Research on Companies' Responses to the New Employee Invention SystemI. Purpose of This Research
The Act Partially Amending the Patent Act, etc. (Act No. 55 of 2015) was approved and enacted
on July 3, 2015, and was put into force on April 1, 2016. The Act, which includes provisions on thereview of the employee invention system, aims to ensure companies' prompt implementation of IP
strategies, while encouraging inventions.
Additionally, the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors made supplementary
resolutions that the enforcement of this Act, such as the effects on incentives for employees, etc.,
should be surveyed and verified occasionally in light of the future changes in socioeconomic
circumstances and that the Act should be reviewed as necessary.1 2
Based on the supplementary resolutions, this research aims to clarify companies' responses tothe new employee invention system, thereby preparing basic reference materials for the purposes ofthoroughly disseminating the details of the amendment of the Act and for designing and planningconsultation and assistance measures in relation to SMEs' efforts to develop their own employee
invention rules, as well as basic reference materials to assist the verification of the operation of thenew system.
II. Contents of This Research
1. Survey Methods
A questionnaire survey was conducted with 2,000 corporations (employers, etc.) and 7,000
natural persons (employees, etc.) nationwide. Responses were obtained from 834 corporations (388large companies, 270 SMEs, 132 universities and public research institutes, 3 and 44 others;
response rate: 41.7%) and 1,958 employees, etc. (response rate: 28.0%).
After reviewing responses to the questionnaire, a hearing survey was conducted with 30 selectedcorporations (employers, etc.) for the purpose of ascertaining more detailed information and a more
concrete understanding of backgrounds.

1

Supplementary resolution on the draft Act Partially Amending the Patent Act, etc. (House of Representatives)
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_rchome.nsf/html/rchome/Futai/keizaiBAEE6B873A1E2AE349257E57002371F7.htm[Final access date: February 3, 2017]
2 Supplementary resolution on the draft Act Partially Amending the Patent Act, etc. (House of Councillors)
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/gianjoho/ketsugi/189/f071_070201.pdf[Final access date: March 2, 2017]
3 Universities and public research institutes are hereinafter collectively referred to as "universities, etc."

2. Survey Results(1) Recognition of the Employee Invention System
Those who responded that they know of the alterations to the employee invention systemthrough the 2015 amendment of the Act accounted for 88.8% of all respondents, while those whoresponded that they know of the guidelines set forth in Article 35, paragraph (6) of the Patent Act
accounted for 75.4%.
(2) Rules concerning Vesting of Rights to Obtain Patents for Employee Inventions
Of the employers, etc. that responded that they have rules concerning the vesting of rights toobtain patents for employee inventions, 46.2% adopt the idea that rights are to be originally vested
in employers, etc. and 49.9% adopt the idea that rights are to be originally vested in employees, etc.
By attribution, 55.4% of large companies and 52.1% of SMEs adopt the idea that rights are to beoriginally vested in employers, etc., outnumbering those adopting the idea that rights are to beoriginally vested in employees, etc. (40.9% of large companies and 42.3% of SMEs). Among
universities, etc., those adopting the idea that rights are to be originally vested in employees, etc.
(83.2%) vastly outnumbered those adopting the idea that rights are to be originally vested in
employers, etc. (14.5%), which suggests that there is a strong need to maintain theemployee-oriented concept at universities, etc.
(3) Reasonable Benefits
Of the employers, etc. that responded that they have standards for determining reasonable
benefits, an overwhelming majority (98.4%) responded that the relevant standards provide for thepayment of money as reasonable benefits.
Targeting the employers, etc. that only chose the payment of money as reasonable benefits, ahearing was conducted as to whether they have considered choosing any economic benefits otherthan money and their reasons for choosing only the payment of money. In response to our questions,some responded that the adoption of economic benefits other than money requires consultations
with other departments and cannot be decided only by the IP department or that the payment ofmoney is the optimal way to reward the inventors.
Among the employees, etc., the largest percentage, 84.5%, was for those responding that thepayment of money is the most preferable as reasonable benefits for the purpose of strengtheningincentives for inventions.
(4) Consultations and Other Procedures
77.6% of the employers, etc. responded that they disclose standards concerning the contents ofreasonable benefits.
On the other hand, 48.6% of the employers, etc. as a whole responded that they consulted withemployees, etc. on draft standards (by attribution, 62.9% of large companies, 36.3% of SMEs, and34.1% of universities, etc.), while 42.6% of them responded that they heard opinions of employees,etc. (by attribution, 62.1% of large companies, 27.0% of SMEs, and 19.7% of universities, etc.).
Among the employees, etc. who have participated in consultations on draft standards, those
responding that they were satisfied with such consultations accounted for 84.1%. 62.9% of theemployees, etc. responded that they are satisfied with the disclosure of the standards, and 72.2% of
the employees, etc. having been requested to present opinions responded that they were satisfied
with said procedures.
III. Summary
The survey of the employers, etc. revealed that a high percentage of them recognize the detailsof the employee invention system and the 2015 amendment of the Act, irrespective of company size.
Therefore, PR activities concerning the new employee invention system seem to have beeneffective.
It also became clear that predominantly companies are increasingly apt to adopt the idea thatrights are to be originally vested in employers, etc., while many of the universities, etc. maintainthe idea that rights are to originally vested in employees, etc., thus the significance of the 2015
amendment that purposefully maintained the system of vesting rights originally in employees, etc.
is confirmed.
An overwhelming majority of the employers, etc. chose the payment of money as reasonable
benefits, with a few choosing any economic benefits other than money. For that reason, theemployers, etc. cited the problem that the adoption of economic benefits other than money requires
consultations with other departments and many of the respondents from both the employers andemployees, etc. consider the payment of money to be preferable for strengthening incentives forinventions. Such barriers within the organization and needs of employees, etc. should beunderstood as problems to be solved by each company's all-out efforts for designing incentives for
employees, etc. within the organization, not only as problems inherent in the industrial property

right system.
As procedures for preparing draft standards concerning the contents of reasonable benefits,
including consultations, many employers, etc. disclose the standards, but the percentage of thosehaving consultations with and hearing opinions of employees, etc. in the process of preparing draft
standards is low especially among SMEs and universities, etc.
On the other hand, the questionnaire targeting employees, etc. revealed that a high percentage of
those employed by organizations where consultations on draft standards are held, the standards aredisclosed and employees' opinions are heard are satisfied with those procedures.
Given these, SMEs and universities, etc. preferably should also hold consultations with and hear
opinions of employees, etc. when preparing draft standards, but it is highly likely that a smaller
number of personnel in their IP departments compared with large companies would make it moredifficult for them to carry out such procedures.
Therefore, one option is to introduce past efforts actually made for consultations and opinion
hearings as reference materials for other SMEs and universities, etc.