8

Application Behavior, etc. of Companies toward Sustainable
Economic Growth of Japan(*)

Intellectual activities have come to play an increasing role and to have more importance in thedevelopment of the industry and economy in recent years. Along with that, people have come to recognize
the importance of knowledge and environmental improvement in industrializing intellectual property
created through intellectual activities. It is very important, in considering future intellectual property
policies and measures, to empirically analyze with what intent companies, etc. use the systems to protect
intellectual property and what effects they achieve.
In this study, we conducted eight kinds of empirical analysis in total, specifically, analysis of theinfluence of changes to the requirements for accelerated examination, analysis of the possession of unused
patents, analysis of changes in patent filing strategies, analysis of the meaning of filing foreign applications,analysis of companies’ intellectual property strategies such as the utilization of the information provisionsystem/objection/request for a trial against an examiner’s decision/request for a trial for invalidation,
analysis of the trends of filing of patent applications by universities, analysis of the relationships between
software companies and ownership of patents, and analysis of the development of panel data on the Survey
on Intellectual Property Activities, taking advantage of the Survey on Intellectual Property Activities
implemented by the JPO and database such as PATSTAT, while taking into account the study results thathave been accumulated so far. In addition, we also considered the review of the design of the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities.

Ⅰ Introduction
The intellectual property system is a basic
infrastructure in promoting innovation, and its
way of being has great economic impact. In
addition, companies’ research and development
and intellectual property activities havesignificantly changed in recent years due to theglobalization of corporate activities, changes incompetitive
structure,
progressofindustry-university cooperation, and strengtheningof intellectual property protection across theworld. At the same time, the development ofelectronic data, including the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities, PATSTAT, IIP
Patent Database, and NBER Patent Database, hasadvanced. Thereby, there has been a significantly
increasing possibility of policy analysis based onevidence through objective understanding ofintellectual property activities.
In light of the aforementioned circumstances,in Part II, the following eight empirical analyses
were conducted for the purpose of contributing tomaterials to be considered in developing thepatent system and formulating policies toward
establishing an intellectual property system that
promotes the creation and industrialization of(*)

inventions, by empirically analyzing patent-filingbehaviors and intellectual property strategies ofJapanese companies, etc. under the current patent
system: (1) statistical analysis of requests foraccelerated examination, (2) statistical analysis ofunused patents, (3) analysis of changes in thepatent filing strategies of companies, etc., (4)statistical analysis of patent applications filed byuniversities, (5) statistical analysis of foreign
applications filed by global companies, (6)economic analysis of the information provisionsystem, objection, request for a trial against an
examiner’s decision, and request for a trial forinvalidation, (7) relationships between software
companies’ ownership structure and ownership ofpatents, and (8) study on the development ofpanel data on the Survey on Intellectual Property
Activities. Furthermore, in Part III, two analyses,
specifically, (1) consideration of targets of theSurvey on Intellectual Property Activities and (2)consideration of items of the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities, were conducted
for the purpose of considering a desirable future
design of the Survey on Intellectual Property
Activities, which has been used in formulating
intellectual property policies.
We hope that the aforementioned analyses

This is an English translation of the summary of the report published under FY2010 study commissioned by theJapan Patent Office. IIP is entirely responsible for any errors in expression or description of the translation. When
any ambiguity is found in the English translation, the original Japanese text shall be prevailing.
●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

1 ●will contribute to further improving intellectual
property systems, including the accelerated
examination system and trial for invalidation, andwill be utilized as basic data in formulating
intellectual property strategies, etc. of companies
and universities.
(Sadao Nagaoka)

Ⅱ Survey on the Patent-Filing
BehaviorsandIntellectual
Property Strategies of JapaneseCompanies, etc.
1

