew to what some observers later termed a ”patent war”. The following citation illustrates the
kind of patent and litigation strategies advocated by a major newspaper in the ”patent war”.
What should our attitude be towards the raging patent war between Japan and the U.S.? First,
in the light of the history of patent wars, there is no alternative but to fight patent with patent.
Needed in this process are expediting technological development, establishing as many patents
as possible and securing cross-licensing contracts to offset patent royalty payments. To these
ends, joint technological development may be considered by leading manufacturers of this
country, the U.S. and Europe. ...
Second, in its patent wars with the U.S., Japanese industry should openly seek court decisions
on the rights and wrongs of each case and avoid out-of-court settlements as much as
possible. ...
Third, the Japanese government should strive to reconcile institutional differences in patent
applications that exist among Japan, the U.S. and Europe. ...
Editorial, Mainichi Daily News
March 31, 1992 (excerpts)
It is particularly noteworthy that the editorial above advocates the avoidance of out-of-
court settlements, which traditionally have been the preferred mode of patent conflict resolution
in Japanese industry for cultural reasons. To some extent Japanese corporations became
reactively litigious and aggressive in court (with the aid of US lawyers). Goals were set up in
some cases to win patent disputes with US companies in order to win demonstration effects,
prestige and self-confidence. All in all, however, the warfare aspect was a bit overplayed by the
popular press and gradually the feelings of animosity declined somewhat after a peak in the
early 1990s.
9
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 3 Chronology of the evolution of the IPR system in Japan and the US (1980-1995)
Japan
USA
1980
▫US Copyright Law amended
▫Chakrabarty case (microorganism patent)1)
1981
▫Diehr case (computer program)2)
1982
▫CAFC3) established
1983
▫Patent Commissioners’ trilateral
1984
▫JPO ”paperless project” initiated
1985
▫Maskwork Law enacted
▫Copyright Law amended (computer
program)
▫WIPO Harmonization conference
▫USITC litigations increased
1986
▫TI semiconductor patent litigation
initiated USITC4)
▫Kilby patent granted5)
▫GATT TRIPS started
1987
▫Patent Law amended (refined multiple
claims system introduced)
1988
▫US Trade Act (Special 301)
▫US Tariff Act 337 amended
1989
▫Copyright Law amended (fair use)
▫Japan on Watch List of Special 301
1990
▫Unfair Competition Protecting Law
amended (trade secret)
1991
▫Trademark Law amended (new service
mark registration system introduced)
1992
▫Honeywell won patent litigation against
Minolta
▫US Patent Law reform report
1993
▫Patent Law and Utility Model Law
amended;
▫Unfair Competition Protecting Law
amended
▫GATT TRIPS completed
1994
▫US-Japan Patent Commissioners’
understanding signed
Source: Mr. K. Norichika and the author.
Notes:
1) The patentability of a bacteria genetically engineered by A.M. Chakrabarty was finally decided by US
Supreme Court, overruling USPO’s rejection of the patent application. This decision opened the possibility
to grant patents for living organisms.
2) A US Supreme Court decision, which through its interpretation by USPO opened the possibility to grant
patents to computer software.
3) CAFC = Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
4) Texas Instruments claimed eight Japanese and one Korean company infringed on 10 of their patents for
DRAMs (see Warshofsky 1994).
5) In 1961, Texas Instruments had filed the patent in Japan for the integrated circuit, called the ”Kilby patent”
after its inventor Jack Kilby. JPO required the application to be divided into several parts, the first of which
was granted in 1977.
10
History of Patenting and IP Management
3 IP resources
The level of IP resources in Japanese corporations has been considerably higher than in
most Western corporations, as has the output in terms of patent applications (see Granstrand
(1999)). As mentioned, the IP resource levels have also increased during the 1980s, as have the
numbers of patent applications. Table 4 gives some examples of top IP spenders among
Japanese large corporations in different sectors.
As seen from Table 4, the electrical corporations top the list regarding the total number
of patent employees. The electrical industry was also the first and hardest hit by the patent wars
and therefore reacted early by building up in-house resources. In terms of the ratio of patent
employees to total employees, Canon was leading. However, it must be kept in mind that the
degree of outsourcing and centralization of IP resources and Research and Development (R&D)
varies among the corporations. The degree of consolidation also varies. The figures for the total
number of employees, total sales and total R&D are self-reported in the questionnaires
complemented with officially reported figures.
