4 Utilization of Intellectual Property Rights in New Business
Environment
This is a research study on utilization of intellectual property rights, surveying present situation andneeds for the utilization. Since it is very difficult to measure activities of utilizing intellectual properties,
there are no specific indicators illustrating intellectual property rights “utilization” activities, such as
number of applications or registrations for intellectual property rights “obtaining” activities. Accordingly,
measures of Japan Patent Office (JPO) do not properly reflect the needs of intellectual property right users.
Instead, JPO has given priority to promoting utilization of “unused intellectual property rights” based on
their annual statistical survey criteria of “used and unused intellectual proprietary rights”.
Since intellectual property users, such as companies or universities utilize their rights in various ways
depending on their industrial categories or company sizes, etc. it is difficult to measure their activity ofutilization by the simple criteria of “used” or ”unused”. Therefore, in considering future policies for theirutilization, it is very important to properly understand the present situation and needs for the utilization.
The research study includes a questionnaire survey and hearings with companies and universities inJapan and foreign countries. The questionnaire survey was conducted for about 3,000 samples and focusedon typical activities of utilizing intellectual property rights,– enforcement of rights (direct utilization),
defending proprietary products (indirect utilization), utilization of rights as technology benchmarks, andutilization of rights for introduction of outside technologies – and analyzed the activities by technology area
and company size.

Ⅰ Introduction

Business operations are affected by patent
enforcements, such as injunctions or damages
claims, and patent system’s effects on business
operations are not limited to those “direct” patentutilization. For example, the mere patent
existence or patent licensing of a certain company
affects business operations of their rivals. In
addition, information of granted patents or patentapplications affects decisions or behaviors of third
parties who do not directly understand relevant
technologies, such as customers, banks, orinvestors.
Therefore, in considering utilization of
intellectual property rights, which include patents,
it is essential to examine not only for intellectual
property right enforcements and rights-related
operations, such as assigning and licensing rights,
but also for overall operations of utilizing
intellectual property rights for business projects.
It is also important to consider utilization of otherentities’ intellectual property rights by ancompany, in technology introduction or joint R&D
projects, for example, as well as utilization of its
own rights.
Until now, discussions about utilization of
intellectual property rights in Japan have grownwith respect to specific issues and did not cover
the whole range of business operations related to

The patent system plays a role of protecting
research and development achievements bycompanies, institutes, universities, and otherentities, and the system is uniform for alltechnology areas. This means that in principle,
procedures for acquiring patent rights or effectsof these rights, such as requirements for patent
infringement or patent terms) do not differ fortechnology areas. The uniformity derives fromrequirements of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).
In Japan, exception for the uniformity exists only
for the extension of patent terms for drugs.
In contrast to the uniformity of patent
system, business operations of companies varydepending on technology areas, corresponding tovariation of profit earning mechanisms. Therefore,
utilization of patents in business operations varies
depending on technology areas, even though thepatent system is uniform for all technology areas.
The way of patent utilization differ not only intechnology area but also in company size,
competition environment, products and services
related to business operations, or other factors,
since business operations are linked to various
factors as described. .
IIP Bulletin 2010

● 1 ●intellectual property rights. The issues include“utilizing unused intellectual property rights,”“industry-academia
cooperation,”“raising
damages claims,” “intellectual property trust,” or“license registration system” and the discussions
do not sufficiently recognize present situation or
problems regarding the whole range of business
operations and intellectual property rights. The
discussions also did not cover analysis ofdifferences between Japanese and foreignsituations in utilizing intellectual property rights,
or analysis of effects of JPO’s measures and law
revisions.
This research study analyzes present
situation and needs regarding companies’
intellectual property rights from various
viewpoints, aiming to serve as a basic dataconsidered in JPO's new policy measures for theutilization of intellectual property rights.

