11 Tools for Lowering Commercialization Barriers for Innovationsin Universities and Industry in Japan and Europe :a Comparative Approach of Knowledge Transfer Activities with
Some Novel Viable Solutions（*）
Invited Researcher: Luca Escoffier （**）
The innovative features of the present research, far from being a mere report on the status of
current activities, lie in the fact that after a thorough comparison between the European, and Japanesesystems, and an analysis of the tools that have been used so far to facilitate and enhance knowledgetransfer activities, some conclusions will be drawn together with a proposal for the adoption ofalternative tools for lowering commercialization barriers, and achieve a borderless exchange ofknowledge. The study will explore the possibility to opt for novel possible ways to create linkages at alllevels of research, especially between European and Japanese entities and researchers, that will
constitute potentially viable routes for a sustainable and effective development and exploitation ofknowledge.
The study is divided in two parts. First, a thorough examination of the two systems will be carriedout. Second, a real-world proposal will be suggested to:
1. overcome the common barriers to the commercialization of innovations through novel partnering
techniques and web-based tools for a quick, inexpensive, reliable and neutral exchange of data;
2. create novel communication tools allowing fast and effective interaction between Japanese andEuropean public research organizations and companies like web-based applications and databases.

Ⅰ Introduction
In this Chapter the major issues of thestudy are analyzed as well as the researchmethod being utilized and the peculiar
characteristics of the study, which ultimately
aims not just at comparing two different
systems but also at providing a solution toenhance the transfer of knowledge and tackle
today’s difficulties in this regard.
1

From technology transfer to knowledgetransfer: starting from the basics

would be wrong. Indeed, technology is definedas the practical application of knowledge
especially in a particular area (*1) whileknowledge is the fact or condition of knowing

something with familiarity gained throughexperience or association (*2) .
So, from the very beginning what we caninfer is that the relationship linking the twoconcepts is of genus to species as not all kindsof knowledge lead to the implementation of atechnology, whereas every technology is thepractical application of knowledge.
2

It is not a trivial question to provide adefinition before starting a discourse withseveral argumentations. That is why it isnecessary to draw a line and distinguish the socalled “technology transfer” from “knowledgetransfer”. The layperson could think that weare talking about the same thing, and thisAims and scope of the study

The main aim of this study is to provide
the audience with a non-exhaustive yetcomprehensive picture of the knowledgetransfer systems in Japan, and Europe, and at
the same time compare the two systems byhighlighting the pros and cons of each of them.

(*)

This is a summary of the report published under the Industrial Property Research Promotion Project FY2009
entrusted by the Japan Patent Office.
(**) Visiting Lecturer, University of Washington School of Law, United States of America.
(*1) See the definition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology.
(*2) See the definition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge.
IIP Bulletin 2010

● 1 ●

It is important to stress since the very
beginning that the subject matter of the study
is the system as a whole and that is why thedifferent legal systems adopted by each
Member State (in the case of the European
Union) to regulate university inventions, forexample, are not analyzed.
Eventually the study will propose a novel
platform that should be able to effectively
bridge the gap between research institutions(universities included), and industry, andfacilitate a faster and easier way to exchange
ideas and knowledge, globally.
3

Research methodology

The research to write this study has been
mainly performed in Japan while at the Instituteof Intellectual Property, but it started before
that stay, and embraces prior professional
experiences as well. The research in Japan has
been split between the analysis, and study of
documents and the personal contact, throughinterviews, with key people that operate in theJapanese IP system in academia, privatecompanies, and public institutions.
4

The peculiarities of the study

The present study differs from some legal
scholarly papers for one single yet criticalreason: it tries to provide a solution to a myriadofproblems
that arelegal, cultural,organizational, and sometimes systemic. The
method I conceived, as it will be manifest to
the reader, can be used at a global level, but itwould be useful to test it at the beginning tobridge the gap between Japan and Europe.
5

General considerations about technology
transfer and knowledge transfer activities
In 2009, a Report from the European

Commission’s Expert Group (*3) on knowledgetransfer metrics has been released to address
issues like the identification of indicators togauge the quality and performance ofknowledge transfer offices (KTOs). The mostimportant considerations worth mentioning are
the core recommended performance indicators,
the supplementary indicators, and theidentification of the data to be used whenassessing the quality of the performance of
KTOs of public research institutions (PROs).
The Report encourages Member States tomeasure and report the data relating to KTOsof PROs, and encourages the PROs to monitor
their IP (*4) . The Group also acknowledges theshift from technology transfer to knowledgetransfer, and mentions the existence of 1400
technology transfer offices in Europe, but thefigure is not accurate as it dates back to 2004
and considered also technology transfer
institutions (TTIs), which included entities likescience parks (*5) .
Campbell, in her paper, states that “there