11
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 4 Japanese corporations with most patent employees (in 1991)
Corporation Patent Total Pat.empl./ Total Total R&D/
employees1) employees3) Tot.
empl. R&D sales sales
(%)4) (MUSD)2) (MUSD)2) (%)
Electrical:
Toshiba Corp. 370 162 000 0.23 2 390 35 507 6.7
Canon Group 350 62 700 0.56 830 14 053 5.9
Matsushita Electric Co. Ltd 340 210 848 0.16 2887 49 619 5.8
Hitachi Ltd. 330 324 292 0.10 3 690 58 173 6.3
Fujitsu Ltd. 210 155 779 0.13 2 947 25 880 11.4
Sony Corp. 200 110 000 0.18 1 504 27 068 5.6
Mechanical:
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. 150 85 500 0.18 1 459 32 342 4.5
Toyota Motor Corp. 130 102 423 0.13 3 233 74 099 4.4
Chemical:
Asahi Chemical Ind. 70 27 018 0.26 300 9 785 3.4
Mitsubishi Kasei Corp. 70 17 000 0.41 379 9 479 4.0
Source: Questionnaire survey by the author and colleagues. Corporate annual reports.
Notes:
1) Number of persons working more than half time with patenting activities according to questionnaire. See
note 4.
2) Consolidated data, including majority owned subsidiaries worldwide. Conversion rate used
is 1USD = 133JPY.
3) Consolidated employee data.
4) Hitachi, Honda, Toyota, and Asahi reported non-consolidated data. It is therefore possible that the
number of patent employees may be greater than shown due to additional staff in majority owned
subsidiaries not reported. This would produce higher patent employee ratios for these companies.
12
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 5 then shows the general picture of patent and R&D resources in the sample. A few
observations in relation to Table 5 are noteworthy. First, total patenting costs have grown
considerably between 1987 and 1991, more than sales and R&D. However, the growth of in-
house patenting staff is much less, except for the electrical industry which has been a forerunner
in building up IP resources in the 1980s. The lower overall growth of in-house patent employees
compared to the growth of patenting expenditures is probably primarily due to growth in foreign
applications, but it could also be due to a growth lag that reflects both a temporary peak in work
load and bottlenecks in more long-term build-up of IP resources that lead in turn to the growth
in outsourcing. It could also be due to circumstances specific to the mechanical corporations,
which show the largest difference in growth ratios for patent engineers and in-house patent
costs.
Patent employees in Japanese large corporations are predominantly engineers, few are
economists and lawyers. The main strategy in building up in-house competence has been
to ”convert” engineers to patent specialists, as is also indicated by the growth in percentage of
engineers in patenting. There are, moreover, significant differences across industries in the
degree of centralization of patent employees.
The chemical corporations were found to be most centralized and the electrical
corporations least centralized, although with a strong trend towards centralization among the
latter. On average, patenting is also more centralized than R&D and engineering.4 For example,
about 20 per cent of IP personnel are located at corporate headquarters in Toshiba, while the
other 80 per cent work in various operations departments in the corporation. For engineers in
general at Toshiba, about 19 000 have at least a Bachelor’s degree or the equivalent, and of
these only 10 per cent work in corporate laboratories, while 10 per cent work in development
laboratories and the remaining 80 per cent in various other operations departments.
A final observation is that on average ”patent intensity” in terms of the ratio of patent
costs to R&D costs is still fairly low, i.e. around 2.3 per cent, which by the way is less than half
the average R&D intensity, i.e. the ratio of R&D costs to sales. However, some companies like
Toshiba have a patent/R&D cost ratio around 10 per cent.5
4 A similar result was found in Etemad and Dulude (1987) as well for a sample of large European, Japanese and
US MNCs.
5 A study by the author of 10 US large corporations (GE, ITT, Xerox, Pfizer, Motorola, 3M, Honeywell, Control
Data, RCA, and Zenith) in 1985 showed a patent-to-R&D cost ratio in the range 1–3%. However, the ratio of
number of patent applications per R&D dollar has been over ten times higher in Japan relative to the USA in
leading chemical, electrical, and mechanical corporations.
