IPAJ Session: Innovation Performance & of Japanese companies

Transcription

1 2015 JAUIP Summer IP Seminar IPAJ Session: Innovation Performance & Intellectual Property Management of Japanese companies Isamu Yamauchi Fellow, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry Vice President, Institute of Innovation and Policy Research

2 Today s talk 1. Technological innovation and IP management age e of Japanese companies Technological and Non-technological Schumpeter (1942) new products (product innovation) new methods of production (process innovation) opening up of new markets new sources of supply new ways to organize business creation cea of social soca value 2. ERIA s research project IP-related problems and challenges facing Japanese multi-national companies in ASEAN 2

3 Technological innovation Easier to measure Rich data source Input: R&D Outcome: patent and paper Performance: introduction of new products, sales, stock price... 3

4 R&D expenses mil. USD Korea China Germany Japan US Data source: Global note (based on OECD) 4

5 RD expenses of manufacturing companies mil. USD Korea China Germany Japan US Data source: Global note (based on OECD) 5

6 Input (R&D) US is the largest R&D investor in the world and shows a constant t significant ifi increase Rapid growth of China s R&D investment is outstanding China is already No. 1 in the manufacturing industry 6

7 # of papers published Korea China Germany Japan US Note1: Sample is limited to the papers covered by Science Citation Index (SCI) or Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Note2: Number is fractionally counted if the authors affiliated institutions are located in multiple countries Data source: Global note (based on OECD) 7

8 Papers in Chemistry and Engineering Chemistry Engineering g Korea China Germany Japan US Data source: Global note (based on OECD) Korea China Germany Japan US 8

9 Scientific performance Outcome (paper) US has an overwhelming competitiveness, but its growth is low China shows an explosive increase in some fields China is already No.1 Japan s presence is decreasing 9

10 # of total applications by nationality Korea China Germany Japan US Note: Number of total applications is double counted if an application is filed to foreign country claiming priority Data source: Global note (based on WIPO) 10

11 # of PCT applications Korea China Germany Japan US Data source: Global note (based on WIPO) 11

12 Technological outcome Patent application Total applications including domestic applications China is the largest patent filer as well as R&D investor though US shows an increasing trend Only Japan shows a decreasing trend though other countries increase the number of patent applications Japan was No.1 PCT applications US has a strong competitiveness and it is increasing China shows an increasing trend but the difference with Japan is still large Japan has a decreasing trend which would lose the lead to China 12

13 Electronics Semiconductor # of PCT applications ( ) Audio visual equipment Japan Computer technology Electronics Transportation equipment Semiconductor c o Audio visual Medical equipment Korea Measurement equipment Digital comm. Digital comm. technology Telecom Engine technology Electronics Telecomm. technology China Surface technology Digital comm Materials chemistry Computer tech Machine tool Telecom Organic fine chemistry Germany Heat treatment Electronics Transportation Pharmaceutical products Engine Chemical technology 2927 US Biotechnology Computer tech. Environmental technology Medical equip. Control equipment Pharmaceutical Japan Korea China Germany US 13 Data source: Global note

14 Optical equipment Audio visual equipment Metallurgy and material Semiconductor Electronics Polymer chemistry Transportation equipment Heat treatment Machine tool Environmental technology Measurement equipment Control equipment Engine technology Telecom. technology Chemical engineering Computer technology Nanotechnology Biotechnology Digital comm. technology Pharmaceutical products 49.7% 6.7% 12.7% 6.9% 23.9% 46.9% 10.7% 11.9% 4.9% 25.6% 44.6% 7.7% 7.9% 15.0% 24.9% 44.0% 8.4% 7.9% 8.9% 30.8% 43.5% 7.5% 9.5% 16.6% 23.0% 39.6% 6.0% 3.7% 16.6% 34.1% 38.3% 5.2% 5.2% 30.2% 21.1% 35.5% 5% 89% 8.9% 11.5% 19.2% 24.9% 33.7% 5.2% 7.3% 26.1% 27.7% 33.2% 7.7% 6.9% 16.3% 35.9% 31.2% 48% 4.8% 68% 6.8% 18.3% 38.9% 29.9% 5.3% 8.6% 18.0% 38.2% 29.8% 4.3% 6.0% 29.1% 30.8% 25.1% 20.4% 21.4% 3.7% 29.3% 22.4% 7.4% 7.1% 19.8% 43.3% 21.9% 6.5% 12.6% 4.5% 54.4% 17.4% 16.7% 5.0% 11.2% 49.7% 16.2% 6.9% 6.2% 10.2% 60.5% 14.6% 10.1% 43.0% 2.7% 29.6% 12.9% 7.7% 7.3% 8.8% 63.3% Japan Korea China Germany US Share of PCT appl. ( ) Japan Optical equip. Audio visual Metallurgy and mat. Korea Telecom. Nanotech. Audio visual China Digital it comm. Telecom. Optimal equip. Germany Transportation Engine tech. Machine tool US Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Computer tech. 14 Data source: Global note

