2013-10_patent_Korea_Japan-Analysis[1]

1 Patent Analysis of Electronic/Automotive/Chemical Companies Representing South Korea and Japan

2Patent Analysis of Electronic/Automotive/Chemical Companies Representing South Korea and Japan
n

1. Introduction
Korea has established great economic growth in a short period of time after the Korean War in
1950. This growth, even called to be the miracle of the Han River, has given birth to large
corporations such as Samsung and LG. Korea’s economic growth was based on the export
enterprise. Due to a smaller population compared to Japan and a limited domestic demand
market, exporting goods was the best option for Korea. The strategy was to secure the place in
the world market by focusing on introducing and improving the skills of the world’s leading
companies in highly demanded field of technologies, such as semiconductors, display devices, and
automotives. The plan was to compete along with companies, but with comparably lower prices.
In another words, economic growth was propelled by the ‘First Follower’ strategy.
On the other hand, Japan did not only possess the best technology in the world, but also a
fairly sizable domestic market. Therefore, it was possible to establish the economic growth on the
foundation of Korea’s domestic demand market. In addition, Japan’s high quality products were
favored by many international consumers throughout the world, earning the power in the world
market with its credibility and product brands. However, Japan gradually weakened as the
globalization of its economic system began to take place in 1990, since they could not respond
quickly to such changes. This is especially apparent in electronics where the most rapid changes
are occurring. Many Japanese electronics companies possessing high-level technology such as
Canon, Panasonic, Hitachi, and Sony are experiencing business depression due to its failure to
correspond to the new market such as mobile devices.
Regardless, Japan is still the world’s third economic power, and is known for the world’s most
advanced technology skills. Patent activities of Japanese companies are remarkably active.
According to the IFI CLAIMS Research1
, 19 out of top 50 US patent assignees were Japanese
companies. They were mostly electronics and automotive companies. Five Korean electronics
companies including Samsung were on the list as well.
Korean and Japanese companies are very active in applying for patents because it is one of the
necessary indicators of accomplishing innovation. In other words, patents can be used in figuring
out each company’s technological efforts and strategies in gaining preoccupancy in the future
market. This research aims to compare and analyze the patent strategies of two countries’
representative companies who are the leaders of Asian economy. Since
electronics/automotives/chemicals are the areas that Korea and Japan have intensively and
continuously invested in, the strategies of respective companies for these particular fields will be
examined.
1
http://ificlaims.com/index.php?page=misc_top_50_2012

n
2. Methodology of Patent Comparison Analysis
As the representative companies of both countries in the field of electronics, automotives, and
chemicals, the following companies are selected based on the similarity of business field and their
level of excellence in sales and profits.
- Electronics: Samsung Electronics Company VS Panasonic Company
- Automotives: Hyundai Motor Company VS Toyota Motor Corp.
- Chemicals: LG Chemical Corp. VS Mitsubishi Chemical Corp.
[Target Companies’ Patent Strategy Comparison for each field]
Each company’s recent five-year (Jan. 1, 2006~Dec. 31, 2010) patent applications were extracted
from respective countries to examine the strategic differences of securing patents. In other words,
since general patent system follows the territorial “precedent local filing” system, companies file
for domestic applications for their new invention prior to international applications. Therefore,
identifying domestic patent application activities are most appropriate in understanding the
strategies of comparing companies.