Statistical analysis ofaccelerated examination

requestsfor

The accelerated examination system is an
important system that is designed to meet
applicants’ need for early establishment of rights
by giving priority to examinations on inventions
for which the right must be established at an
early date and to effectively utilize theexamination resources of the JPO for thepromotion of innovation.
However, no detailed analysis has been
conducted on the way that this system is actuallyused. Therefore, in this study, we intend to gain
an understanding of the trends of use of theaccelerated examination system in Japan after its
establishment in 1986 and to reveal the actual
conditions of the use thereof (actual method ofuse). In doing so, we conduct an analysis while
focusing on working-related requirements,
foreign country-related requirements, and SME
requirements, out of the requirements for the useof the accelerated examination system.
As a result of the analysis, it was indicatedthat working-related demand for accelerated
examination has been declining since the middleof the 1990s due to a significant decrease in the
period and variability of examination at the JPO
while relevance to foreign applications has been
growing. The causes of growing relevance toforeign applications require further analysis.
However, as far as the situation up to 2005 isconcerned, analysis revealed the possibility thatthe growing relevance is reflecting the fact that
foreign applications have come to be filed forimportant inventions rather than the fact thatemphasis has come to be put on the system’s
capability to shorten the examination period in
foreign countries. In addition, as the users of theaccelerated examination system, the number ofrequests for accelerated examination filed bylarge companies is overwhelmingly high●compared to the number of requests foraccelerated examination filed by SMEs anduniversities/TLOs. Although a preferential
treatment is available for SMEs, the rate ofregistration of patent applications for which SMEs
have used the accelerated examination systemand the average number of patents that are citedin subsequent patents are high, which reveals
that the system is being used for high-quality
patents.
It was revealed that the purpose of using theaccelerated examination system has undergone
significant changes since the system wasestablished in 1986, due to accelerated speed ofpatent examination, internationalization of patentapplications, expansion of the accelerated
examination system, growing importance of
application of Article 30, and other reasons.
(Isamu Yamauchi/Sadao Nagaoka)
2

Statistical analysis of unused patents

This report has revealed the characteristics
of companies for which the in-house working rate
is high and those of companies for which thein-house working rate is low, focusing attention
on the in-house working rate that is the otherside of the unused patent possession rate. The
report’s major conclusions are as follows.
(i) The in-house working rate and the unused
patent possession rate differ depending on thetype of business (in particular, it is necessary toanalyze
manufacturingbusinesses
andnon-manufacturingbusinesses
separately).
Companies in the same industry differ in thein-house working rate and the unused patentpossession rate.
(ii) The bigger a company is, the lower thelevel of the in-house working rate. That is, thebigger a company is, the higher the level of theunused patent possession rate. This result
matches the result indicated by Nagaoka andNishimura in 2005 and Nishimura in 2006.
(iii) The more competitive the industry inwhich a company is operating is, the higher thelevel of the in-house working rate and the lower
the level of the unused patent possession rate.
This indicates that the more intensive thecompetition in the market is, the more efficiently
companies
conduct
intellectual
property
management as well as business management andthe more they avoid possessing unused patents
that are unemployed resources.
(iv) The hypothesis concerning the quality of
inventions was supported through both
2 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

cross-section analysis and panel analysis. That is,for a company that creates inventions of which
the quality is normally high, most of its patented
inventions will lead to the implementation ofbusiness owing to the high quality. On the other
hand, for a company that creates inventions ofwhich the quality is normally low, most of its
patented inventions will lead to the occurrence ofunused patents due to the low quality.
(v) If estimation is conducted while including
variables that are used to verify hypothesis 3 inthe panel analysis, the significance of othervariables ceases to exist. According to this fact, it
seems that as factors, such as the quality of
inventions, are connected more directly with theimplementation of business by companies thancompanies’
characteristics
andindustrial
characteristics, secular changes in terms of thequality of inventions have a greater influence on
the in-house working rate than secular changes incompanies’
characteristics
andindustrial
characteristics.
(Yoichiro Nishimura)
3