15 Relative advantage: Share of PCT applications among 5 countries Japan Strength: Optical equipment, Audio visual equipment, Metallurgy and material Weakness: Nanotech, Biotech and Pharmaceutical Korea and China has similar technological structure Compete in Telecommunication technology and Digital communication technology China has dominant power in Digital communication technology US has high advantage in Pharmaceutical products, Biotechnology, Computer technology Competition (more than 3 countries have more than 20%) Telecommunication: JP, KR, CN and US Engine: JP, DE and US Machine tool: JP, DE and US Transportation equipment: JP, DE and US 15

16 Changes in the share of Japanese PCT applications 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% 0% 45.0% 40.0% Strength has been decreasing 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% Optical equip. Audio visual Metallurgy and material Semiconductor 35.0% % 25.0% Nanotechnology Biotechnology Pharmaceutical Digital comm. Tech. 20.0% 0% Weaknesses are still weaknesses or worsen 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2000 年 2001 年 2002 年 2003 年 2004 年 2005 年 2006 年 2007 年 2008 年 2009 年 2010 年 2011 年 2012 年 2013 年 2014 年 16

17 Japanese innovation policy Abe Administration: World s most innovation- friendly country Comprehensive Strategy on Science, Technology and Innovation Toward establishing a Nation based on science, technology and innovation Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI) under Cabinet Office is a commander 17

18 Japanese innovation policy (cont.) New mechanism leading the government-wide budget strategy Cross-Ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion (SIP) program Top down approach: CSTI designates research theme and appoints Program Director and allocates the budget Impulsing Paradigm Change through Disruptive Technologies (ImPACT) program To encourage challenges for high-risk but high-impact research project CSTI selects the Program Managers who have innovative ideas and delegates authority Promotion of Open Innovation: international industryacademia-government joint R&D collaborations Open science Enhancing research capability of university Intellectual property management 18

19 Importance of scientific literature for corporate inventors (N=801) For about 20% inventions, scientific literature was important knowledge source for the conception and the implementation of the R&D 9.6% of inventions could not have been conceived if it were not for the scientific literature If it were not for the scientific literature frequency share グラフ published in the last 15 years, 1 10% 2 the idea for the invention could not have been 7% % 3 conceived 4% implementation of R&D would have been % 5 extremely difficult 45% getting a result would have been significantly % delayed 4 getting a result would have been slightly 34% % delayed 5 it would have had no impact % Source: Nagaoka and Yamauchi (2015) the use of science and its identification 19

20 Importance of research equipment and material for corporate inventors (N=801) For about 20% of inventions, scientific research equipment and materials had important impact on the conception or implementation of the R&D If it were not for the equipment or research materials those embodies scientific knowledge in the last 15 years, frequency share グラフ 1 8% the idea for the invention could not have been conceived implementation of R&D would have been extremely difficult getting a result would have been significantly delayed getting a result would have been slightly delayed % % % % 5 48% 8% % 3 5% 5 it would have had no impact % Source: Nagaoka and Yamauchi (2015) the use of science and its identification 20

21 Collaboration with university (N=848) customer supplier 34.9% 42.0% competitor 9.2% consortium companies belong to the same industry group 17.6% 17.4% R&D intermediary companies 1.8% consultants and private research institute 15.6% entrepreneur or start-up t companies 50% 5.0% university 63.6% public reserch institute 34.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2012 (NISTEP) 21

22 Diversity of collaboration partners and innovation performance Balance between openness and closeness is important 35.0% 30.0% introduction of new products and services with technological novelty (%) 32.8% 29.9% 9% 25.0% 20.0% 20.9% 23.2% 15.0% 13.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% one organization (N=239) two organizations (N=230) three organizations (N=138) four organizations (N=64) five or more (N=77) Source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2012 (NISTEP) 22

23 Share of knowhow (closeness) and innovation performance Excessive secrecy has a negative effect Inverted-U shape relation b/w the share of know-how to the patentable inventions and innovation performance 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 0% 30.0% 23.8% introductoin of new products with technological novelty (%) 48.9% 48.3% 38.8% 35.9% 29.2% 43.2% Exclusivity Period (months) % % % 0% (N=126) 1%-4% (N=226) 5%-9% (N=131) 10%-19% (N=121) Knowhow share 20%-29% (N=90) 30%-50% (N=58) 50%-100% (N=185) % (N=103) 1% - 9% (N=311) 10% - 29% (N=175) Knowhow Share 30% - 49% (N=68) 50% - 99% (N=93) Source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2012 (NISTEP) 100% (N=35) 23

24 IP management and Innovation Performance (descriptive statistics) N Mean Median Min Max A. Introduction of Novel Products (Yes =1, No=0) B. Introduction of Improved Products (Yes =1, No=0) C. Exclusivity Period (month) Number of Patent Applications in Share of Kowhow Emphasis on Design and Trademark (Yes =1, No=0) Early involovement of IP department (Yes =1, No=0) R&D Collaboration with University (Yes =1, No=0) Performance indices: A. Introduction of Novel Products Introduction of new products, services or production methods with novel technology B. Introduction of Improved Products Introduction of improved products, services or production methods based on the existing technology C. Exclusivity Period Period between the introduction of products and the appearance of competing products 24