is no “right” way to set up a technology
transfer office” (*6) , and adds that a Technology
Transfer Office (TTO) should not be seen as aconstant and significant revenue generator.
Personally, I do not agree with this view, I do
believe that this holds true when it comes tothe early life of a TTO, but when the patents
are granted and the license agreements
executed, there must be a reasonable
expectancy of serious income in licensing
revenues. That said, everything has to beevaluated on the basis of the circumstances anddifferent situations, but I do not think that wehave to start from the assumption that a TTO
has just to serve the public interest by making
available the knowledge created within theuniversity, and this is even truer where
universities are accountable for their expenses(*3) See the Report from the European Commission’s Expert Group on knowledge transfer metrics “Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organizations in Europe”, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/policy/ipr_en.htm. See also the webpage of the European Commission
dedicated to IP and technology transfer, available at http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/policy/ipr_en.htm.
(*4) Another document worth mentioning is the “European Innovation scoreboard 2008 Comparative Analysis of
Innovation Performance”, Pro Inno Europe Paper n. 10, January 2009, available at
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/EIS2008/website/docs/EIS_2008_Final_report.pdf.
(*5) The reference study was performed by Inno et al. in 2004.
(*6) See Campbell. A.F., “How to set up a technology transfer office: experiences from Europe”, Chapter 6.3,
Handbook of Best Practices, 559-565, at 559. The paper is interesting as it offers a general and specific (UK)overview of the technology transfer landscape, available at
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/IP_handbook/ch06/ipHandbookCh%2006%2003%20Campbell%20Establishing%20TTOs-Europe.pdf.
● 2 ●IIP Bulletin 2010and have budgets to observe. A TTO cannot bea black hole from a financial point of view bydefinition.

Ⅱ Some figures as to the patenting
activityIn this Chapter there are several graphicalrepresentations
showingthepatentingactivities with a focus on Europe, and Japan tostart making some considerations fromobjective evidence. What will be also discussed
is the necessity to go beyond the analysis ofpurely statistical data as to patenting activities
to really evaluate the effective commercializationof innovations as this step is way too far fromthe “mere” patenting of an idea.
1

Investments in research and development
and patent statistics

The member States of the European Union
agreed almost ten years ago during the Lisbon
Strategy Summit that the overall investment in
R&D expenditure should have equaled an
intensity of 3% of the GDP by 2010. This
proposition was unfortunately far from being
realistic at the time, and it is still far frombeing attainable now, regardless of the global
economic downturn. In fact, the overall grossdomestic expenditure in R&D of the EU27 wasstable in 2006 and 2007 around 1,85%. In the
period 2000-2006, while Europe has always
been incapable of passing the 2% threshold, theU.S. was firmly way above this level and Japan
steadily above 3%.
Overall, even before the Japan Patent
Office the top filers are the U.S., the mostactive (in terms of patenting) European
countries, and Korea. That said, the final
outcome of our overview of EPO, PCT andJapanese applications confirms that the mostactive countries are some European ones,
Japan, the U.S., and Korea together with China,
which is increasingly climbing the rankings.

Ⅲ The European knowledge transfer
systemFirst of all, the necessary premise to this
Chapter is that Europe is spending all its energy
in achieving the so-called knowledge triangle toboost innovation and the commercialization ofresearch. The strong belief that it is necessary
to build a virtuous circle (in this case a triangle)
starting from higher education, which performs
research, leading to innovation, is by now acornerstone of the European policy of scienceand technology.
The most recent herald of this approach isthe newly-formed European Institute of
Innovation and Technology (EIT), which is oneof the many initiatives promoted at theEuropean level to speed up ideas towards themarket and create innovation, ultimately. The
idea is not new, and it can appear quite simple,
but nothing is simple when it comes to the
exploitation of research results. And this iseven truer when at stake there is a multitudeof different jurisdictions like in the case of theEuropean Union.
1

The general framework for knowledgetransfer activities(* 7)

Since patent law is not part of the pillars of
the EU legal system, every Member State
autonomously decides how to regulate the subject,
and also decides whether or not there should be
aid for increasing the transfer of technology(*8) andhow. At the community level, though, much has
been done by the European Commission.
2

Online resources

The databases managed by the EU interms of knowledge transfer activities are notthe only resource of course as almost all
Member States have their own online databases.
In terms of offerings, in the EU there are someinstitutional resources, like the one directly(*7) To retrieve many of the available documents on technology/knowledge transfer activities in Europe, see
http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/policy/ipr_en.htm in which the listed documents are categorized asfollows:
1) European patent systems;2) Specific R&D- related IPR issues;3) Technology transfer and university-industry relations;4) IPR awareness, training and assistance;5) European Commission.
(*8) In terms of financial aid for technology transfer and seed financing, see the discussion document of theEuropean Commission on “Financing technology transfer & seed finance” to have a quick look at the EU
initiatives, available at http://www.pedz.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-h/gdb/06/tt_sf_discussion_paper_2006.pdf.
IIP Bulletin 2010● 3 ●“1) strengthening intellectual property
strategies for promoting innovation;2) strengthening global intellectual
property strategies;
3) promoting growth strategies of soft
power industry;4) securinng of stability and predictabilityof intellectual property rights; and5) establishment of the intellectual
property system corresponding to theneds of users.”