13
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 5 Patent and R&D resources in Japanese large corporations
(Code) Question Chemical Electrical Mechanical Total
(n=9) (n=10) (n=5) (n=24)
(A1a) Total sales globally in 1991 (MUSD) 6 341 33 096 30 791 22 582
Growth ratio 1991/1987 1.31 1.43 1.45 1.42
(A2a) Total number of employees in 19911) 13 906 153 056 60 771 81 649
Growth ratio 1991/19872) 1.23 1.15 1.03 1.14
(B1) Total R&D expenditures worldwide
in 1991 (MUSD) 255 1 984 1 285 1 190
Growth ratio 1991/1987 1.38 1.56 1.50 1.53
(E7) Cost of in-house patenting department
activities and purchased services in 1991
(MUSD) 8.0 51.5 22.4 27.0
Growth ratio 1991/1987 1.63 1.35 1.17 1.43
(E6a) Number of persons working more
than half-time with patenting activities
in the company in 1991 40.8 217.2 94.8 121.6
Growth ratio 1991/1987 1.04 1.35 1.01 1.23
thereof:
(E6b) Percentage engineers 1991 83.8 62.6 76.8 74.0
Growth ratio 1991/1987 1.01 0.96 1.05 1.00
(E6c) Percentage lawyers 1991 4.9 6.3 2.2 4.9
Growth ratio 1991/1987 0.86 1.58 0.73 1.11
(E6d) Percentage working in
central/corporate headquarters 1991 75.0 37.6 46.2 54.1
Growth ratio 1991/1987 1.00 1.10 0.95 1.02
Key resource ratios:
(E6a/A2a) Percentage patent workers
in the company 19912) 0.32 0.17 0.22 0.18
(E7/B1) Patent cost/R&D cost 1991 (%) 3.1 2.6 1.7 2.3
(B1/A1a) R&D/sales 1991 (%) 4.0 6.0 4.2 5.3
Notes:
1) The figures for the chemical and mechanical sectors are underestimated due to the inclusion of non-
consolidated company employee data.
2) Ratios are based solely on reported employee data from company questionnaires.
14
History of Patenting and IP Management
4 IP organization
4.1 Patent and IP organization and management in large Japanese corporations
The patent organizations in large Japanese corporations in the 1990s have a number of
common features that clearly distinguish them from the traditional patent organization in large
Western corporations.
IP resources
The resources devoted to IP activities are not just slightly larger, they are often larger by
a magnitude.
Centralized IP department
Responsibilities for patenting and other IP matters have been integrated and centralized
into a comprehensive IP department at corporate level. In fact, all 24 corporations in the sample
had a centralized patent department with corporate-wide responsibilities for patent
coordination, headed by one central corporate patent manager. Usually, this department had
similar responsibilities for other IP matters as well; there was an organizational trend showing
evolution from a patent department to an IP department and from a patent manager to an IP
manager.
Status of the IP department
The status and power of the patent and IP department has risen. Questions about patents
and related matters were regularly discussed at company board meetings in most of the
corporations, and often the IP manager reported directly to the CEO. The career paths to top
management positions often have resided substantially in R&D with involvement in IP matters,
and several Japanese CEOs were strongly IP-oriented. The IP department was thus of strategic
concern under pro-active management, not just a reactive service department. Consequently,
there was a need for sustainable in-house competence on a substantial level and scale. Still,
much patent work was outsourced.
Clearing-house
Substantial emphasis and resources were devoted to having the patent department serve
as an active clearing-house for technical information, with activities for technology scanning
internally and externally, patent mapping, patent clearance, dissemination etc. Sometimes,
15
History of Patenting and IP Management
technology intelligence was conducted in special subsidiaries as well. Such information-related
activities are clearly important but in Western companies they have been difficult to maintain,
coordinate and link to decision-making. Often the Western patent department has scanned and
disseminated patent information without adding much value for the user, and without much
follow-up and feedback (cf. Granstrand (1999), Chapter 9). Japanese firms also experience
difficulties like these, but they tackle them in more determined and systematic ways.
Integration of IP and R&D
Good working relations between the patent department and R&D were emphasized. This
is a natural concern in Western firms as well, however the Japanese patent department was
usually more powerful than a reactive service department purely under the aegis of R&D.
Patenting people were regularly involved in the early stages of R&D, not casually called in at
too late a stage as has often been the case in Western companies. Patent management operated
proactively rather than reactively responding to requests from business and R&D operations
and was expected to take sufficient initiative in order to secure viable patent positions in various
business and technology areas. Needless to say, that is not an easy task as business divisions
become increasingly independent. In general, corporate patent management in Japan had more
power than their Western counterparts.
