The Empirical Analysis of Meaning Observed in the
Patent Documents for Effective Utilization ofPatented Technology (*)
Overseas Researcher: Yuri HIRAI (**)
In order to innovate under today’s situation of stronger international competition andshorter product cycle due to rapid globalization, firms need to carry out research and development(R&D) by actively using not only internal but also external knowledge and technology. Due to the
expansion of “open innovation,” various government measures regarding the utilization of
intellectual property including patents have been conducted. However, such measures have not yet
worked sufficiently.
In consideration of the above-described situation, in order to acquire clues for effective patentutilization, this study aimed to investigate the actual features of open innovation. By analyzing text
information which is unstructured information of patent data, the actual features of open
innovation could be grasped, and it was implied that open innovation contributed to the innovationof meaning that firms weaved into product design. Therefore, the possibility that it is useful toutilize the unstructured information of patents for effective patent utilization was implied.

I. Introduction
Recently, various government measures regarding the utilization of intellectual property including
patents have been conducted. However, such measures have not yet worked sufficiently.
In consideration of this situation, in order to acquire clues for effective patent utilization, thisstudy aimed to investigate the actual features of open innovation by using patent data.

II. Background and purpose of this study
1. BackgroundAs leaders of innovation, firms traditionally have carried out R&D by using internal resources.
However, recently firms are increasingly using external resources such as knowledge andtechnology. Due to the expansion of “open innovation,” various government measures regarding
the utilization of intellectual property including patents have been conducted. However, suchmeasures have not yet worked sufficiently.
(*) This is a summary of the report published under the 2016FY Industrial Property Research Promotion Project entrusted by theJapan Patent Office.
(**) Purdue University, Purdue Polytechnic Institute, Technology Leadership and Innovation Department, over a period of
approximately 10 months from May 17, 2016 through March 17, 2017, as an Overseas Researcher under the Program for the
Fiscal Year 2016.

i

2. Purpose of this study
In consideration of the above-described situation, in order to acquire clues for effective patentutilization, this study aimed to investigate the actual features of open innovation by using patentdata. Because it has not been made clear sufficiently what the actual features of open innovation are,to investigate it in depth could be helpful for effective patent utilization.

III. Previous studies and approach of this study
1. Previous studies(1) Previous studies using patent data
Information found in a patent document contains structured and unstructured information. While
structured information includes bibliographic information such as the filing date, inventors andcitations etc., unstructured information includes free text such as titles, abstracts, descriptions of theinvention, or claims (Tekic et al., 2012; Tseng et al., 2007). Patent analysis using structured
information has been a major approach for years. On the other hand, attention has been paid to
unstructured information recently.
(2) Previous studies regarding open innovation using patent data
In the research field of open innovation, there are some studies using patent data. For example, asa patent analysis using text information, Jeon et al. (2011) used and analyzed a technology needs
database and a patent database in order to search for potential technology partners. Patent analysis
using structured information has also been a major approach in this field.
2. Approach of this study
Because there are not many studies regarding open innovation using text information of patentdata, new aspects about open innovation could be discovered by using it. Therefore, this study used
text information of patent data.
In this study, I conducted the analysis using similarity and keywords. It is an orthodox way to use
similarity as a text analysis of patent data. In the analysis using keywords, I used the concept of“design-driven innovation,” and tried to read meanings which a firm weaved into product design.

iiIV. Data
1. Selected field
The industrial field of non-alcoholic beverages was selected to analyze.
In order to compare the case in Japan with that in the US, I used patent data from the Japan Patent
Office (JPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
2. Samples(1) Samples of Japanese firms
I used PatentSQUARE, a patent search system of Panasonic, to collect patent data1. In this study, I
selected three major Japanese beverage firms: Asahi, Kirin and Suntory. Patents relating to
non-alcoholic beverages held by the three firms were collected from the JPO. The patent searchcovered the filing date period from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 2015 (for 20 years). This search
included keywords such as “beverage” and “drink” in patent titles, abstracts or claims. This searchalso included “A23” in IPC. After the patents with missing data were eliminated, 425 patents of
Asahi, 288 patents of Kirin and 434 patents of Suntory were collected.
(2) Samples of US firms
I selected two major US beverage firms: The Coca-Cola Company and Pepsico. Patents werecollected from the USPTO in the same way as the case of Japan. After the patents with missing
data were eliminated, 121 patents of The Coca-Cola Company and 114 patents of Pepsico werecollected.
3. Proxy indicators of open innovation
As proxy indicators of open innovation, joint applications with other firms, which mean
“industry-industry

collaborations,”

joint

applications

withuniversities,“university-industry collaborations,” and assignment of patent were utilized.