Main Analysis
- Patent activities for the last ten years?
- Most concentrated technology areas of patent applications?
- Open innovation activities (Joint application, patent acquisition activities, etc.)?
3. Patent strategy comparison analysis for Samsung VS Panasonic
3-1. Current status of Samsung and Panasonic
Samsung and Panasonic are known as Korea and Japan’s representative electronics company.
Both companies had been running businesses in the areas of semiconductors, display devices,
household appliances, digital imaging, and wireless communications. Samsung Electronics
Company had been fostering new business in medical and bio-industries as a future business
concentration. They plan to invest 1.2 trillion won by 2020 to promote 10 trillion won of annual
revenue in medical device business and to meet the sales goal of 2 trillion won in Biosimilars. As
for Panasonic, they had been carrying out additional businesses in automotive system, energy
industry, and eco-solution industry.
Samsung was founded in 1969, and as of 2012, the company has accomplished annual revenue
of 165 trillion won. 138.5 trillion won, about 84% of the sales were from the international market,
shows their high dependency in the international market. Samsung, establishing visible success in
a short period of time, ranked #22 on the 2011 “Fortune 500” by the Fortune US business
magazine. They have a unique position in semiconductor DRAM and mobile AP area, as well as
market competitiveness in TV, monitor, and image display area. Moreover, they arose to be the
strongest in smart phone market with the market share record of 3.7% in 2009 and 19.9% in 2011.
In response, Samsung put in 6% of 2011 total revenue amounting to 10.3 trillion won for the
research, and it was the highest since the company was founded. As of 2011, Samsung possesses
total of 196 bases in the world including manufacturing corporations, sales corporations, and
research labs, also securing total of 220,000 workers, including 101,973 national workers and
119,753 international workers.
Meanwhile, Panasonic had a record annual revenue of 117 trillion won as of 2011 after its
foundation in 1918. 53% of the sales amounting to 62 trillion won came from the domestic
market, taking up higher proportion of domestic sales than Samsung. Although there was slight
hesitancy in company growth recently due to long period of stagnation in Japanese economy and
sudden growth of latecomers, the newly appointed CEO Tsuga Kazuhiro introduced innovative
business strategy to regain its reputation in last June. The company lowered the proportion of
products that makes the least profit such as TV and DVD player down to 20% and wrote out
multimillion dollar to carry out the business in mobile phones, solar panels, and lithium-ion
batteries. They are also expanding eco-solution business in the areas that make the most profit

n
such as washing machines and refrigerators or other major domestic appliances, light bulbs,
bathroom, ceiling fans, and electrical outlets.2
Panasonic has invested 7% of 2011 annual revenue
amounting to 7.76 trillion won in research and development fund, also securing total of 330,000
workers including 133,605 national workers and 197,162 international workers.
[Current status of Samsung Electronics and Panasonic]
3-2. Patent Analysis Result of Samsung and Panasonic
For the last five years, the number of national patent (Korea) applications filed by Samsung was
45,435 and national patent (Japan) applications filed by Panasonic was 58,944. Quantitatively,
Panasonic applied and possesses 1.3 times more than Samsung. The R&D expenditures of
Samsung have consistently increased, but the number of patent applications has decreased
dramatically. R&D expenditures of Panasonic did not increase but the number of patent
applications decreased. For the number of patent application per R&D expenditures in unit of one
billion won were 1.4 for Samsung and 1.8 for Panasonic.
2
http://news1.kr/articles/1128857

[Total Number of patent
application(2006~2010)]
[Samsung’s number of patent application]
[Panasonic’s number of patent application]
Samsung and Panasonic’s power in global market was examined through patent family analysis.
While annual patent application activity was decreasing, the percentage of patent family
applications continued to maintain its status quo or have increased. The rate of Samsung’s patent
family applications increased about 16% per year after 2006, holding up to 88% of total
application by 2010. This reveals Samsung’s strong will in securing the global market. Meanwhile,
judging by the small marginal difference since 2006, Panasonic seems to still consider great deal
of importance in domestic market.
[Samsung’s Annual Patent Family Application Status] [Panasonic’s Annual Patent Family Application Status]

n
The study showed that the common concentrated areas of technology for both companies were
semiconductors, image communications, and electric digital data processing. The different areas of
concentration for Samsung were transmissions, display devices, semiconductor memory devices,
and for Panasonic were batteries for the direct conversion of chemical energy into electrical
energy (fuel batteries), domestic appliances, and recording devices.
[Major Technology Areas of Samsung Electronics and Panasonic (IPC)]
Samsung and Panasonic seem to have common tendencies in open innovation strategies. Both
companies are active in open innovation through patent acquisition rather than joint application.
According to the patent acquisition analysis of transfer and acquisition information based on
United States Patents, Samsung acquired 10,097 and Panasonic acquired 9,620 patents. However,
these two companies show somewhat different patent acquisition strategies. In case of Samsung,
the company usually acquires patents from foreign competitors but Panasonic mostly acquires
patents from domestic competitors. Namely, Samsung had acquired patents from foreign
companies such as the Hewlett-Packard and Seiko Epson, and Panasonic acquired patents from
domestic companies such as Pioneer, Fujitsu, and NEC.