25 IP management and Innovation Performance (descriptive statistics) Determinant factors: 1. Number of patent t applications (in 2010) 0) 2. Share of Knowhow Share of the inventions kept as knowhow among the patentable inventions 3. Emphasis on Design Patent and Trademark Place a high value on design and trademark as an appropriability measure 4. Early involvement of IP department Involvement in decision making in the early stage of innovation process (research theme selection) 5. R&D collaboration with University or Public institute Experience of R&D collaboration with University during the last 5 years 25

26 Effects of IP management on innovation performance: Introduction of novel products 55.0% Introduction of novel products 50.0% High Low 48.7% 50.6% 50.4% 45.0% 44.3% 40.0% 38.3% 40.3% 41.3% 37.6% 39.4% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 27.4% Patent Knowhow Design and Early IP University application share Trademark Data source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2012 (NISTEP) 26

27 Effects of IP management on innovation performance: Introduction of improved products 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% High Introduction of improved products 86.0% Low 85.1% 84.9% 82.0% 81.5% 81.6% 80.0% 78.0% 79.7% 7% 79.0% 78.3% 79.9% 76.0% 74.0% 74.0% 72.0% 70.0% Patent Knowhow Design and Early IP University application share Trademark Data source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2012 (NISTEP) 27

28 Effects of IP management on innovation performance: Introduction of new products Firms with higher patenting activity have higher probability of introducing new products Feedback effect by patenting is larger Knowhow share has a negative correlation with the introduction of new products Closeness decreases the feedback effect Higher reliance on design patent t and trademark has a positive correlation with the introduction of new products Usage of IPR improves the appropriability of firms which would lead to an increase in the probability of introducing new products Early involvements of IP department is associated with higher probability of introducing new products Enables the firms to develop products reflecting the technological trend which would ease the future technological competition Collaboration with university has a significant positive effect 28

29 Effects of IP management on innovation performance: Introduction of new products All IP activities except secrecy are positively correlated with the development of novel/improved products Note Graphical analysis may reflect the spurious correlation and do not necessarily indicate causality, which h indicates the advantages of using regression analysis Ui Using regression analysis, we can virtually compare the innovation performance between the identical firms with the same technological capability, the same product in the same industry 29

30 Effects of IP management on innovation performance: Exclusivity period Exclusivity period (months) High Low Patent Knowhow Design and Early IP University application share Trademark Data source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2012 (NISTEP) 30

31 Effects of IP management on innovation performance: Exclusivity period Strong positive correlation between knowhow share and the exclusivity period keeping a core technology as secrecy may delay the appearance of rival product too much patenting can induce the development of competing technology Early involvement of IP department is important to extend the exclusivity period Design patent and trademark is related to long product lifetime 31

32 Open innovation activity Share of R&D expenses paid to outside organization 13.0% 12.5% 12.0% Share of outside R&D expenses 12.5% 12.4% 12.4% 12.4% 12.2% 2% 12.2% 12.7% 11.5% 11.0% 11.0% 11.2% 11.5% 10.5% 10.0% Data source: Survey of Research and Development (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) 32

33 Foreign group companies as partners of open innovation: Share of outside RD expenses Foreign outside the group companies 4% Foreign University/PRI 1% Foreign group companies 29% Domestic group companies 28% Domestic University/PRI 15% Domestic outside the group companies 23% Note: share of expenses is calculated by using the average expenses to each organization per company and thus includes some noise Data source: Survey on Research Activities of Private Corporations 2013 (NISTEP) 33

34 Foreign group companies as partners of OI Open innovation activity in terms of outside tid R&D expenses has been increasing i Significant importance of foreign subsidiary as a partner of open innovation 34

35 Increasing number of Japanese local subsidiaries in ASEAN countries The number of existing local subsidiaries of Japanese multi-national companies in ASEAN countries has been increasingi Data Source: Overseas Activities of Japanese Companies, Toyo Keizai Inc. 35

36 Large presence of Japanese FDI in ASEAN net FDI inflow in ASEAN Japan 18% Rest of World 43% US 8% China 7% Korea 2% Germany 0% France 3% Luxembourg 4% United Kingdom 7% Netherlands 8% Data source: ASEAN Investment Report ASEAN Secretariat and UNCTAD 36

37 Issues facing the CN/JP/KR companies before and after expansion Before (N=46) After (N=36) 1. Size and growth rate of the relevant market 2. Country risk 3. Existence of preferential treatment system 63% 59% 59% 1. Wage level (labor cost) 2. Implementation and enforcement of IP law 3. Legal development concerning IPRs 33% 31% 44% 4. Wage level (labor cost) 57% 4. Country risk 28% 5. Completeness and reliability of infrastructure 57% 5. Completeness and reliability of infrastructure 28% 19. Requirements for 19. Number of prior 20% operating permit establishment of local 20. Stability of exchange 15% 20. Price level rate 21. Receptiveness to foreign 21. Receptiveness to foreign 15% products by local customers products by local customers 22. Implementation and 22. Requirements for 15% enforcement of IP law operating permit 23. Legal development IP related issues 13% 23. Corporate tax rate concerning IPRs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 3% 6% 3% 3% 0% 0% 20% 40% ERIA Research Report (2015) Reforming Intellectual Property Systems for Promoting Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN 37