1

I used data of unexamined patent publications, granted patent publications, and patent process information.

iii

which

mean

(1) The case of Japanese patents
I regarded a patent as a patent by industry-industry collaboration if it was applied for jointly withother firms.
I regarded a patent as a patent by university-industry collaboration if it was applied for jointlywith universities. I also regarded a patent as a patent by university-industry collaboration if an
individual applicant gave personal residential addresses, because academic inventors sometimes
use personal information instead of university information when they apply for patents (Tamada &Inoue, 2007; Motohashi & Muramatsu, 2012).
I regarded a patent as an assigned patent if the applicants/holders of the unexamined patentpublication did not include Asahi, Kirin or Suntory and the latest applicants/holders included them.
(2) The case of US patents
Because the inventors had to be named as applicants before 2012 in the US, if applicants/holders
of a patent included only personal names, I referred to assignee data. I identified industry-industry
collaborations, university-industry collaborations, and assignment of patent in the same way as thecase of Japan.

V. Analysis using similarity
In this section, I used only patents by open innovation, and investigated the similarity of patentcontents including technological contents.
1. Method(1) Word Extraction
I exacted nouns and adjectives from patent abstracts. Then, I brought different notation words
together, and eliminated unneeded words and stopwords.
(2) Similarity
The similarity between two patents was measured by using cosine similarity between
TFIDF-weighted word vectors. Then, I calculated dissimilarity from cosine similarity, and usediv

non-metric multidimensional scaling for visualization.
2. Result(1) Result of the case of Japanese firms
The patents by industry-industry and university-industry collaborations were scattered on thegraph, which meant that they contained a wide range of contents. In addition, the contents of theassigned patents were not similar between firms.
(2) Result of the case of US firms
The patents by the two firms' industry-industry and university-industry collaborations were placed
in separate positions on the graph between firms. In addition, the contents of each firm’s assigned
patents were not similar to the patent by industry-industry and university-industry collaborations
applied for by each firm.
3. Brief summary of this analysis
The patents by the two U.S. firms' industry-industry and university-industry collaborations wereplaced in separate positions on the graph, which meant that the contents were not similar between
the two firms. On the other hand, the patents of the three Japanese firms were scattered on thegraph, which meant that there was no significant difference in patent contents between the threefirms. In addition, in both cases, the tendency of the assigned patents was not similar to that ofindustry-industry and university-industry collaborations.

VI. Analysis using keywords
In this section, I used the concept “design-driven innovation” and tried to read meanings whichfirms weaved into product design.
Verganti (2009) proposed “design-driven innovation” as an innovation strategy focusing on“meaning,” and it is the R&D process for meanings, based on the idea that each product holds aparticular meaning (Verganti, 2009; Maekawa, 2015). As Maekawa (2015) suggests that recently
meaning has become more important in product development, “meaning” is an important indicatorof innovation.

v

In this analysis, I focused on the functions of non-alcoholic beverages. It is said that food andbeverages have three functions: “nutritional function” which is nutritional work for life support,“sensory function” which is work in sensory aspects such as taste, and “biological regulation function”
which is work such as adjusting the condition of a body (Consumer Affairs Agency, Government ofJapan, 2014). Maekawa (2015) presented a green tea beverage “Healthya” by Kao as an example ofdesign-driven innovation, and argued that it innovated the meaning of non-alcoholic beverages byemphasizing the biological regulation function. Thus, in the industrial field of non-alcoholic
beverages, the function of a product is deeply related to the innovation of meaning.
1. Method
In this analysis, because I focused on not technological contents but the functions of products, I
used not patent claims but patent descriptions as texts to exact keywords.
I extracted keywords related to the three functions mentioned above and health which relates to all
three functions, and counted the number of times that keywords occurred in each patent. Because it
depends on the length of the texts to extract keywords from, the number of occurrences of
keywords was divided by the number of letters in the texts to extract keywords from.
2. Result of corresponding analysis by year
In order to figure out how the meaning which firms weaved into product design has changed by
year, cross tabulation was performed by dividing the patents into periods every two years according
to the filing date, and corresponding analysis was conducted.
(1) Result of the case of Japanese firms
Regarding Asahi, while the patents applied for from 1995 to 1999 were relatively associated withthe sensory function, the patents applied for from 1999 to 2003 were relatively associated withhealth and the nutritional function. Then, the patents applied for from 2003 to 2005 were associatedwith the biological regulation function, and the patents applied for recently were associated withthe sensory function again.
Regarding Kirin, while the patents applied for from 1995 to 2001 were associated with thenutritional function, the patents applied for from 2001 to 2005 were associated with the biologicalregulation function. The patents applied for recently were associated with health and the sensory
function.