Analysis of changes in the patent-filingstrategies of companies

In this report, we have considered factorsthat influence the filing strategies of companies
from the perspective of the attributions ofapplicants and industrial characteristics and thefactors that influence secular changes in the filingstrategies of companies, paying attention toinventions that have been reported to an
intellectual property department, etc. but for
which no application has been filed. The major
conclusions are as follows.
(i) Theoretical analysis revealed that there
are certain relationships between a company’s
inclination to non-patent (or inclination to patent)and (1) original value of inventions created by thecompany, (2) characteristics of inventions createdby the company, (3) progress of globalization of
the company, (4) position of the company intechnological competition, and (5) size of thecompany.
(ii) We verified the hypotheses derived
through the theoretical analysis by mainly using
the JPO’s Survey on Intellectual Property
Activities. According to the verification, first, thelevel of inclination to non-patent (or inclination topatent) differs significantly depending on theindustry. Furthermore, the verification also
revealed that the level differs depending on thecompany. However, comparing the quantitative●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

analysis by industry and quantitative analysis bycompany, the former had more power of
explanation. That is, this result indicates that thefiling strategies of companies are highly likely tobe affected more by the factors of the industry inwhich they operate than by the companies’
characteristics. Thirdly, with regard to thecharacteristics of inventions created bycompanies, the progress of globalization ofcompanies, and the size of companies, thefollowing consistent relevance was discovered
through quantitative analysis: (1) The inclination
not to patent is at a higher level in industries inwhich companies create inventions of process orcomplicated inventions; (2) (a) The moreglobalized the industry is, the higher the level ofinclination not to patent, and (b) the moreprogress the company has made in globalizationcompared to the level in the past, the higher thecompany’s level of inclination not to patent is; (3)The larger the company is, the higher its level ofinclination not to patent is.
However, as we did not exactly analyze
which has a greater influence on the filingstrategies of companies, industrial characteristics
or companies’ characteristics, (in particular,
contribution rate) in this study, we only point out
the possibility. In addition, we point out in the end
that the conclusion of this report includes many
provisional elements.
(Yoichiro Nishimura)
4

Statistical analysis of patent applications
filed by universities

This report took a look at the trends of filingof patent applications by universities and thequality of patents in the respective countries andregion, using patent data for Japan, the UnitedStates, and Europe, mainly PATSTAT. With regard
to the analysis of trends of universities’ patents,
empirical studies have been progressing from theperspective of evaluation of the Bayh-Dole Act in
the United States. These are in response to theindication that although the number ofuniversities’ patents has rapidly increased undersaid Act, which was enacted in 1980, the qualityof patents has probably deteriorated. Summing up
past empirical studies, according to the results ofanalysis using data up to the first half of the 1990s,
the quality of patents deteriorated seen from theperspective of the number of patents that arecited in subsequent patents. However, such
indication is not correct taking into account data
for the subsequent period. Here, it is possible to3 ●conclude that although the number of patents
which are cited in subsequent patents, which iscontrolled by the year of filing or technical field,
declined until the first half of the 1990s, it has
been on the increase thereafter. This conclusion
matches the aforementioned observation.
On the other hand, in Japan, attribution ofpatents to organization at national universities
has been liberalized since the incorporation ofnational universities in 2004, and the number ofpatent applications filed by universities has
rapidly increased in said year and thereafter.
However, there has been no sign of deteriorationin the quality of patents incidental to the increasein the number of applications. Behind this isprobably the following fact: Companies had
independently filed patent applications for the
results of industry-university cooperation even
before the incorporation of national universities,
and the research content has not changed mucheven though patents for inventions created jointly
by industry and university were replaced bypatents for which an application has been jointly
filed (University of Tokyo, 2010).
In Europe, countries have different systems
for universities’ patents. However, except for theUnited Kingdom where attribution of patents toorganization at universities has been recognized
for years, attribution of patents to organization atuniversities was put into practice in 2000 andthereafter in many countries. The representativeof such countries is Germany, where theprofessor privilege (researchers’ right to possess
patent rights) of university researchers wasabolished in 2002 and the number of patents
possessed by universities started to increase.
Incidentally, in Germany, the quality ofuniversities’ patents has hovered stably over the
average since the latter half of the 1990s, andthere has been no influence of the reform of thesystem.
(Kazuyuki Motohashi)
5