38 Determinants of expansion and problems facing in ASEAN According to ERIA s Study Project, Major determinants t of expanding to ASEAN countries are the marketability and labor cost However, after establishing new subsidiaries in ASEAN countries, not a few Japanese a e companies are facing IP related problems 38

39 ERIA s Study Project Intellectual Property Policies for Promoting Foreign Direct Investment t in ASEAN

40 ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia) International organization established at the 3 rd East Asia Summit in 2007 proposed by Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) committing to contribute more than 10 billion yen (approx. 1.2 trillion USD) in 10 years Think tank like an East Asian OECD Conducts researches and provides policy recommendations to stimulate economic growth, deepen regional integration, and strengthen partnerships in ASEAN and East Asia Provide capacity building programs 40

41 Purpose of the project Identify the IP-related problems and challenges that the subsidiaries of multi- national corporations (MNCs) are facing in ASEAN countries ti Seek a solution to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) Evaluate ate how significant ifica IP protection contributes to create employment and to promote technology transfer in ASEAN countries by increasing FDI 41

42 Background Continuation research project First phase: Aug Jul Second phase: May 2015 Sep First phase Pilot survey targeting the limited sample: 95 companies Subsidiaries of MNCs (CN, JP, KR, US and EU) in ASEAN Working group member From 7 countries; CN, JP, KR, ID, SG, TH, and VN Second phase Large scale questionnaire survey to conduct statistical analysis: over 1,000 responses (expected) Subsidiaries of MNCs (CN, JP and KR) in ASEAN Working group From 9 countries; CN, JP, KR, ID, MY, PH, SG, TH and VN 42

43 Main results of the 1 st phase project: Evidence from pilot survey

44 Background data Foreign direct investment (FDI) in ASEAN shows a significant increasing trend since 2003 Source: Reproduced from ASEAN Investment Report 2014 The ASEAN Secretariat 44

45 Presence of Asian countries in FDI Share of FDI net inflows in Share of FDI net inflows in ASEAN ( ) ASEAN ( ) 2013) Others 29% Japan 17% China 6% Korea 2% ASEAN 17% EU 22% USA 7% Share of CN, JP and KR increased from 19% to 25% (accounts for a quarter of the total FDI investment in ASEAN) 45

46 Pilot study Purpose (1 st phase) to overview the IP-related problems and challenges that the subsidiaries of multi- national corporations (MNCs) are facing in ASEAN countries to provide some (preliminary) policy recommendations to attract t more FDI 46

47 Research method Questionnaire survey (95 responses) Targets Multi-national corporations (CN, JP, KR, EU and US) located in ASEAN countries Industries Electric devices, transportation machines, chemicals, and food Expected respondents Manager of international business division or corporate planning, and the manager of IP division Interview survey (71 companies) Reasons of the answers Facing problems of IP systems in ASEAN countries 47

48 Sample 95 subsidiaries 59 subsidiaries of Asian companies 31 Japanese, 16 Chinese, and 17 Korean subsidiaries 36 subsidiaries of Western companies 27 subsidiaries bidi i in Indonesia, 17 in Singapore, 24 in Thailand, 15 in Vietnam, 8 in Malaysia, and 1 in Philippine Malaysia 9% Philippine 1% CN/ JP/ KR 59 (62%) US/ EU 36 (38%) Vietnam 16% Singapore 19% Indonesia 29% Thailand 26% 48

49 Involvement of IP sectors in the decision on FDI Among the CN, JP and KR companies, only one company answered that IP sector is highly involved into the decision making on overseas expansion For 56% of US and EU companies, IP sectors are highly involved CN/JP/KR (N=26) US/EU (N=34) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% highly involved slightly involved not involved 49

50 Issues facing the CN/JP/KR companies before and after expansion Before (N=46) After (N=36) 1. Size and growth rate of the relevant market 2. Country risk 3. Existence of preferential treatment system 63% 59% 59% 1. Wage level (labor cost) 2. Implementation and enforcement of IP law 3. Legal development concerning IPRs 33% 31% 44% 4. Wage level (labor cost) 57% 4. Country risk 28% 5. Completeness and reliability of infrastructure 57% 5. Completeness and reliability of infrastructure 28% 19. Requirements for operating permit 20. Stability of exchange rate 21. Receptiveness to foreign products by local customers 22. Implementation and enforcement of IP law 23. Legal development concerning IPRs 20% 15% 15% 15% 13% IP related issues 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 19. Number of prior establishment of local 20. Price level 21. Receptiveness to foreign products by local customers 22. Requirements for operating permit 23. Corporate tax rate 0% 3% 3% 3% 6% 0% 20% 40% 50