about introducing omnibus registration for the
licensing registration system, corresponding tocross-licensing between companies. It was
discussedinJPO
committee,
named“subcommittee on circulation and liquidation of
intellectual property”, and was legislated inamendments to the Act on Special Measures
Concerning Industrial Revitalization. The otherwas about introducing registration for patentapplication which is not yet granted. It was
discussed in JPO committee, named “working
group for provisional non-exclusive license
registration system under patent system
subcommittee” and was legislated in amendments
to Patent Law in 2008.
Utilization of intellectual property was also
discussed in the Intellectual Property Strategy
Headquarters and its annual intellectual property
promotion plan has called for supporting andpaving the way for the utilization of intellectual
property rights. After Democratic Party of Japan(DPJ) became the ruling party, “The New Growth
Strategy (Basic Policies) – Toward a RadiantJapan,” which was approved by the Cabinet in
December 2009, cited the promotion of small andmedium-sized companies’ intellectual property
rights utilization as one of objectives.
Table 1 is an overview of major past law
revisions relating to intellectual property rights
law revisions. As shown in Table 1, eleven majorrevisions were implemented since 1993 and therevisions can be categorized into three phases.
The first phase revisions, ones in 1993 and 1994,
were related for application procedures mainly foraccording with treaties. The second phaserevisions, ones between 1998 and 2006, were
aimed for making the patent system morefavorable for patent acquisitions and protection bypatens. The third phase revision in 2008 wasaimed to enhance “strategic utilization of
intellectual property rights”.
Summarizing briefly, law revisions relating tointellectual property have shifted from enhancing
protection of rights to promoting utilization by
improving environment..

Ⅱ Background
JPO has been claimed "intellectual property
creation cycle" as ideal cycle of intellectual
property creation. The “cycle” consists of threephases, “creation”, “protection”, and “utilization”.
Though “utilization” of intellectual property
rights is one of the three phases, present
situation or needs regarding the utilization havenot necessarily been well specified.
1

Statistics on intellectual property rightutilization

As for statistics for “utilization”, there is asurvey about numbers of “used” and “unused”
intellectual property rights, titled “status of
intellectual property right usage”, included inannual intellectual property activities survey by
JPO. According to the survey in 2008, the survey
shows that half of patents were “used” andanother half was “unutilized”. After excluding“unused” patents for defense purposes, 20% of
patents were “unused”.
2

JPO advisory panel discussions andlawrevisionsonutilizationofintellectual property rights

There were some advisory panel discussions
and resultant law revisions on intellectual
properties relating utilization of intellectual
property. For example, there were two law
revisions on license registration system. One was● 2 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

Table 1 Major Intellectual property Law Revisions
Law
Category
revision

1993

1994

PatentForbidding new matter addition

PatentCreating “demand for correction” in the procedure ofinvalidation trial

Utility model

Shifting to a non-substantive examination system

PatentChanging patent right duration calculation

PatentDeleting the statutory unpatentable category

PatentIncreasing countries accepting priority of application

PatentCreating foreign-language patent application procedure

PatentEasing written description requirements for patent application

PatentEasing time restrictions on amendments and divisional
applications
Shifting from pre-grant opposition system to post-grant
opposition system
Easing formal requirements of patent application

Trademark

Allowing trademark registration with standard character

PatentPatent1996

Trademark
Trademark

1998

1999

Easing trademark registration renewal requirements andenhancing cancellation of unused trademark registration
Expansion of registered trademark protection and creatinggroup trademark system

PatentReforming damages calculation methods

DesignExpanding the scope of protection (partial and related designs)

DesignSimplifying design registration application procedures

PatentShortening the examination request period

PatentExpanding novelty and inventive step standard to global

PatentExpanding exceptions to lack of novelty procedure

PatentCreating accelerated disclosure procedure

PatentReforming the patent term extension system

PatentEasing the burden of proof of patentee ininfringement/damages trial

TrademarkConforming with the Madrid Protocol

PatentClarifying “use” of invention related to computer programs

PatentExpanding applications for contributory infringement

Trademark2002

OutlinePatentPatentPatent

IIP Bulletin 2010

Clarifying “use” of trademarks
Separating claims and specifications in patent application
document
Creating prior-art disclosure requirement in patent application
Withdrawing reservations on PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty)
provisions (30 months)
● 3 ●