linked to the European Commission, and then amultitude of other projects stemming mainly
from EU funding that deal with the themes ofknowledge transfer.
3

The leading European example: theUniversity of Oxford

In my view, the leading example in Europeof KTO, which fully embraces the principles
that are suggested by the Commission, andintegrates the three sides of the knowledge
triangle, is the KTO of the University of Oxford(i.e. ISIS), which operates in three distinct
business activities by exploiting the fullpotential of the institution it belongs to.
4

Conclusions

The European knowledge transfer system
is developing a communitywide policy that will
ultimately result in an increase of activities forthe benefit of the research institutions involved
and the public at large. The difficulties willkeep being hard to overcome, especially for thevery nature of the EU, which is a bundle ofdifferent countries and jurisdictions withdifferent norms and decision-makers. There aresome excellent examples though, like ISIS,
which holds promise for the future of Europe.
5

Recommendations

1

When it comes to government-driven
measuresfor
privatecompanies
anduniversities, Japan is leading the way with amyriad of activities. As to companies, andespecially SMEs, the comprehensive support
provided by the JPO starts from the conceptionof the idea all the way to the commercializationof the final product.
2

Ⅳ The Japanese knowledge transfer
systemTo understand the overall consideration in
Japan of the IP system we should just take alook at the five basic goals that the Japanese
government set in 2008 as to the managementof the intellectual property system (*9) :Measures for universities

Even in this context, the JPO supports
universities with several initiatives. To
enhance IP activities and the promotion ofpatent information utilization at universities,
the JPO has adopted a huge amount of pro-IP,
and especially pro-patenting initiatives.
3

In my view, having observed many of theinitiatives that so far have been developed, thesolution would be to create a central hub at theEuropean level in which knowledge andtechnology are shared and transferred with theease and speed that nowadays are necessary tocompete at a global level.

Measures for private companies

Brief history of the industry-academia
relationshipIndustry-academia relationships in Japan
went through different phases, and they
became a bit more formal with the advent of
the TLOs and the incorporation of public
universities. Starting from the most recent
events, in the report of the International Patent
Licensing Seminar 2009 there are several
interesting insights in this regard.
Mr. Yamamoto, for example, in his
speech (*10) , highlighted how the Japaneseknowledge transfer system now is living a newera after the incorporation of the universities
in 2004 and that for the MIT and Stanford it
took almost ten years before reaching profit(*9) Examining all the IP-related efforts and initiatives of the Japanese systems is not the focus of this study, so,
I suggest the greedy reader to take a look at Part 2 of the JPO Annual Report 2009, in which theGovernment efforts in intellectual property activities are described in detail.
(*10) See the report of the International Patent Licensing Seminar 2009, at 83. The report is available at
http://www.ryutu.inpit.go.jp/pldb/en/seminar_a/2009pro-e_report.htm.
● 4 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

targets. He also added that in the licensing tooverseas companies, the TLO first performs amarket research to see whether there could beJapanese companies interested in the available
technologies (*11) . This, in my view, is a sign ofan interest that is still present in the Japanese
economy, that is, to think about the welfare of
the country first, and then to the profit.
4

Other online resources

The databases managed by INPIT are notthe only resource for knowledge transfer
activities. In fact, not considering the privatecompanies operating in the field, the resources
offered through the Japan Science andTechnology Agency (*12) are massive.
5

TLOs’ organization and the leading
Japanese example: the TODAI TLO

As to the organization of the TLOs, theorganization, which performs several activities
in their favor is the University Technology
Transfer Association (*13) (UNITT), whose
members are the TLOs and other institutionsof higher education. UNITT also publishes
annually a report with statistical data which isvery comprehensive, unfortunately though, isjust in Japanese, so, it may be difficult for a
non-Japanese speaking person have a full graspof the data contained therein.
68

Conclusions

Ⅴ Barriers to the commercializationof innovations
In light of what has been introduced so far,
we can try to establish the most common
barriers that innovations face to enter themarket, and these occur, in my view, regardlessof the quality of the KTO/TTO/TLO or theavailable information, for now. I envisioned themost common barriers as follow:
1) Inability to show the real potential of theinnovation;2) Physical distance between the parties;3) (lack of) ICT coverage;4) Language;5) Unmatched areas of expertise;6) Costs;7) Lack of incentives for the transfer;8) Little attractiveness due to the lack ofvisual representations;9) Misconceptions/ wrong information;10) Lack of trust between the parties.