51 Issues facing the EU/US companies before and after expansion Before (N=34) After (N=24) 1. Size and growth rate of the relevant market 2. Legal development concerning IPRs 85% 85% 1. Implementation and enforcement of IP law 2. Corporate tax rate 38% 50% 3. Quality of human capital 4. Implementation and enforcement of IP law 79% 79% 3. Ease of procuring raw materials, components, etc. 4. Wage level (labor cost) 29% 33% 11. Country risk 62% 11. Legal development 21% concerning IPRs 20. Number of prior 21% 20. Distance from establishment of local neighboring country with 13% 21. Distance from 15% 21. Number of prior neighboring country with establishment of local 8% 22. Stability of exchange rate 12% 22. Stability of exchange rate 23. Distance from home country 23. Distance from home 9% country 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 51

52 Issues facing: ex-ante vs. ex-post Most important determinants of overseas expansion is Size and growth rate of the relevant market Ai Asian companies do not consider the IP related issues before the expansion, but recognize the problems of those issues after establishment e t of local subsidiaries consistent it twith ithlower involvement of fipd department t For the western companies, the IP related issues are highly concerned both before and after expanding to ASEAN consistent with higher involvement of IP department 52

53 Considering factors by IPRs Patent Scope (N=87) Development of enforcement procedures (N=87) Operation of enforcement (N=87) emark Trad Scope (N=84) Development of enforcement procedures (N=84) Operation of enforcement (N=84) Desi ign Scope (N=86) Development of enforcement procedures (N=86) Operation of enforcement (N=86) Utilit ty mode el Copyrigh ht Scope (N=86) Development of enforcement procedures (N=86) Operation of enforcement (N=86) Scope (N=82) Development of enforcement procedures (N=82) Operation of enforcement (N=82) Trade secret Technology know-how protection ti (N=87) Trade secret protection (N=85)

54 Considering factors by IPRs Trademark related issue is the highest concern of the MNCs in the decision i on expanding to ASEAN countries Trade secret issue and Patent related issue have higher importance Large concern on counterfeit goods for a sales base and on technology drain for a production base 54

55 Specific matters on trademark Trademark related issues (N=84) 1. Trademark prosecution timeline 57% 2. Related costs for obtaining trademark 56% 3. Types of trademark 49% 4. Trademark injuctions 43% 5. Trademark maintenance fee 42% 6. Trademark damages 39% 12. Trademark invalidation proceedings 23% 13. Co-ownership of trademark rights 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 55

56 Specific matters on patent Patent related issues (N=82) 1. Related costs for obtaining i patents 52% 2. Patent prosecution timeline 43% 3. Home country application system 41% 4. Patent t injuctions 40% 5. Patent damages 38% 6. Patent maintenance fee 35% 15. Exercises on compulsory licensing rights 18% 16. Secret patent system 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 56

57 Specific matters on Trademark and Patent As for Trademark and Patent related issues, examination duration and the cost for obtaining right are the common highly concerned problems Some respondents are complaining to more than 10 years examination duration and higher cost including fee for local agent and translation fee Enforcement of an injunction is also an important issue Th i th t i f i fil d d There is a case that infringers filed an usurped application 57

58 Specific matters on IP-related system IP related issues (N=80) 1. Technology know-how protection system and the level of protection 2. Trade secret protection system and the level of protection 3. Import and export control for counterfeiting goods (Injunctions) 4. A transparent and predictable tax system on transfer pricing 5. Control to licence contracts 23% 23% 31% 30% 38% 6. Licensor's warranty obligation 21% 13. The invalidity of NAP clauses 14. Establishment and enforcement of a system similar to Bayh-Dole 10% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 58

59 Specific matters on IP-related system Strength of technology know-how protection ti and trade secret protection ti is an important considering factors of MNCs Import and export control for counterfeiting goods (Injunctions) is also an important issue Control to license contracts t and Licensor's warranty obligation show relatively high value Importance of system design for ensuring a smooth license contract with local subsidiaries 59

60 Difference of considering factors by host countries marketability Indonesia (N=22) Thailand (N=19) Singapore (N=16) Size and growth rate of the relevant market 86% 79% 44% Size and growth rate of GDP 68% Ease of establishing sales channels 64% Country risk 64% Completeness and reliability of infrastructure 64% Trade barriers or trade friction 64% Price level 59% Number of existing competitors in the 59% Requirements for operating permit 50% Existence of preferential treatment system 50% Regulations on currency repatriation and 50% IP Legal development concerning IPRs 48% Wage level (labor cost) 45% Quality of human capital 45% Ease of procuring raw materials, 45% Size and growth of the relevant market in 45% Corporate tax rate 45% Receptiveness to foreign products by local 43% Implementation and enforcement of IP law IP 43% Number of prior establishment of local 23% Stability of exchange rate 14% Distance from neighboring country with 14% Labor cost 74% 25% 63% 50% 63% 58% Infrastructure 58% 38% 53% 31% 63% 31% 37% 31% Treatment 63% system 42% 31% 42% 42% 63% 42% 47% 42% 47% 37% 26% 37% 79% 25% Human capital 31% 31% Corporate tax 25% 25% 19% 13% 19% Distance from home country 9% 21% 25% 44% 56% 56% 69% 75% 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 60