2003

2004

2005

2006

2008

PatentRevising fee structure and creating examination fee refund
procedure

PatentAbandoning post-grant opposition system

PatentReforming appeal and trial system

PatentRevising standards for unity of invention

PatentAccepting overall country designation of PCT

Utility model

Creating procedures of patent application from utility utility
model registration

Utility model

Extending utility model right duration

Utility model

Expanding allowable correction in utility model correction trial

PatentRevising provisions of employees’ invention

PatentEnabling invalidation argument in patent trial on the ground ofright abuse

TrademarkCreating local group trademark system

DesignExtending design right duration

DesignVarious major revisions on design system

Patent, etc.

Adding export to definition of “use”

Patent, etc.

Adding possession for assignment purposes as type of
infringement

PatentRevising time restrictions of divisional application

PatentRevising requirements on amendment

PatentAdding provisional non-exclusive license registration to license
registration system

PatentRevising time restrictions of appeals for final rejection● 4 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

3

cancellation trial registration, earlier than thecancellation trial decision date., The law revisionalso included (4) allowing trademark registration
fees to be paid in installments. Supreme Court’s
decision also enhanced measures against unused
trademark right, which issued a judgment on
requirements for arguments for the absence ofdamage, thereby barring trademark brokers fromusing unused trademarks for claiming damages.

“Patent licensing promotion”: measuresconducted under JPO on utilization of
intellectual property rightPatent licensing promotion program is apolicy measure conducted under JPO since 1997,
for purpose of utilizing intellectual property rights.
The program offers a patent licensing databaseand dispatches patent licensing advisers.
The number of registrations in the patent
licensing database peaked at about 58,600 at theend of fiscal year (FY) 2006 (March 2007) anddecreased after then. The number of license
contracts (for assignment or licensing) signed
through patent licensing advisers peaked at 723 in
2005FY, and gradually decreased to about 500 in
2008FY. According to the annual survey
conducted by JPO, most of the patents and unused
patents (approximately 90%) are held by large
companies. Although the patent licensing
promotion program focused on “unused” patents,
share of large companies as licensor havesubstantially reduced from a quarter at the startof the program. Instead, technology licensing
organizations (TLOs) have expanded their share.
4

Ⅲ Objectives of the Research Study
1

This research study aims to survey present
situation and needs for utilization of intellectual
property rights. For that purpose, it is essential toexamine not only for enforcement of rights, suchas injunction or damages claims, andrights-related operations, such as assigning or
licensing rights, but also for overall business
operations, which include business operations
that user of the intellectual property rightevaluates the right as functioning or that the user
is exploiting their rights. In other words, in order
to examine utilization of intellectual property
rights and survey examine the present situationand needs, it is necessary to examine business
operations of the users comprehensively.
The traditional classification of these rights
as “used or unused”, which was used in annual
statistics and policy measures by JPO, has notnecessarily reflected the present situation andneeds when examining the utilization of
intellectual property rights for business
operations.
For example, when a company inventories its
patents and finds some patents as ineffective forblocking other companies operation, even if thepatents are “used” by the company, the company
would stop paying patent maintenance fee andmake them abandoned, thus “unutilized”..For
another example, when the company inventories
its patents and evaluates some other patens
effective in demonstrating its technologicalcapacity by inflating the number of patents thatthe company is holding, even if the company do
not “use” the patents for their business, thecompany would keep paying maintenance fee andkeep them valid, thus “utilized”.
Therefore, status of “used / unused” ofpatents may not necessarily correspond to that of“utilized / unutilized”. Additionally, as there are“abandoned” patents that patentee decided to

Design rights utilization

As for design rights, a law revision in 2003
was a large change, including (1) extension ofdesign right duration to twenty years fromregistration, and (2) easing filing daterequirements for related design application. Prior
to the revision, filing date of related design
application had been required to be the same day
as its principal design application filing. The
revision eased filing date of related design
application extended to be between filing date andpublication date of the principal design application.
Protecting products by combining patent anddesign right had been utilized in various ways.
The law revision made the combination more
effective and corresponded to changes inindustrial design.
5