To illustrate, in one corporation a review of patent positions was regularly undertaken at
an early stage of entering a business and/or technology area. If the review showed an
unfavourable ”jungle” of patents, the IP manager had the clout to hold up the project until some
kind of patent clearance (through e.g. licensing) had been undertaken. However, more common
than vetoing, an IP manager had the possibility to bring such a situation to the attention of
higher management.
Patent (IP) culture
The Japanese patent organization was immersed in what can be called a patent culture in
the corporation. This is an important feature that will be dealt with in the next section.
16
History of Patenting and IP Management
5 Patent management and patent culture
Japanese industry, and large corporations in particular, have developed a general pro-
patent orientation over many years. This orientation could best be described as a patent culture
residing within and between companies.6 The patent culture did not develop as a result of a
grand design but was instead part and parcel of a catch-up process that started after World War
II and was further strengthened after the emergence of the pro-patent era in the 1980s. That is
not to say that managerial action cannot influence the formation of a culture in business, such
as a patent culture. The early efforts of Mr. Takahashi, at the national level, are one example of
such action. The efforts in the 1980s and 90s of Mr. Saba, former CEO and Chairman of
Toshiba, and Mr. Yamaji, former CEO and vice Chairman of Canon provide other more recent
examples.
The question is to what extent a patent culture can be fostered by managerial action in a
corporation. A more general question is how a corporate culture in general could be formed.
Japanese corporations are renowned for having built strong corporate cultures by various
means. Needless to say, a well-functioning culture of some sort could be an effective vehicle
for coordinated, purposeful action, and as such, could work as an efficiency-enhancing control
mechanism. At the same time a culture could become a barrier to change. Moreover, in society
as well as in large corporations, there is a fair amount of cultural diversity with several
subcultures that may clash with one another, for example engineering subcultures oriented
around engineering disciplines such as mechanical and electronic engineering or chemical
engineering and bio-engineering.7
Thus there is a need for management to consider how to influence cultural formation and
change. General managerial instruments that are mentioned in the management literature as
useful in bringing about cultural formation and change are: strategy and policy formation,
recruitment, promotion, restructuring of communications through organization and location,
and campaigns of various sorts. There are also less tangible managerial actions representing
elements at a fundamental level within a culture, such as actions that influence language and
values, create symbols and rituals, integrate company life with social life and leisure activities,
take on social responsibilities, strengthen ideologies, nurture common myths, and create
implicit incentive and penalty structures. The importance of company leaders as role models
who live as they preach is also extremely important.
6 The concept of culture has come into popular use – and misuse – in management in the last few decades. Despite
a certain vagueness and tendency to use culture as a catch-all concept, it will be used here since it captures some
important, if yet evasive, features in organizations such as norms, values, beliefs and preferred problem solving
approaches .
7 A subculture is simply ”a culture within a culture”.
17
History of Patenting and IP Management
These are all general elements in fostering a culture in a corporation, and it is in the nature
of things that an exhaustive listing of elements cannot be made and that many elements are
intangible, requiring much managerial sophistication. When it comes to building a corporate
patent culture that was found in the large Japanese corporations studied, the elements become
more specific. Some of these elements, as observed, are dealt with below, in no particular order.
Top management involvement in patenting and IP
Top management involvement is indeed a necessary but insufficient condition. It is
typical for most Japanese corporations to have top management involved in technology and
R&D. Many corporations, too, have had a preference for technologists as CEOs, although there
are corporations such as Toshiba that prefer a succession of technologists and commercialists
as CEOs. In either case they are almost always members of top management with an
appreciation of patenting matters, often having direct personal experience. Some top managers
make it a habit to ask questions about the patent situation during business presentations, and
some also make it a habit to visit labs and discuss, among other things, patenting in more casual
ways. It is important to show concern and at the same time refrain from letting obsolete or
otherwise insufficient technical knowledge or one’s own pet ideas misguide R&D.
Patenting and IP as a common concern for all engineers
Although specialists are always needed for patent work, it is considered important not to
consider patenting primarily a specialist function but to make patenting a common concern for
all engineers. Training courses, job rotation and career paths with at least an early stint in a
patent department are valuable, together with the other measures described below.