61 Difference of considering factors by host countries Indonesia and Thailand have similar propensity, and firms focus much more on the marketability and the cost factors In each country IP related factors are not important determinants of overseas expansion Singapore has less general problems compared to Indonesia and Thailand In Singapore, business environment such as the reliability of infrastructure and the existence of preferential treatment system, and R&D environment such as the quality of human capital are recognized as more important determinants 61

62 Difference of facing problems by host countries IP Indonesia (N=17) Implementation and enforcement of IP law 35% Wage level (labor cost) 24% Country risk 24% Completeness and reliability of 24% Regulations on currency repatriation and 24% Stability of exchange rate 18% Quality of human capital 18% Ease of establishing sales channels 18% Ease of procuring raw materials, 18% IP Legal development concerning IPRs 18% Corporate tax rate 18% Existence of preferential treatment system 18% Size and growth rate of GDP 12% Price level 12% Trade barriers or trade friction 12% Requirements for operating permit 12% Number of existing competitors in the 6% Size and growth of the relevant market in 6% Number of prior establishment of local 6% Distance from neighboring country with 6% Size and growth rate of the relevant market 0% Receptiveness to foreign products by local 0% Distance from home country 0% Country risk Thailand (N=16) 44% 38% 44% 31% 13% 6% 13% 6% 25% 38% 19% 19% 19% 6% 19% 13% 19% 19% 6% 6% 19% 13% 0% Singapore (N=12) 8% 25% Wage level 25% 17% 0% 25% 17% 25% 25% 25% 25% 17% 25% 17% 8% 25% 17% 17% 8% 25% 8% 8% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 62

63 Difference of facing problems by host countries In Indonesia and Thailand the implementation ti and enforcement of IP low is the largest problem In Singapore, there are quite a few subsidiaries facing the IP related issues though the most important matter is wage level 63

64 Specific matters on Trademark by host countries Indonesia (N=25) Thailand (N=21) Singapore (N=15) Types of trademark 64% 57% 47% Trademark prosecution timeline 52% 67% 40% The related costs for obtaining trademark 48% 62% 40% Membership of international trademark law treaties 48% 52% 27% Trademark damages 44% 48% 33% Trademark licensing i 40% 43% 20% Trademark term 40% 38% 33% Trademark injuctions 40% 57% 40% Trademark maintenance fee 24% 43% 40% Trademark invalidation proceedings 24% 33% 27% Rescission of trademark registration based on non-use 20% 43% 20% Co-ownership of trademark rights 20% 33% 20% Trademark assignment system 20% 33% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 64

65 Specific matters on Trademark by host countries Consideration on trademark-specific issues shows similar propensity among three host countries Higher importance on the types of trademark, the examination duration, the cost for obtaining trademarks pending period and cost are the common problems of trademark system among the host countries Trademark injunctions and damages are also recognized as important issues in the host countries ti In Indonesia and Thailand, membership of international ti trademark law treaties, ti Madrid protocol, is relatively larger considering factors 65

66 Specific matters on Patent by host countries Indonesia (N=25) Thailand (N=20) Singapore (N=14) The related costs for obtaining patents Patent t prosecution timeline 40% 32% 45% 45% 43% 36% Home country application system 32% 35% 43% Patent injuctions 32% 55% 29% Patent damages 32% 50% 29% Patent term 28% 40% 21% Membership of international a patent t law 28% 45% 43% Exercises on compulsory licensing rights 24% 15% 21% Patent licensing system 24% 25% 36% Patent maintenance fee 20% 25% 43% Employers' duty in employee invention 20% 25% 29% Patent invalidation proceedings 20% 25% 36% Secret patent system 20% 15% 21% Correction of patents 16% 20% 21% Co-ownership ownership of patent rights 12% 30% 29% Patent assignment system 12% 25% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 66

67 Specific matters on Patent by host countries Cost for obtaining patents and examination duration are the common considering i factors in each host country Home country application system is also a significant obstacles in each host countries In Indonesia and Thailand, patent injunction and damages are relatively l larger considering factors In Thailand and Singapore, membership of international patent law are highly concerned 67

68 Specific matters on IP-related system Indonesia (N=25) Thailand (N=21) Singapore (N=15) Technology know-how protection system and the 40% 38% 40% Trade secret protection system and the level of 40% 38% 27% Transparent tax system on transfer pricing 40% 19% 20% Import and export control for counterfeiting 40% 29% 27% Licensor's warranty obligation 36% 19% 13% Rates control for licence fee 32% 24% 7% Control to licence contracts 32% 24% 7% Export Controls on technology transfer 24% 14% 33% State of headhunting and an employee's duty to 24% 24% 27% Objects of licence contracts 20% 29% 7% Contractor registration system 20% 19% 7% Establishment and enforcement of a system 12% 5% 13% The invalidity of NAP clauses 4% 19% 7% The invalidity of grant-back clauses 0% 14% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 68

69 Specific matters on IP-related system Technology knowhow protection system and trade secret protection system are the largest common considering factors in each host countries Import and export control for counterfeiting goods is commonly concerned among host countries In Indonesia, compared to the other countries, Transparent and predictable tax system on transfer pricing have larger importance. In Thailand, firms put a higher value on Objects of license contract In Singapore, Export controls on technology transfer is the second largest issues 69