Trademark rights utilization

As for trademark rights, law revision in 1996
enhanced measures against unused trademark
right, by (1) easing requirements of plaintiffs fortrials to cancel unused trademark rights, (2)invalidating “last-minute use refutation” against
cancellation trial, (3) making trademark rightcancellation date deemed to be the date that

IIP Bulletin 2010

Difference between “utilization” and“used/unused”● 5 ●Ⅳ Survey and Analysis

stop paying maintenance fee, maintenance ofpatents through annual fee payments may imply
some purposes, even for “unused” patents, thatcannot be identified through the classification ofpatents as “used and unused.”
Another example supporting this assumption
is that though it is widely recognized thatlicensing activity in pharmaceutical industry isdifferent from that in the electronics industry, theannual“used/
unused”
staticsforindustry-by-industry indicates no major difference
between the two industries.
Given the above, it is concluded that “used /unused” statics of intellectual property rights
indicates limited aspect of the intellectual
property right utilization and wider range ofsurvey is necessary.
2

1

We sent questionnaire for 3,153 companies
or research institutes and received 762 responses(responsecollectionrate:
24.6%).
The
correspondent of the questionnaire were chosenfrom patent applicants with six or more patentapplications filed in 2007,
2

Questionnaire survey results

The questionnaire was focused on theutilization of intellectual property rights withmultiple-choice questions and free-description
ones. The result of the questionnaire wasanalyzed by technology area or company size ofthe respondents.
Though the situation of intellectual property
rights utilization, especially whether licensing
operations are very active, varies depending ontechnology area, the result shows that thesituation can be explained by following factors:-“characteristics of developed technologies,”
including “technology overlaps (to what degree ancompany can conduct business operations without
considering others’ patents, or the degree ancompany can get around others’ patents),”“technology development failure risks,” and“ industry’s technology maturity (shares for
improved and new technologies).”- “characteristics of products,” including“numbers of products and elemental technologies(degree that a company’s products are related toothers’ technologies or patents),” “the effective
strength of patents (the degree of exclusive
working of patents through their acquisition),”and “ease of infringement confirmation.”- “social restraints on patent-based monopoly(including bidding conditions and approval ofdrugs).”The result also indicate that small andmedium-sized companies (SMEs) conduct lesslicensing (cross-licensing and licensing withpayments) or technology introduction than large
companies, though they have similar needs forlicensing or technology introduction.

Objects of the survey

For surveying utilization of intellectual
property rights, we set object of the survey as“users’ activities of acquiring intellectual
property rights and utilizing them for theirbusiness operations.” Then, we classified those
activities to “direct utilization”, “indirect
utilization”, “utilization of other-entity-owned
patents upon introduction of technologies outside
the company,” and “utilization of intellectual
property rights as indicator of technology capacity
demonstration,businessnegotiation
andadvertisement purposes”.
The “direct utilization” activity relates toutilizing intellectual property rights for
enforcement or licensing, aiming for exclusive
use of patented invention or royalty income. The“indirect utilization” activity relates to utilizing
intellectual property rights for protecting theirproprietary businesses.
As intellectual property rights’ effects on business
operations were expected to vary depending ontechnology area and company size, we mainly analyzed
differences between industrial categories and company
sizes in the questionnaire survey.
3

Questionnaire survey overview

Design and trademark rights

In the questionnaire survey, we asked
whether designs or trademarks were licensed
together with patents and investigated whether
there are any instances for utilizing multiple
kinds of intellectual property rights, and whether
there are any motivations for utilizing unused
design or trademark rights.