Patent policies and strategies integrated in business models and plans
Without a requirement that makes patenting and IP a regular and specified item on the
agenda of business plans, business managers will easily neglect the IP situation or let IP
strategies become too generalized and watered down. Integration of business and IP aspects is
not only a matter of thinking hard and coming up with cunning ideas but is also a matter of two-
way communication with some integration of business language and IP language. ”What is our
unique competence in this business?” is a common question in business analysis. The equally
important, but less commonly used IP–related question is ”How can we protect our unique
competence in this business?”
18
History of Patenting and IP Management
Clear patent objectives
Clear, quantified objectives for patenting were common among the Japanese corporations
in the study. An example is given by Hitachi, which had the objective of increasing the number
of strategic patents by 25 per year, as described in Granstrand (1999). There are many
arguments against quantifying objectives, and often patenting people produces such arguments.
One argument is that quantified objectives are said to stimulate quantity rather than quality of
patents and foster unfruitful competition. On the other hand, quantification focuses attention
and provides clear yardsticks for rewards and penalties, as well as for improvements. The
arguments for quantifying objectives appear to be stronger when building a patent culture. Such
objectives then function as symbols and provide a basis for habitual behaviour, even rituals,
such as ”Kamikaze research”, which describes the patenting frenzy in Japanese companies at
the end of the budget year in order to meet quotas. Such behaviour could be seen as going too
far, but nevertheless is part of the patent culture.
Clear patenting incentives for R&D personnel and organizational units
The issue of how to reward inventive work by individuals, teams and units is a very
important and fundamental question in both Japanese and Western firms. This is a complex
issue that could be elaborated at great length. Without doing so here, one can just point to the
clear and fairly strong reward schemes employed by Japanese firms, often developed without
the adversarial relationship between the firm and the inventor that easily develops in Western
firms. The following citation is in contrast with the top management view, not uncommon in
Western firms, that R&D people basically are salaried for doing inventive work.
We try to encourage the view that the company’s value to society lies in developing new
technology. We also try to provide a corporate environment where thought and originality
are rewarded.
We give annual cash awards to the employee who has applied for the most patents that
year and to those who have developed patents or software of an outstanding nature.
Keizo Yamaji
Former CEO, Canon Group
Fostering of behavioural attitudes and norms
Fostering of behavioural attitudes, norms, habits and standards conducive both to
technology protection by patents and secrecy and to technology intelligence can be done in
various ways. For example, certain reading and writing habits of engineers can be encouraged,
as in Canon. A citation by Dr. Yamaji from the 1990s may again illustrate:
19
History of Patenting and IP Management
I encourage our researchers to read patent specifications rather than academic theses and
to write patent applications rather than technical reports. I also tell them to make virtual
experiments (”Gedanken” experiments) in order to have them apply for more and more
patents, so that we can be prepared for the era to come when only some companies, strong
in patents, will cooperate with each other and survive.
Keizo Yamaji
Former CEO, Canon Group
Canon, as well as other companies, also tries to encourage writing habits by aligning the
reporting on R&D work to the norms and standards used in patent documents. In this way,
patent application work is facilitated while thinking in patent terms is encouraged.
Speaking, listening and observation habits of engineers, salesmen, managers etc. could
also be influenced for protection and intelligence purposes, although extreme behaviour in this
regard may be counter-productive in other respects.
Visible organizational means
Tangible and intangible means for building a patent culture have to complement each
other. Examples of visible organizational means besides the ordinary patent organization are
patent promotion centres, patent liaison officers distributed in the organization, corporate-wide
patent campaigns, patenting prizes, and patent strategy seminars.
Language, methodology and philosophy
A common language is central to any culture. One way to foster a professional language
for a patent culture is to develop concepts and tools and employ them in a methodology for
analysis and in communication, which could be further turned into a philosophy. The patent-
mapping methodology described in Granstrand (1999) was developed in Japan by JPO initially
and then improved over time by large corporations. It has been a useful methodology for several
purposes in itself, but at the same time it has contributed to building a patent culture through its
influences on language, analytical perspective, conceptualization and communication.