Statistical analysis of foreign applications
filed by global companies

The number of patent applications has beenon the increase around the world since the 1990s.
The number of applications increased 1.5 times
for ten years, from 1.2 million in 1998 to 1.85
million in 2007. In particular, such increase isremarkable for applications filed from othercountries. The number of applications filed by
non-residents in each country increased 1.6 times
for the ten years. Those applications ended up●

with accounting for 40% of all patent applications
in fiscal 2007. This study empirically revealed thecauses of filing of foreign applications bycompanies with the use of panel data on
multinational companies. In the estimation, we
tried hard to achieve the better precision ofanalysis than prior studies by conducting
estimation by company, year, and region, with theuse of microdata, such as data on the number ofapplications filed by companies with eachcountry’s patent office in each year and data on
advance. The results of the estimation are as
follows: (1) Companies’ direct investment
increases the number of patent applications filed
in the investing country; (2) On this occasion, thenumber of patent applications increases more in
the case of joint investment with local companies;(3) The strengthening of the intellectual propertysystem in countries causes an increase in thenumber of applications filed by multinational
companies in the countries.
(Koichiro Onishi/Naotoshi Tsukada)
6

Economic analysis of the information
provision system, objection, request for a
trial against an examiner’s decision, andrequest for a trial for invalidation

In this study, with regard to the information
provision system that has been used increasingly
frequently in recent years and the objection
system in the past, the system of trial against an
examiner’s decision, and the system of trial forinvalidation, we empirically analyzed the use of
those systems and determining factors for the
results of the use, as well as the consequences ofchanges to the systems, with the use ofcompany-level and patent-level data as well as
technical field-level data. The authors received
the provision of large-scale data from the JPO, andhave conducted comprehensive studies on thesesystems (Kenta Nakamura, Tomoyuki Shimbo, andSadao Nagaoka (2010), “Tokkyo no shinpan oyobi
igimoshitate ni kansuru keizaigakutekibunseki”(Economic analysis of patent trials andobjections), Institute of Intellectual Property, ed.,Heisei 21 nendo wagakuni no jizokuteki na
keizaiseicho ni muketa kigyo to no shutsugankodo
to ni kansuru chosahokokusho (FY 2009 Report ofStudy on Application Behavior, etc. of Companies,
etc. for Sustainable Economic Growth in Japan)).
This study is an extension of the aforementioned
study, and we developed a patent-level analysis
and technical field-level analysis for the purposeof obtaining more connotations of desirable patent
4 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

examination and desirable intellectual property
strategies of companies, etc.
In the patent-level analysis (Sections 2 and3), we considered how attributions of an applicant(attributions of a right holder), such as thestatus of possession of complementary assets andthe degree of concentration of research anddevelopment, affect the filing and establishmentof a trial against an examiner’s decision, an
objection, and a trial for invalidation, by linking
patent data concerning information provision,
trials against an examiner’s decision, objections,and trials for invalidation with the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities (JPO). The major
results of the analysis are as follows.
With regard to trial against an examiner’s
decision, the more complementary assets thecompany has, the more incentive to file a request
for a trial against an examiner’s decision thecompany has. This is because profits from therelevant application are likely to be bigger forsuch companies. However, the existence ofcomplementary assets does not increase theprobability of establishment of a trial (instead, atrial is hard to establish as the bar to filing of arequest for a trial is low).
In addition, no effect of complementary
assets on objections was confirmed. That is, it ispossible to say that, for a company that raises theobjection, the extent to which the company’s own
business is bound by the continued establishmentof a patent with a high technical value is ofprimary importance, and the size of profits gainedby another company from the patent does notnecessarily serve as an incentive to raise an
objection. Moreover, for trial for invalidation, thehypothesis of complementary assets was notsupported, and it was rather indicated that thepatents of companies of which size measured bysales or possessed patents is large have a low riskof becoming subject to a trial for invalidation.
This indicates that where a company intends toinvalidate a patent of a large company, the large
company is likely to take actions, such as filing an
infringement lawsuit against the company thathas filed a request for a trial and filing a request
for a trial for invalidation of a patent possessed by
the company that has filed a request for a trial,and is consequently highly likely to avoid the trial
for invalidation through cross-licensing, etc.
Needless to say, the source of such situation is
non-existence of anonymity of the invalidation
system. This result is in contrast to the fact thatthe attribution of an applicant (size ofcomplementary assets) had no influence on the●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