3

Domestic interview survey overview

We made thirty interview surveys, chosenfrom the questionnaire survey respondents, about
questionnaire-related matters and technology● 6 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

indicate that university TLOs and IP divisions are
requiring for people who can communicate wellwith companies on those issues.
The interview results also indicate that ininventorying patents though almost all (large)
companies understand importance of allocating IP
division staff, storing know-hows, and cooperatingwith R&D divisions’ evaluation for the activities
varied from company to company. Amongcompanies subject to the interview survey, thosethat positioned inventorying of patents as “areview for cost cuts” doubted effects of theactivity for resources input. On the other hand,those that positioned inventorying as “anopportunity to evaluate patents or survey othercompanies’ patent utilization” gave higher
evaluation ratings to inventorying in general.
In answering questions about capabilities andconsciousnesses of inventors, intellectual
property division staffs, and outside patent agents,
multiple respondents called for improving
inventors’ skills and acknowledging importance ofintellectual property rights. Multiple respondents
urged intellectual property division staffs toimprove their capabilities to support inventors inpatentapplication
procedure.
Multiple
respondents asked outside patent agents to haveproposal-making and consulting capabilities, aswell as understanding of relevant technology
areas of the inventions.
As for the utilization of outside experts forintellectual
property
activities,
multiple
respondents said they utilized such experts forresearch where no in-house coordination was
required. Multiple respondents also said theywould like to utilize outside experts ontechnology transfers or negotiations, or experts
specialized in both intellectual property rights andfinancial matters.
On dealing with BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India
and China), multiple respondents said they wereincreasing patent applications in China and India
to avoid risks accompanying the failure to makesuch applications, as patents in the two countries
have grown more important along with theirmarket expansion. Every respondent said the
difficulties in enforcing rights could not become areason for refraining from filing patentapplications. Multiple respondents said theywould obtain licenses in China when they begin
relevant business operations there.

transfers from universities.
4

Domestic interview survey results

Similar to the questionnaire survey, theinterview survey found that the aggressiveness oflicensing operations varies depending ontechnology area. The analysis is supported bycompanies that operate in multiple technology
area. They indicated that licensing operations ofcompanies depend on “whether licensing
operations are very active in industrial categories
they belong to,” rather than “whether they arefamiliar with licensing operations.”
The survey also indicates that attitudes
toward the introduction of technologies areaffected by company organizational structure aswell as technology area.
For the interview on disclosing needs fortechnology transfer and introducing technologies
outside, there are some needs of utilizing experts
outside the companies.
Regarding introducing or jointly developing
technologies with universities, the interview
survey results indicate that companies givepriority to “connections” with professors in theuniversities and to have deep engagement withthem through joint technology development,
while not viewing them in general as technology
sources.
Regarding on the quality of university-held
patents, the interview survey results indicate thatthese patents fail to satisfy companies’ qualitativerequirements regarding the scope of rights
meeting business needs, although qualities of
specifications for these patents are notnecessarily low. The results also suggest that if
universities were to increase licensing withcompanies, they might have to learn overseas
university practices and improve the qualities
related to business requirements.
There were various opinions exist about
university technology licensing organizations andintellectual property divisions. Complaints about
financial conditions, especially compensation for
universities’ non-utilizing status for co-owned
inventions or patent applications, have apparently
stemmed not only from licensing contract
conditions, but also from differences between
companies
anduniversity
TLOs
about
technologies transfer and joint research. The
differences are on whether university TLOs or IP
divisions can give priority to long-term profits orunderstandrequiredinvestments
beforecommercialization. The survey results also

IIP Bulletin 2010

5

Overseas interview survey outline
We conducted an interview survey for● 7 ●companies and university organizations, for fiveentities in five countries each, in the US, UK,
Germany, France, and South Korea. As it wasdifficult to make interviews with multiple
technology area entities which we did in Japan,
we conducted interviews to companies, university
TLOs, and official organizations on introduction ofoutside technologies, particularly those fromuniversities to companies.
6

and relevant company workers.
Germany: As technology transfer divisions at
German universities have a short history, as seen
at Japanese universities, technology transfer
abilities of university differ widely in Germany.
However, as universities and companies have hadlong relations and there are no resistances totechnology transfer from universities tocompanies, if technology transfer divisions
improve their ability, there will be majorachievements in technology transfers.