Finally, it must be emphasized that corporate patent cultures are embedded in and
reinforced by an overarching industrial and national culture, conducive to patenting, inventions,
intelligence, and so on. There is a wide range of institutional arrangements for this with
government agencies and initiatives, legislation, associations, institutes etc. The historical
dimension is important and Table 2 gives some features of it for Japan. The large Japanese
corporations as a whole play an increasingly important role. The corporate IP managers know
each other well and are part of various ”old boy networks” (to use a Western term). The Japan
20
History of Patenting and IP Management
Patent Association (JPA) is a good example of an organization primarily catering to the interests
of large corporations since long ago.8
6 IP organization at Toshiba Corporation
Toshiba is one of the leading Japanese corporations in the IP field, with top rankings in
terms of e.g. number of patent applications and patent employees. Thus, it is natural to look at
the history, organization and management of IP in Toshiba in greater detail.
Table 6 indicates that the organizational history of Toshiba and its R&D and IP resembles,
at a very general level, the organizational development in a large Western corporation. The
corporation grew, diversified, refocused and internationalized. At the same time, R&D
established early as a separate lab, grew, diversified, differentiated into product and process
development and research and organized into a mix of centralized/decentralized labs under a
technology management structure. At a later stage, R&D became internationalized, a process
that began fairly late in Toshiba. The IP organization became established as a patent department
at an early stage, also by Western standards. The IP organization has historically been oriented
around patenting, which grew and was upgraded in the organization, adopted a
centralized/decentralized mix, internationalized, and finally consolidated into one large
department with various IP activities that grew up in a diversified way over the years. Thus,
developments in the corporate organization shaped, often with some time lag, the developments
of the R&D organization, which further shaped the IP organization.
8 JPA was formed in 1938 by patent attorneys employed in some large corporations including Toshiba. It was
originally named Chrysanthemum Feast Club (Chōyō Kai) and was renamed Japan Patent Association (Nihon
Tokkyo Kyōkai) in 1959 (Rahn 1983, p. 473).
21
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 6 Key historic events in Toshiba’s corporate, technology and IP organization
Some key events in Some key events in Some key events in
corporate organization R&D organization IP organization
1870 Shibaura Electric established
1890 Tokyo Electric established
(first producing light bulbs)
1906 R&D lab established
in Shibaura Electric
1912 Patent Section est'd
1918 Matsuda R&D lab
established in Tokyo Electric
1931 Tsurumi R&D lab
established in Shibaura Electric
1939 Toshiba established as merger
of Tokyo Electric and
Shibaura Electric
1944 Patent Division est'd
1960s Cooperation with NEC and GE
in computers
1961 Corporate research
lab established
1968 Heavy industry research 1968 A decentralized system
lab established adopted
1970 Production engineering
lab established
1972 Start of trainee
education for foreign
countries
1976 Adopts GE type of organization
(with business portfolio analysis,
business units etc.)
Decides to focus on electronics
and information technology.
1978 Exit from mainframe 1978 Labs in business units
computers established in a 3-level
organization under business
sector labs and corporate labs
1979 Washington Intellectual
Property Office
(”WIPO”) established.
1980s Promotion of globalization, 1980s Various new labs established,
and E&E strategy e.g. a VLSI lab in 1984.
(energy & electronics). The ‘Tokken’ system for
Later extended to 3E – R&D management established
energy, electronics together with the 3-level
and environment. R&D organization.
1989 ICTs account for over 1989 Intellectual Property
50% of sales Division established
Source: Material from Mr. Saba, Mr. Takayanaga, Mr. Norichika, Miyazaki (1995), and interviews.
22
History of Patenting and IP Management
Figure 1 shows the overall Toshiba corporate IP organization in the mid-1990s. One can
note that each business group has an integrated IP department or section under the business
group management but also a functional administrative management arrangement with the
corporate IP division. The latter in turn is at the same staff level as R&D and the design centres.
Figure 2 further shows the inner organization of the IP division, with departments for
each major type of IPR, except trade secrets, plus departments for licensing and patent
information. Toshiba Techno Center also performs patent analysis but for various reasons is
organized separately. Finally, there is a relatively large department for planning and
coordination of IP departments in business groups. Thus, the IP division is by and large
comprehensive, and represents another stage beyond the ”super patent department” in the study
by Taylor and Silberston (1993).
Education in IP, both for IP personnel and engineers corporate-wide, is important in
Toshiba, as in any company seriously responding to the pro-patent movement. Table 7 shows
Toshiba's patent education system.