Ⅵ The proposal to lower barriers
to commercialization1

Knowledge transfer activities in Japan cancount on an extremely advanced and capillarysystem that guarantees a full coverage ofRecommendations

Japanese universities, and KTOs should be
more open towards international relationships
because the return to society of the knowledge
generated within universities should be global,
in my view. A knowledge-based society, by
definition, should have no borders, as
knowledge is intangible, and should easily
circulate. In this regard, many efforts should bemade in order to make the offerings available toa wider public.

The results of the questionnaireAquestionnaire
containing
somestatements as to the management of IP in
PROs and relationship between university andacademia has been sent out to many (about 65)
universities and TLOs through the Institute ofIntellectual Property in Tokyo, Unfortunately,
very few forms have been handed in, but I
think that some of the responses are worth
mentioning as they show a peculiar attitude.
7

consultancy services and financial exemptions
that are surely pro-patenting. The lack ofgeneral English proficiency, though, can be a
problem when finding and dealing withpotential foreign partners.

SciencXchange™

SciencXchange™ (*14) could provide an
online service to help overcome these(*11) Id. at 85.
(*12) For a full description of the JST and its services, see http://www.jst.go.jp/EN/.
(*13) For further information, see http://unitt.jp/. The English page contains a limited number of information as
opposed to the Japanese one.
(*14) The domain “sciencxchange.com” has been registered and the website is under construction.

IIP Bulletin 2010

● 5 ●

difficulties,
connecting
companies
withuniversities, and other PROs through a
network that will ease the exchange of
information that is nowadays scattered inthousands of websites that most of the times
are ignored, underexploited or not accessible.

the target audience; (c) advertising on scientificand professional journals focusing on science andtransfer of technology; (d) personal meetings
with the representatives of TTOs of universities
and other PROs.
6

2

Worldwide, thousands of universities andPROs offer their technologies to third parties(usually through their websites). Technology
transfer is a long-term activity, and thepotential contributions, both financial and nonfinancial, that effective technology transfer canmake to global economy are significant andoften underexploited.
3

Open labs and social networking

SciencXchange™
will
modifytheconventional rules for the sake of research andwill display for the first time ever on a single
website the following databases: a) list ofavailable technologies from PROs, andcompanies (basically, this data will be
automatically retrieved from the web (*15) ); b)
list of ongoing projects from PROs (basically,
this data will be manually posted by theusers (*16) ); c) list of KTPs with their ratingfrom members that have been their clients.
4

Technology intelligenceThanks to a search engine capable ofretrieving patent data from the databases of thethree major patent offices in the world and fromthe databases of all the technology transfer officesin the world, SciencXchange™ will be able to offera picture of the current patenting activities arounda given technology, together with the profiles of
the inventors and the institutions they belong to.
5

Business model

Market opportunities
SciencXchange™ will monetize its services
through three separate revenue streams: (a)pay per use, (b) subscription service—monthly
or annual fee, and (c) advertising.

Ⅶ Conclusions
Both the Japanese and European systems
have their own peculiarities and they probably
cannot be fully compared due to the profounddifferences in terms of business culture rather
than legal systems, but what can surely be
defined is the list of barriers that innovations
face when moving from the bench to the market.
This study was meant not just to offer acomparison between the two systems but also a
concrete solution to the recognized barriers. My
use of the term “tools” instead of “tool” whenintroducing SciencXchange™ was deliberately
made. In fact, SciencXchange™ encompasses avast series of tools (databases, social network,
analytics, etc.) that could help not just Europe
and Japan but all the scientists and companies at
a global level overcame the barriers innovations
face while reaching the market.
The win-win situation of the system isrepresented by the high quantity of free andavailable data that is processed. In fact, since is
not necessary to spend time and money on the
retrieval of data (regarding patents andavailable technologies), SciencXchange™ will
be able to offer the reports for a very limited
amount of money and thus be affordable also
for developing countries as well lowering thetechnical divide too.

User acquisition strategy

SciencXchange™ plans to acquire users
through four distinct channels: (a) advertising on
online communities (LinkedIn, etc.); (b) targeted
advertising through emails and ordinary mail to(*15) Several conversations held during my interviews at JST, with Mr. Sekine, Namba, and others, and at INTPIT
with Mr. Maeda and other colleagues, let me understand that in Japan it would be potentially feasible topartner with those governmental entities to retrieve the data necessary for SciencXchange™ to run
effectively. Some concerns, though, were expressed with regard to the privacy of data and the necessaryconsent to use them and the copyrights attached to the governmental databases.
(*16) Id.
● 6 ●IIP Bulletin 2010