Overseas interview survey results

The U.S.: Universities conduct skillful intellectual
property management. Even under limited
budgets, they make early decisions on whether toimplement early commercialization of inventions
and conduct licensing and selection procedures,
including suspension of patent application. TLOs
have employed former businesspeople andutilized outside experts, to improve the quality ofpatents acquired for universities. Even U.S.
universities have difficulties in achieving alicense-based income surplus, and take a longtime before reaching such surplus. TLOs’ roles
are taken as transferring university technologies
to companies, rather than securing license-based
income.

South Korea: As South Korea features a handfulof large companies and a large number of smaller
companies, they give priority in developing
infrastructure on the utilization of intellectual
property rights for the smaller companies. The
central government has taken leadership in
utilizing intellectual property rights with several
measures, such as disclosing licensing intent on
official gazettes of patent grants, creating“IP-Mart,” Internet-based intellectual property
rights market, or developing technology exchange
center.
7

Design and trademark rights utilization
situation
For design and trademark rights, research
was made through the questionnaire survey about
design and trademark licensing conditions, andthrough the interview survey for some specificcases. We confirmed that there were some casesthat design and patent rights were combined for
multiple protections for relevant products or for
simultaneous licensing. Some trademarks, thoughfewer than design rights, were identified asaccompanying licensed patents. An apparent
reason for the situation that licensing deals are
more for design and patent combinations than for
trademark and patent combinations may be thatdesigns are more closely related to technologies
than trademarks.

UK: As Japanese and European university
researchers are less proactive than their U.S.
counterparts in commercializing technologies,
they thought that universities in Japan or Europe
should take different approaches for technology
transfer from the U.S. ones. They also pointed outthat Japanese, European, and U.S. university
TLOs are similar in that they need those who canboth understand business operations anduniversity procedures, such as technology
marketing person in companies that university
TLOs are usually working with.
France: As grandes écoles exist in addition to
universities in France, financial support foruniversities from the government are limited in
France. Therefore, the R&D environment atuniversities in France is not as good as in othercountries. Though technology transfers fromuniversities are less frequent, multiple
universities share joint TLOs in some regions andtechnology transfers from universities tocompanies are promoted within designatedclusters. Compared to other countries, central
and local government provides robust support fortechnology transfers and develops a system fordirect contacts between university researchers

Ⅴ Conclusions
1

Domestic intellectual property rights
utilization situation

In the research study through questionnaire
and interview, we conclude that degree of utilizing
intellectual property right differs from company tocompany, especially by their technical areas. In
business
environment
where“aggressive
utilization” of intellectual property rights is● 8 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

important, such as licenses, introduction oftechnologies, or their joint development,
companies are thought to give priority on those
activities. On the other hand, in businessenvironment where “aggressive utilization” isless important, companies may not have to givepriority to those activities and assign businessresources to other areas than intellectual
property right utilization.
On differences between company sizes in theutilization of intellectual property rights, theresearch indicates that large companies conduct
more licensing, including cross-licensing andlicensingwithpayment,ortechnology
introduction than small and medium-sizedcompanies. For characteristics of technologies
subject to technology transfers, there are nodifferences by companies’ sizes.
As of technology transfers from universities
to companies, companies have traditionally been
focused on keeping connections between
university professors and them and technology
transfers from universities to companies are very
low. University intellectual property divisions
have played no major role in technology transfer
procedures and only involved in contracting. Oneof the reasons of the inactive technology transfersfrom universities to companies is a difference inattitude and understanding of business related tothe transferred technology between universities
and companies. We conclude that patents oftransferred technology can play a role in fillingthe difference.
Survey results also found that some design
or trademark rights are combined with relevant
patent rights for product protection or licensing.
There are any situations or needs identified forthe utilization of “unutilized design rights” or“unused trademark rights”.
2