Similar, although not identical, IP organizations can be found in other large Japanese
corporations, as further illustrated in Granstrand (1999).
23
History of Patenting and IP Management
Table 7 Toshiba’s patent education system (as of 1995)
Career stage IP-related Engineers
personnel
When entering IP generally IP generally
the company
Introductory Basic education Freshman course
education First term collective education on business and
Second term collective education patent/IP rights
1–3 years Advanced course Basic knowledge about
Research of precedent cases the patent system
Patent surveys
Ways to summarize proposals
Mid-level Selection Patent review/patent maps
personnel Drafting specifications in English Improving the quality of proposals
Patent application management
Patent specialty courses
System of overseas patent study
Deputy managers Family training 1) Family training 1)
Patent supervision Patent supervision
Managers Family training Family training
Patent strategy Patent management
Source: Mr. K. Norichika, Toshiba.
Notes:
1) Training and socializing in off-the-job settings (signs of titles and positions removed, night-time
sessions etc.)
Figure 1 Toshiba IP organization (as of 1995)
CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
STAFF
Corporate Environmental Protection & Production G.
Productivity Div.
Manufacturing Engineering Research Center IP S
Technology Planning & Coordination Div.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION
Washington & West Coast IP Office
Toshiba Techno Center. Ohgo Patent Office
Research & Development Center IP D
Design Center Design Patent D Design Patent D
BUSINESS GROUP (DIVISIONS)
Information Processing & Control Systems G. IP D
Information Equipment & Automation Systems G. IP D
Electronics & Telecommunication Systems G. IP S
Medical Systems Div. IP S
Electron Tube & Device G. IP D
Semiconductor G. IP D
Video & Electronics Media G. IP D
Air conditioners & Appliances G. IP D
Energy Systems G. IP D
Industrial Equipment G. IP D
Material & Components G. IP S
Legend:
IP = Intellectual Property, D = Department, S = Section, G = Group
–––––– Organizational Management (with direct business line responsibility)
– – – – Administrative Management (with indirect functional staff responsibility)
President and
Chief Executive
Officer
Senior Executive
Vice-Presidents
Board of
directors
25
Figure 2 Toshiba IP division (as of 1995)
Planning & Coordination
Technology Contracts & Legal Services
Software Protection
Designs & Trademarks
Patent Application & Management
Patent Licensing 1
Patent Licensing 2
Patent Information Center
Washington IP Office
West Coast IP Office
Toshiba Techno Center Inc.
Intellectual Property
Division
Ohgo Patent Office
Legend:
––––– Organizational Management
– – – – Administrative Management
26
7 Summary and conclusions
Partly as a result of a long process of catching up with the West and partly as a response
to the pro-patent era emerging in the 1980s and the ”patent wars” – hot as well as cold – with
US corporations, large Japanese corporations have developed leading patent management
practices and resourceful, comprehensive IP organizations. Apparently patent management is
still another example of a management area in which Western corporations have much to learn
from Japan.
The patent departments in some of the largest US firms have also evolved substantially
since the 1980s. In the wake of the patent wars and the pro-patent era, many Western firms have
in fact initiated processes for overhauling their patent organizations. Companies like Ericsson,
Google, Microsoft and Nokia have made substantial turnarounds regarding their IP
organization, management and business models. The turnarounds in the European companies
Ericsson and Nokia were by and large triggered by the IP behavior of US companies but were
to some extent subsequently influenced also by IP management in Japanese companies.
Taylor and Silberston (1973), being one of the very few systematic studies of patent
organizations in industry, identified four types or stages. In relation to these, the patent
organization in large Japanese corporations represents a quite different fifth type, as
summarized in Table 8. A hypothetical sixth type is also described. Needless to say the different
types do not have to follow upon each other, and the table certainly does not suggest that the
future IC firm will be or should be organized around the patent department.
27
Table 8 The evolution of the corporate patent organization.
Type Characteristics
1 Headed by part-time technology manager plus outside patent agents. 1)
2 Full-time patent manager with small staff plus outside patent agents.
3 Specialized patent manager with a corporate patent department and
liaison people in business divisions.
4 ”Super patent dept.” (35 – 50 persons). Separate licensing dept. 2)
5 Comprehensive IP dept. (50 – 500 persons) of Japanese type. Patent culture. 3)
6? Extended IP organization? (E.g. for technology acquisition and exploitation,
open innovation, technology intelligence, technology planning, information
management, idea generation, competence development, litigation
management.)
