Introduction
I happened to hear this story from a colleague while drinking my morning canned black coffee in the cafeteria.
Recently, it seems that more and more companies are evaluating patents not by "how many patents they hold," but by "how much profit they have generated."
For example, a major tire manufacturer Bridgestone or pump manufacturers Ebara Corporation。
They are beginning to use the concept of "Intellectual Property ROIC" to measure how much intellectual property contributes to a business.
While patents are often seen as a defensive tool, it seems that companies' perspectives are beginning to change.
background
When discussing a company's competitiveness, the "number" of patents has long been the most important factor.
Indicators such as the number of patent applications filed and the number of rights held have often been used.
However, simply possessing a patent does not generate profit.
On the contrary, it incurs management and maintenance costs.
That's where this came in."Intellectual Property ROIC"That's the idea.
This is an indicator that shows how much value has been generated relative to the cost of the intellectual property investment.
In essence, it's the idea of treating intellectual property as a "management resource."
Main theme/conclusion of the article
The key points of intellectual property ROIC are very simple.
To visualize "how much intellectual property has contributed to sales and profits."
For example, the following elements are used in the calculation:
-
The contribution of intellectual property to product sales
-
Revenue from technology licensing
-
Compensation obtained through lawsuit
The "intellectual property value," which is the sum of these factors, is then divided by the investment amount, such as patent application fees and personnel costs for the intellectual property department.
In other words, patents are viewed in terms of "return" rather than "number."
Specific facts
Companies that have actually implemented this indicator have seen changes.
At Bridgestone, our intellectual property ROIC has improved significantly in just a few years.
One of the reasons for this was to "narrow down" rather than increase the number of patents.
We will organize low-value patents and instead
-
Know-how
-
patent
-
combination of technologies
This strengthened our "intellectual property mix."
Furthermore, Ebara Corporation reportedly holds regular discussions about the value of intellectual property, involving not only executives from its intellectual property department but also those from its business divisions.
Patents are no longer just a matter for research laboratories; they are becoming intertwined with businesses themselves.
I'm noticing that kind of change.
Even more interesting is the suggestion that simply "protecting patents" is insufficient.
Strategies to expand the market through so-called "openness," such as standardizing technology and opening up patents, are also becoming increasingly important.
Summary
The days when having many patents guaranteed security may be over.
How closely is it connected to the business, and what kind of value is it creating?
More and more companies are looking at intellectual property from that perspective.
While sipping my morning coffee, I was thinking that my perspective on the "assets" of my work might have changed a little.