Domestic needs for utilization
intellectual property rights– “guiding technology seeds to meet needs” and“creating seeds based on needs.”
For the“aggressive
utilization” ofintellectual property rights, companies must not
only acquire intellectual property rights but also
conduct rights enforcement activities (including
surveys on technology trends and productinformation of other companies, negotiations withothers, and bearing of risks regarding theeffectiveness of patents), and outside technology
introduction activities (including decisions onwhat they do by themselves and what they ask
others to do with regard to specific technologies,
and evaluation of the technologies for introductionand evaluation of licensors). Particularly, theintroduction of other companies’ technologies
involves business strategies, and support byoutside experts is
not sufficientandinvolvement of in-house intellectual property
divisions and other levels, including management
executives, and research and business divisions,are crucial.
We described above that business decisions
on whether to implement the aggressive
utilization of intellectual property rights is up tocompanies environment, such as technology areaor size of the companies. On the other hand,regardless of technology area or company size,needs may exist for information about “whatin-house decisions and preparations companies
should make for ‘aggressive utilization?’”, “whatoutside resources (including experts) they could
use for ‘aggressive utilization’?,” or “what specific‘aggressive utilization’ cases exist in relevant
industrial categories?”
Regarding
support
for
small
and
medium-sized companies’ technology transfer andutilization of intellectual property rights, as they
do not have sufficient resources for “aggressive
utilization”, there are needs for comprehensive
support covering both technology transfers andcommercialization. To be more specific, needs
may exist for “support for qualitative knowledge
improvement of technologies and intellectual
properties to be transferred,” “consulting support
allowing
businessdecision-making
SMEmanagers to make business-based approaches on
the utilization of technologies and intellectual
property rights,” or “the expansion of SMEs’
cooperation with local governments and otherregionalorganizations,tolinkutilized
technologies and intellectual property rights tocommercialization.”
Regarding the utilization of technologies andintellectual property rights created at universitiesofTechnology transfer and utilization of
intellectual property rights related to thetransferred technology progress greatly whenboth parties go in the same direction regarding
the transfers and are “organically combined”,
both for technology transfers between companies
and between companies and universities. In otherwords, there are large needs for intellectual
property rights utilized to promote such organic
combinations. Additionally, there are also needs
for promoting utilization of intellectual property
rights and technology transfers by two viewpoints

IIP Bulletin 2010

● 9 ●and other public research organizations, potential
needs may exist for “the development of
infrastructure where universities and other publicresearch organizations share viewpoints withcompanies on the introduction of technologies andintellectual property rights,” and for “thepromotion of the utilization of already-submitted
and undisclosed patent applications.”
3

a useful reference.
(Reseacher: Tadayuki OSAKI)

Overseas intellectual property rights
utilization situation

The overseas interview survey focused ontechnology transfers from universities orcompanies. Though intellectual property rights
utilization situation and issues for the utilizationdiffer from country to country, those differencesreflect differences in the environment of eachcountry, such as R&D culture or business culture,
rather than policy difference of patent office orother government agencies, or R&D abilities ofuniversities.
For example, technology transfers fromuniversities in the United States are easier toimplement because university researchers in the
United States are more conscious of andaggressive
towardcommercializationoftechnologies than in Japan or Europe.
As commented by a UK university TLO,
Japanese and European university TLOs’ mere
imitation of the U.S. TLO style may fail to achieve
progress in technology transfers from universities
because of background differences. When
comparing Japanese and overseas situations andproblems, we may have to fully understandbackground environmental differences.
France promotes technology transfers
between companies and universities in samecluster. Cluster-based measures are not limited totechnology transfers, but open to many others.
Japan may learn something for regional efforts
from French cluster-based support measures thatcover not only technology transfers but also manyother activities.
Like Japan, Germany has only a short history
for university TLOs. However, based onlong-lasting relations between universities andcompanies, German universities have built up
relations with companies through TLOs instead ofvia individual professors. Japan may be able tolearn something from German practices.
In South Korea, research organizations havepaidattentionto“technology
transfer
infrastructure development” in addition to directtechnology transfers. This practice may serve as● 10 ●IIP Bulletin 2010