70 Relation between reshoring and technology protection: Rough sketch

71 Trend of new establishments and withdrawals in ASEAN Num. of new establishments (left axis) Num. of withdrawals (left axis) data source: Overseas Activities of Japanese Companies, Toyo Keizai Inc. *The data source includes the detailed information on the overseas subsidiaries of Japanese firms, covering about 20 to 30 thousands subsidiaries every year since

72 Trend of new establishments and withdrawals in ASEAN Especially in the 1990s, the number of new establishments is quite larger than that of withdrawals However, the number of withdrawals has increased during 1990s and it exceeded the number of establishments in 1999 Since 2000 the gap of the numbers has been considerably narrowed One of the reasons of this decreasing difference might be the increasing concern on the risk of technology drain, while the most important factor should be the deterioration of business environment 72

73 Average sales of the existing subsidiaries in ASEAN Log of sales (left axis) Num. fo new establishments (right axis) Strong correlation Weak correlation

74 Average sales of the existing subsidiaries in ASEAN In the 1990s the sales and the number of overseas expansion have strong correlation Considering the time lag between the date of decisionmaking and the date of actual expansion, this can suggest that the marketability significantly affects the firm s decision on overseas expansion in 1990s Number of new establishments, however, does not increase as much as the sales growth after 2000 Importance of other determinants such as labor cost, country risk, or risk of technology drain has been increasing i after 2000 Japanese firms are highly concerned about trade secret related issues and trademark related issues 74

75 Correlation between the withdrawal rate and importance of knowhow-related issue 60.0% Singapore 55.0% Rate of the wit thdrawal ls 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Vietnam 30.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% Share of the firms facing knowhow-related issue 75

76 Correlation between the withdrawal rate and importance of knowhow-related issue Withdrawal rate and the share of firms facing know-how related issue have a positive correlation more firms decide to return to home country when the firms are more concerned about technology drain Small sample and simple comparison capture the overall trend and other causality Necessity of an econometric analysis to identify the true causality and pure effect of the risk of technology drain But can provide a rough sketch of the relation between IP related issues and FDI it is important for ASEAN countries to enhance the protection of IP, especially in terms of trademark and trade secret, so that they can prevent the reshoring of foreign companies 76

77 Summary and supportive evidence from interview survey

78 Overall description IP related issues are not necessarily the critical factors before expanding to ASEAN countries, but they are perceived as major problems after establishing new subsidiaries especially for Asian (CN, JP and KR companies) Firms put a great importance on the issues related to trademark, trade secret and patent 78

79 Problems and challenges facing MNCs 1. Cost for obtaining IPRs and examination duration are the common and largest concern in ASEAN countries Harmonization of IP examination systems is important for most of MNCs to decide to expand to ASEAN countries 2. Injunctions and damages in trademark and patent are other important considering factors 3. Inconsistency in IP systems is an significant obstacle for many MNCs to expand to ASEAN 4. Lack of a well-structured IP related information system is a hidden critical problem concerned by most of the MNC 79

80 1. Cost is too high and examination duration is too long Payment for local attorney and for translation are burden to MNCs to obtain IPRS Too long examination duration of IPRs is also a serious concern for most of MNCs We should wait for the decision of USPTO because examiners seems to wait for it. We filed 25 patent applications with local Patent Office during 2005 and 2006, but only two decisions were made up to We could not get IPR to protect our business even we have applied it long ago. Such situation hinders us to expand business ASEAN no more 80

81 2. Enforcement is too weak Serious influence of counterfeit products Even in the case of apparent misappropriated application, the burden of evidence is on our side. We have to pay considerable fee for lawsuit and for verification. However, we could not delete misappropriated trademark applications. We cannot expect the function of trademark system in this country. Even if we find the relevant IPR system to solve the IP-related problems, we often notice that t the system is not actually operated and enforced. In such situation, we cannot do anything but are disappointed. Recent import channel of counterfeiting products is complicated. Sometimes goods and trademarks are entered separately into a country, then they are combined and sold as a genuine product. 81

82 3. Inconsistency in IP system is a significant obstacle to seek for IPRs Harmonization of IPR examination system is quite important Among ASEAN countries, limited countries are the members of Madid Protocol. Therefore we have to apply our trademark registration separately atel in other ASEAN countries. As for design protection, limited ASEAN countries are member of Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs 82

83 4. IPR Information is quite insufficient Many subsidiaries have a difficulty to get sufficient information regarding IP-related systems and paradigms especially in English It is not clear about the standard of IPR examination, the procedure of IPR examination, and the current situation for a specific IPR application. Lack of information is partially caused by the lack of knowledge of local agents Local agents are not qualified to provide relevant legal services because of lack of IPR special knowledge. 83

84 Summary: Problems and challenge of IP systems in each country

85 Singapore No major problem with the IP system except relatively weak enforcement system especially border control Employer s duty in employee s invention is considered more than other ASEAN countries One of the reason would be a recent increase in the establishments of R&D basement of MNCs larger number of IPR specialist Larger number of talented researchers and engineers However companies have less incentives to file patents because of small market Singapore has potential to become IP hub in ASEAN countries 85