(Future scenario) Merging with distributed Intellectual Capital Management.
?
Source: Adapted from Granstrand (1999).
Notes:
1) Outside patent agents are used in all types but their relative importance is largest in types 1 and 2.
2) This is the fourth and most advanced type identified in the study of UK firms by Taylor and Silberston
(1973).
3) Comprehensive IP departments of this size can also be found in some leading Western firms. For
example, IBM reportedly in 1989 had 240 professional employees linked to its Intellectual Property Law
Department. However, in contrast to large Japanese IP departments, IBM’s was much more
internationalized (with about 30 locations globally and circa 10% of the patent professionals located in
Japan) and decentralized (with only about 5% working in corporate headquarters) and lawyer intensive
(with circa 60% being US lawyers). Cf. Table 4 above.
28
Many large Japanese corporations could also be said to possess a patent culture, which
can be characterized as having: top management involvement in patenting and IP; patenting
and IP as a common concern for all engineers; patent policies and strategies integrated in
business plans; clear patent objectives; clear patenting incentives for R&D personnel and
organizational units; behavioural attitudes and norms conducive to technology protection and
technology intelligence; visible organizational means to promote attention to patenting; and
special language, methodology and philosophy.
Patent organizations have also developed in many companies in the West during the pro-
patent era, although to a lesser extent on average than in Japan. In general, the patent department
has moved from being a small, reactive service department, often with low status and narrow
operative tasks decoupled from the business and top management, towards a larger proactive
organization with more comprehensive IP responsibilities, more status and power, more
commercially oriented, more strategic concern and more interaction with technology
management, business management and top management. In addition to having grown,
diversified and become more integrated in the corporation, the IP organization has also become
internationalized as the R&D organization has internationalized.
Further developments in IP management and organization are conceivable. As the role of
intellectual capital, comprising IPRs, human capital and other intangibles become more
important in firms, intellectual capital management, encompassing IP management, might
develop in various ways. The IP organization may be further extended in terms of resources,
tasks and responsibilities, and there are a number of arguments for different types of extensions.
The IP organization may also become subordinate to a type of distributed management of
intellectual capital, signifying a reorientation of the whole company organization towards its
intellectual capital, somewhat analogous to the total quality management movement.
Developments like these in the area of IP management are similar to developments in
other management areas, as exemplified in Figure 8. Admittedly many managerial
developments – or management innovations if one wishes – are more nominal than real and
could rather be referred to as management fashions and fads, of which there are many for
various reasons (promotion of consultancy services, careers, images etc.). Nevertheless,
language changes may be taken as indicators of more deep-running changes in perspectives.
For example, R&D connotes an activity or a process, while technology and innovations are
nouns or objects, as is intellectual property. Managing processes is different from managing
objects. Objects are more amenable to be viewed as discrete assets, which could valued and
traded, paving the way for a more market and finance oriented perspective in management. This
is in fact a more deep-running managerial development in Figure 8, implying that technology
and IP management has increasingly to interact with technology and IP markets.
29
Figure 8 Management Developments in General - Examples
Note:
Production/manufacturing management has developed significantly over the years as well (lean production,
Kanban, Kaizen etc.) but without nominal change, not even with the advent of new infocom based industries,
which by and large have adopted old industrial language to facilitate conceptualizations.
30
References
Doi, T. (1980), The intellectual Property Law of Japan, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands:
Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Etemad, H. and Dulude L.S. (1987), ‘Patenting patterns in the 25 large multinational
enterprises’, Technovation, 7, 1-15.
Granstrand, O. (1999), The economics and management of intellectual property: towards
intellectual capitalism, Northampton and Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Nelson R.R. and R. Rosenberg (1993), ‘Technical Innovation and National Systems’ in Nelson
(1993), pp. 3-21.
Nelson, R.R. (ed) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ostry, S. and R.R. Nelson (1995), Techno-Nationalism and Techno-Globalism: Conflict and
Cooperation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Rahn, G. (1983), ‘The role of industrial property in economic development: the Japanese
experience’, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 14 (4), 449-92.
Taylor, C.T. and Silberston Z.A (1973), The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of
the British Experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Warshofsky, F. (1994), Patent Wars, Chichester: John Wiley.