vi

Regarding Suntory, although the patents applied for from 1999 to 2007 were associated with thenutritional function, the patents applied for from 1999 to 2005 were associated with the biologicalregulation function more than those applied for from 2005 to 2015. The patents applied for recently
were associated with the sensory function.
(2) Result of the case of US firms
Regarding The Coca-Cola Company, the patents applied for through the whole time period wereassociated with the nutritional and sensory function more than health and the biological regulation
function. While the patents applied for from 2007 to 2011 were associated with the nutritional
function, the patents applied for from 2011 to 2015 were associated with the sensory function.
Regarding Pepsico, the patents applied for through the whole time period were also associatedwith the nutritional and sensory function more than health and the biological regulation function.
While the patents applied for from 2007 to 2011 were associated with the sensory function, thepatents applied for from 2011 to 2015 were associated with the nutritional function.
(3) Brief summary of this analysis
Differences in functions that each firm focused on by year were found, and a change of themeaning which firms weaved into non-alcoholic beverage products by year was shown.
3. Result of corresponding analysis by type of open innovation
In order to discuss each feature of open innovation, cross tabulation was performed by the type ofopen innovation and corresponding analysis was conducted.
(1) Result of the case of Japanese firms
Regarding Asahi, the in-house patents were associated with the nutritional and sensory function.
While the patents by industry-industry and university-industry collaborations were associated withthe biological regulation and nutritional function, the assigned patents were associated with thesensory function.
Regarding Kirin, the in-house patents were associated with the sensory function. While the patents
by industry-industry collaborations were also associated with the sensory function, the patents byuniversity-industry collaborations were associated with the biological regulation function.

vii

Regarding Suntory, the in-house and the assigned patents were associated with the sensory
function. While the patents by industry-industry collaborations were also associated with health,the patents by university-industry collaborations were relatively associated with health and thebiological regulation function.
(2) Result of the case of US firms
Regarding The Coca-Cola Company, the in-house patents were relatively associated with thesensory function. The patents by industry-industry collaborations and the assigned patents wereassociated with the nutritional function.
Regarding Pepsico, the in-house patents were associated with health and the sensory function.
While the patents by industry-industry and university-industry collaborations were associated with
the nutritional function, the assigned patents were associated with health.
(3) Brief summary of this analysis
In the cases of both Japanese and US firms, the in-house patents were associated with the sensory
function.
In Japanese firms, there were differences in the patents by industry-industry collaborations amongfirms. The patents by university-industry collaborations of all three firms tended to be associatedwith the biological regulation function. The assigned patents were associated with the sensory
function. Thus, a common tendency was seen among the three Japanese firms.
4. Result of principal component analysis
In this section, principal component analysis was carried out for the purpose of grasping thefeatures of individual patents. Then, each patent was plotted on the principal component axes byusing the first and the second principal component for visualization.
(1) Result of the case of Japanese firms
In the three Japanese firms, the patents by industry-industry collaborations were scattered on thegraph, which meant that they were related to various functions. Most of the patents byuniversity-industry collaborations were related to the biological regulation function, whereas mostof the assigned patents were related to the sensory function.

viii

(2) Result of the case of US firms
In both US firms, compared to the patents by industry-industry collaborations, the patents byuniversity-industry collaborations and the assigned patents showed variations in terms of functions.
(3) Brief summary of this analysis
In Japanese firms, a common trend was roughly observed among the three firms.
In US firms, compared to the patents by industry-industry collaborations, more characteristicfeatures were seen in the patents by university-industry collaborations and the assigned patents.