86 Thailand Higher cost and too long examination duration to get IPRs are concerned more than other ASEAN countries Some companies are complaining i to more than 10 years examination duration and higher cost including fee for local agent and translation fee Patent injunction and patent damages are also highly hl concerned more than other ASEAN countries Improvement of IPR system especially examination capability is strongly desired to attract sustainable direct investment 86

87 Indonesia Inconsistency in the law enforcements, insufficient information on IPR system are important issues Not a few companies pointed out that bribery practices increases the uncertainty of IPR system Trade secret-related issues are concerned more than in other ASEAN countries Large translation cost due to requirement to create an international contract in the local language is a significant issue Effort on harmonization of IP system including trade secret protection and on construction of information infrastructure are strongly desired 87

88 Vietnam Pending period and cost for obtaining IPRs are concerned similarly to other ASEAN countries Some of the MNC s relatively highly evaluate the IPR system and enforcement of Vietnam Higher translation cost due to the requirement to register the license contract in the local language is a large obstacle to operate business Improvement of examination capability and harmonization of IP system would attract more FDI 88

89 Policy recommendations

90 Policy Recommendations Following policies would contribute to attract FDI 1. Harmonization of IPR system 2. Strengthening the enforcement of IPRs and reducing uncertainty about the process and result of enforcement 3. Reducing the cost for obtaining i IPRs and improving the examination capability 4. Establishing a well-structured information system and services for searching IPRs and for referring IP related procedures 5. Enhancing the awareness and understanding on IPRs 90

91 1. Harmonization of IPR system It may be unrealistic to unify all of ASEAN systems because of the large disparity in each country, but is possible by proceeding gradual harmonization of options of each system Joining some of important international treaties such as Madrid Protocol and Hague Agreement Concerning the International ti Registration ti of Industrial Designs. 91

92 2. effective enforcement Criminal sanction as well as civil sanction is effective to prevent willful counterfeiting Rigorous custom controls and strong police power should contribute t to prevent IPR infringement and piracy Establish a special organization with skilled professionals poesso as Advanced countries should support to construct t reliable IPR system and enforcement in ASEAN 92

93 3. Reducing the cost and pending period for obtaining IPRs Accept an application written in English, and promote competition between local agents Translation fee and fee paid to local agents are the significant concern of MNCs Promoting ASEAN Patent Examination Co- operation (ASPEC) which is the regional patent work-sharing program among 9 ASEAN countries This program is not well known Improving examination capability through the examination cooperation and personnel exchange with other Offices (such as USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO and SIPO) Harmonization of criteria of examination 93

94 4. Well-structured information system Provide high quality information about the standard of IPR examination, the procedure of obtaining IPR, and the current status of applications with proper timing i Advanced countries should support to establish reliable IPR information system in ASEAN 94

95 5. Enhancing the awareness on IPRs Lack of information is partially caused by the lack of knowledge about IPR of local agents Professional human resource development by the government provide appropriate education and trainings to legal professionals responsible for IP so that they can provide desired legal services Provide education to increase public awareness continuously, while it should take considerable time to be effective 95

96 Proposal of the 2 nd phase project

97 FDI contributes job creation? FDI can imply the deprivation of able workers of local ASEAN companies When the subsidiaries of MNCs hire the workers, most part of those workers should come from the local ASEAN companies An attraction of FDI can have a negative impact on the productivity of local ASEAN companies However, naturally, MNCs hiring activity should eventually contribute to the growth of ASEAN countries, since it improves the quality of human capital and has spillover effect and brain circulation effect 97

98 Purpose of 2 nd phase project (1) Conducting a large scale survey, we will 1. confirm the results of pilot survey in the 1 st phase project and see the differences by industry and activity identify IP-related problems and challenges facing MNCs in ASEAN countries investigate the desirable level of examination duration and IP-related cost analyze whether the effect of IPR protection ti varies across IPRs depending on the subsidiary s industry and activity it (sales, manufacturing or R&D) 98

99 Purpose of 2 nd phase project (2) 2. evaluate how significant IP protection attracts FDA into ASEAN countries examine the effects of reinforcement of IP system on the FDI decisions i and the appropriability of the subsidiaries 3. analyze whether the IP protection actually creates ceaesemployment poy e and helps epspo promoting o the transfer of technological knowledge from MNCs to ASEAN companies investigate the impact of strengthening IP protection ti on job creation and technology spillover through FDI 99

100 Expected results and Policy implications Expected results Long examination duration, higher cost of obtaining IPRs, inconsistency i in IP system and weak enforcement are the problems to be solved to attract more FDI Strengthening IP protection actually contributes to create employment and to promote technology transfer through FDI Policy implications Improvement of examination capability Cooperation with other IP offices Introduction of accelerated examination system Harmonization of IPR system Joining member of Madrid protocol Reduction of the cost for obtaining IPRs Promoting competition between local agents Electronization of IPR procedures 100

101 Thank you.