raising and establishment of an objection forwhich anonymity is secured.
In addition, in the technical field-level
analysis (Section 4), we verified whether
information provision substituted for theobjection and in what technical fields information
provision easily substituted for the objection,from the perspective of the eligibility for ademandant of an opposition, a trial for invalidation,or information provision and the period forrequesting such. As a result, it was revealed thatthe degree of substitution between objection andpre-grant information provision is small fortechnical fields for which anonymity is important.
The possible reason thereof is that the number ofcases of pre-grant information provision did notincrease after the abolition of the objection
system since companies had already been actively
utilizing pre-grant information provision in thetechnical fields for which anonymity is important.
On the other hand, we could not reveal
uncertainty in the commercialization of
inventions and the existence of the deadline
effect that is expected to be related to the speedof R&D competition.
(Kenta Nakamura/ Tomoyuki Shimbo/Sadao Nagaoka)
7

Relationships
betweensoftwarecompanies’ ownership structure andpatent ownership

In this study, we analyze the relationships
between the ownership structure of capital andpatents with regard to software companies.
Japanese software companies are classified basedon the background of their establishment, anddiffer in the ownership structure of capital.
“Group”
companiesthat
have
gainedindependence
from
major
computermanufacturers or the types of businesses thatutilize the computer system for businessactivities are invested by their parent companies.
On the other hand, the capital of “independent”
companies that have been started up by venture
entrepreneurs with their own capital, which do
not belong to such a corporate group, arepossessed by their business managers. The
former have the advantage of being able to stably
receive orders from other companies in the groupto which they belong and also have the advantage
of being able to utilize the technology of theirparent companies. On the other hand, the latterneed to secure profits by raising capital, taking
advantage of their own technologies as they do
5 ●not have the kind of technical background that“group” companies have. A possible means ofraising capital is the utilization of the patent
system. It can be said that, for software
companies, the broadening of patents for softwarefrom the latter half of the 1990s onward expanded
the possibility of utilization of the patent system.
This study verifies the influence of difference inthe ownership structure of capital on theutilization of the patent system in the IT services
industry that has such characteristics.
Then, software companies are roughly
divided into the following three categories interms of their ownership structure: independentcompanies based on investments only by
individuals(=“only
individuals:
family/executive”), group companies of a juridical
person which collaborate with other companies in
the group in terms of capital/business/technology
while receiving investment from the parent
company (= “only juridical person: 100%
subsidiary” and “only juridical person: joint
venture/group company”), and independentcompanies for which investors include juridical
persons (= “only juridical person: independent”
and “individuals + juridical person: independent”).
As a result of comparing the status of filing
applications based on the ownership structure ofcapital and analysis of the influence of differencesin the ownership structure of capital on
applications and joint applications in considerationof the size and the content of business ofcompanies, the following three points wereindicated in this study. (1) Companies in which
the representative invests and which also raise
capital from outside have a higher incentive to fileapplications compared to companies that fallunder other ownership categories. (2) 100%
subsidiaries do not have a high incentive to fileapplications, and 100% subsidiaries which have
filed applications are highly likely to have filed
joint applications. (3) The number of applications
filed by companies invested by juridical persons ismore than the number of applications filed bycompanies invested by individuals, even after
eliminating the influence of such factors as thesize and content of business of the companies on
the number of applications.
As subsidiaries and group companies can get
support from their parent companies in terms ofcapital/business/technology, they do not have ahigh incentive to file applications by themselves.
However, if such companies have filed
applications, they are highly likely to have filed
joint applications. On the other hand, for●independent companies, independent companies
based on investments only by individuals andindependent companies that also raise funds fromjuridical persons differ in the utilization of thepatent system. It was indicated that independentcompanies which receive investments fromjuridical persons have a high incentive to fileapplications.
(Kazuyuki Motohashi/Masayo Kani)
8