VII. Analysis using the number of forward citations
In this section, I evaluated patents by open innovation by using the number of forward citations as
structured information.
1. Method
In this analysis, only Japanese patents were used. The patents to be used here are the same as theJapanese patents used for the analysis using text information.
I utilized the number of forward citations by examiner as a dependent variable. As independent
variables, I utilized industry-industry collaboration (it was coded as “1” if a patent fitted
industry-industry collaboration), university-industry collaboration (it was coded as “1” if a patent
fitted university-industry collaboration), and assignment of patent (it was coded as “1” if a patent
fitted assigned patent). I also used firm dummies, the filing date, the number of inventors, the IPC
number, and the number of claims as control variables.
I conducted regression analysis by using a negative binomial generalized linear model. Because
the number of forward citations by examiner depends greatly on the filing year, I also analyzed 17
years of patents excluding the last three years.
2. Result
In the analysis using 20 years of patents, there were no significant independent variables.
However, in the analysis using 17 years of patents, the number of forward citations of patents byuniversity-industry collaborations was significantly small.

ix

Because the patents by university-industry collaborations were significantly negative for thenumber of forward citations which are often used as an indicator of the importance of patents, it
was implied that the importance of patents by university-industry collaborations was low.

VIII. Summary and discussion
1. Summary and discussion of the results
Here, I discuss the features of open innovation in Japanese firms in comparison with US firms.
The patents by industry-industry collaborations had diverse patent contents and functions. The
industry-industry collaborations targeted in this study included collaborations with various firms
such as food companies, fragrance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Based on diverse
technologies created as a result of collaborations with such various companies, industry-industry
collaboration might be widely involved in the innovation of meaning.
Regarding the patents by university-industry collaborations, though the importance as patents was
not high, many of them were concerned with the biological regulation function, and from theviewpoint of function, differences from the in-house patents were large. Even though theimportance of the patents by university-industry collaborations was low, it was possible that
university-industry collaboration might have played a significant role in the innovation of meaning
given to non-alcoholic beverage products using the biological regulation function.
Regarding the assigned patents, although differences in patent contents were found between firms,
in terms of function, most of the assigned patents were related to the sensory function as well as thein-house patents. From the viewpoint of function, there was little difference from the in-housepatents. Therefore, there was a possibility that patents that supplemented the sensory function
developed by a firm alone were assigned.
As described above, by using text information which is unstructured information and analyzing
patent data, I could grasp the actual features of open innovation. In addition, by analyzing
keywords related to functions as an intermediary, it was implied that open innovation contributed tothe innovation of meaning that firms weaved into product design.
2. Discussion for effective patent utilization
Due to the expansion of open innovation, measures for effective patent utilization have been
carried out. However, it is pointed out that measures to support commercialization of intellectual
property are necessary in the future (Hamagishi, 2011).

xUnder such circumstances, it seems to be useful to utilize the unstructured information of patents.
In this study, by using text information which is unstructured information of patent data, I could
grasp the change of meaning that firms weaved into product design by year and the actual featuresof open innovation. Thus, by using unstructured information of patent data, not only thetechnological contents of a patent but also the trend of product design and product development
closer to commercialization could be grasped. Therefore, it seems to be able to lead to effective
patent utilization for commercialization to utilize the unstructured information such as text
information.

References
Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan. (2014). White paper on consumer affairs 2014.
(平 成 26年 版 消 費 者 白 書 .)(http://www.caa.go.jp/adjustments/pdf/26hakusho_honbun.pdf, referred on March 20,2017). [In Japanese].
Hamagishi, H. (2011). 中小企業における知財活用のための支援施策 (特許情報施策および事業). Japio year book, 2011, 138-141. [In Japanese].
Jeon, J., Lee, C., & Park, Y. (2011). How to use patent information to search potential technology
partners in open innovation. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16, 386-393.
Maekawa, T. (2015). Demonstration of design-driven innovation -Analysis of intellectual property
information-. (デザイン・ドリブン・イノベーションの実証: 知的財産情報の分析.) Doctoral
thesis, Ritsumeikan University. [In Japanese].
Motohashi, K., & Muramatsu, S. (2012). Examining the university industry collaboration policy inJapan: Patent analysis. Technology in Society, 34(2), 149-162.
Tamada, S., & Inoue, H. (2007). 大学もしくは公的研究機関と民間企業との共同出願特許の分析. RIETI Discussion Paper Series. [In Japanese].
Tekic, Z., Kukolj, D., Nikolic, L. J., Drazic, M., Pokric, M., Vitas, M., Panjkov, Z., & Nemet, D.
(2012, May). PSALM-Tool for business intelligence. MIPRO, 2012 Proceedings of the 35th
International Convention, 1629-1634. IEEE.

xi

Tseng, Y. H., Lin, C. J., & Lin, Y. I. (2007). Text mining techniques for patent analysis.
Information Processing & Management, 43(5), 1216-1247.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radicallyinnovating what things mean. Harvard University Press.

xii