Study on the development of panel dataon the Survey on Intellectual Property
Activities

In this report, we discussed problems with
the Survey on Intellectual Property Activities(hereinafter called the IP Survey) and precautions
for the use of the IP Survey through panelizing of
the IP Survey. The IP Survey provides extremely
valuable statistical data with no peer in othercountries in terms of the scale of the survey andthe diversity of the content of the survey.
Moreover, due to a recent progress in theaccumulation of data on the IP Survey, the needs
for the Survey are expected to grow more andmore in policy planning and research studies.
Therefore, this study aimed at enhancing theconvenience of the IP Survey by panelizing all
items of the Survey based on the applicant
number, and also aimed at providing informationthat is useful in considering the design of thequestionnaire and the desirable primarytabulation of collected data. The detailed
arrangement of changes of the survey items(Section 4) and the consideration of the content ofrevision of classification of types of business andthe influence of the revision (Section 5) are citedas the major contributions of this study. The
content thereof is briefly stated below.
The questionnaire for the IP Survey isrevised every year for the purpose of considering
survey needs and reduction of burden on
respondents. Although the content of thequestionnaire has remained considerably stablefrom the survey in fiscal 2007 onward,
considerable revisions have been made in thepast. Therefore, in Section 4, we summed up the
track record of revisions of the questionnaire
items and the possibility of obtaining data(continuity of data). As responding companies
have been given applicant numbers, it is nottechnically difficult to link the survey of each year
using the numbers. However, it was revealed that
there are many cases in which definition slightly
differs depending on the year of the survey, even
6 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

for items on which the survey seems to havebeen continuously conducted.
In addition, it is necessary to note that thetype of business numbers used for the survey
until fiscal 2007 and those used for the survey
thereafter lack continuity since the classificationof types of business was revised in the fiscal 2008
survey. Therefore, in Section 5, we prepared aconcordance between the new classification oftypes of business and the old classification oftypes of business. Moreover, we checked
movements between the types of business,targeting companies which answered thequestionnaire for two consecutive years, in order
to confirm the influence of the changes of theclassification of types of business on the
respondents’ selection of types of business. As aresult, the rate of movements between the typesof business was 15.6% for comparison between
fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2007 and 16.0% forcomparison between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009,
for both of which there was no change of the typeof business codes, while the rate for comparison
between fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008 was 25.5%.
Furthermore, out of 535 companies of which thetype of business changed in fiscal 2008 from thatin fiscal 2007, 82 entered the same
type-of-business number even after the revisionof the type-of-business codes. As there is no clear
standard for selection of a type-of-business
number in the IP Survey, the selection is largely
attributable to the subjective determination of the
respondents. However, it was revealed thatsufficient attention is required in tabulating andanalyzing the survey results by the type ofbusiness.
(Kenta Nakamura)

Ⅲ Consideration of Review of Designof the Survey on Intellectual
Property Activities
1

Consideration of targets of the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities

In this study, we considered what would be adesirable parent population and sampling method
for the Survey on Intellectual Property Activities
in the future by examining the advantages ofusing parent population and conducting samplingbased on data on right holders, compared to thecase of using patent population and conducting
sampling based on the annual record of filing
applications, which is currently adopted. As dataon right holders, we used data on the number of●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

rights at the end of each year. In addition, thesupposed scope of complete enumeration coverright holders who possess five or more rights
under any four laws, for the reason of compliancewith the current survey method.
As a result of this study, it was revealed that,for the current method, the composition ofcompanies has significantly changed every year interms of both parent population and companies
subject to the complete enumeration. On theother hand, there have been smaller changes inparent population and companies subject to thecomplete enumeration, which were newly
prepared this time based on data on right holders,compared to those based on the current method.
In particular, it was revealed that the method
based on data on right holders is effective in
preparing panel data to be used for seeing secularchanges.
The rate of coverage of all applications by
applications filed by companies subject to thecomplete enumeration is high for patentapplications (87.2% on the average of years forwhich the companies filled in the questionnaire)and design applications (75.8%) on the basis of
the current complete enumeration method,showing that there is no negative effect on theprediction of applications and expanded
estimation. On the other hand, the average rates
of coverage for utility models and trademarks are
16.5% and 46.4%, respectively, for years forwhich companies filled in the questionnaire.
Compared to the method based on data on rightholders, the rate of coverage is higher for theright holder-based method for all four laws during
years for which companies filled in thequestionnaire (88.8% for patents, 23.1% for utility
models, 80.7% for designs, and 57.5% fortrademarks on the average of years for which
companies filled in the questionnaire). In
particular, there is a big gap for utility models anddesigns. However, it was also revealed that it isnecessary to pay attention to the point that therate of coverage is still low for utility models andtrademarks.
(Koichiro Onishi/Takahiro Tsuchiya)
2Consideration of items of the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities

As represented by the term “openinnovation,”
licenseagreements
betweencompanies are expected to become increasingly
active in the future. In order to contribute to thefacilitation of negotiations between companies
7 ●under such circumstances, we considered
whether it is possible to obtain data, which gives
an indication of license royalty rates, through theSurvey on Intellectual Property Activities. We
adopted the interview survey as the main survey
method.
The results of this study revealed that theforms of license agreements and the methods ofcalculating license royalty rates significantly
differ depending on the type of business andindividual agreement. This revealed that it isnecessary to prepare a questionnaire that can beused for surveying individual agreements, inorder to conduct a survey on license royalty rates
in consideration of the types of business and thecharacteristics, etc. of individual agreements. In
this study, we prepared, just for reference, aquestionnaire to be used for surveying the specificdetails of individual representative licenses,
including the form of licensing, the type ofbusiness of other party to the agreement, locationof other party to the agreement, the period,
royalty rate, and the total amount of royalty.
However, such a questionnaire also has thefollowing problems.
First, there is the undeniable possibility thatthe response rate actually remains at a low level
due to contractual confidentiality obligation. A
possible means of avoiding the problem ofconfidentiality obligation is to conduct the survey
by delimiting the range. However, even in thecase of adopting this survey method, to what
extent the problem can be actually avoided will
depend on the determination of the respondents.
Secondly, there is a tabulation problem. “License
agreements with a high royalty” are highly likely
to be selected as “representative agreements.” Inthat case, the tabulation results may overestimate
the actual conditions. In addition, tabulation
results become more convenient if the results areclassified in greater detail by the form of licensing,
type of business, region, and difference in themethods of calculating royalty rates; but the more
the results are classified in detail, the moredifficult the securing of the number of samples forindividual tabulation is. However, it is impossible
to determine an appropriate method ofclassification before seeing the number of actual
responses.
Moreover, it is also necessary to note thepossibility
that
addingdifficult-to-answer
questionnaire items to the items of the Survey onIntellectual Property Activities may cause adecline in the response rate for the entire survey.
Based on the above, it is possible to say that●further discussion will be necessary for
introducing a survey on license royalty rates to
the Survey on Intellectual Property Activities.
(Koichiro Onishi/Tsuyoshi Uchida)(Researcher: Tsuyoshi Uchida)

8 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20