[USPTO Patent Acquisitions Cases]
[Samsung’s Top 5 Patent Acquisition Applicant]
- Hewlett Packard Development Company: 652 cases
- Hewlett Packard Company: 267 cases
- Seiko Epson Corporation: 171 cases
- AST Research: 170 cases
- Samsung Techwin: 146 cases
[Panasonic’s Top 5 Patent Acquisition Applicant
- PIONEER CORP: 210 cases
- FUJITSU LTD: 200 cases
- SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS IND: 109 cases
- NEC CORP: 84 cases
- PANASONIC TECHNOLOGIES INC: 79 cases
Samsung mostly acquired technologies in the areas related with semiconductors and electric digital data
processing which occupied 47% of total acquisition. Panasonic acquired technologies such as
communication through images/pictures/figures and electric digital data processing which occupied 32%
of total acquisition. Technology regarding batteries for the direct conversion of chemical energy
into electrical energy is also the area that Panasonic is concentrated on applying lately.
[Major Technology Areas of USPTO Patent Acquisition]

n
4. Patent strategy comparison analysis for Hyundai and Toyota
4-1. Current status of Hyundai and Toyota
Hyundai Motors and Toyota Company are Korea and Japan’s leading automobile manufacturer.
After its foundation in 1967, Hyundai Motors has sold 4,060,000 cars, accomplishing the total
revenue of 42 trillion won and ranking the 5th
automotive company in the world. The company
succeeded in expanding its influence in the world market amidst world’s economic insecurity,
establishing its firm enterprise competitive power with an increased value of 12.3% (sales basis)
from last year. The domestic sales only took 16.8% of total revenue, showing company’s higher
dependency on the international market. The major field of international market (sales basis)
includes countries such as North America (19%), China (18.6%), and Europe (15.7%).
Meanwhile, after its foundation in 1937, Toyota Company has sold 7,090,000 cars, accomplishing
the total revenue of 18.5 trillion yen (about 277 trillion won). Toyota is the fourth ranking
automobile company in the world, being a true leader of the global market. Although company
revenue ranking shows only a single level difference with Hyundai, Toyota’s revenue actually
amounts to 6.6 times more than Hyundai. Toyota’s major field of international market (sales basis)
includes countries such as North America (25.4%), Asia (18%), and the domestic market sales of
about 28%.
These two companies have concentrated their efforts in developing eco-friendly cars such as
hybrid cars, electric cars, and fuel cell electric vehicles, which can be the solution to the problem
of global warming, fossil fuel depletion, and various environmental pollutions. Hyundai invested 3%
of 2011 total revenue amounting to 1.3 trillion won into research and development areas, and
Toyota invested 4% of total revenue amounting to 780 billion yen (about 11.6 trillion won). It is 10
times more than Hyundai’s investment.

[Current status of Hyundai and Toyota]
4-2. Patent Portfolio Analysis Result of Hyundai and Toyota
For the last five years, Hyundai Motors filed 14,964 national patent applications and Toyota filed
42,657 national patent applications. Toyota holds 2.8 times more patents in quantity than Hyundai.
The comparison of R&D and patent activities showed that although Hyundai’s R&D expenditures
have increased, patent activities have somewhat decreased for the last five years. For Toyota, R&D
expenditures and patent activities have both decreased after 2007. The number of application per
R&D expenditures in unit of one billion won for both companies showed Hyundai with higher
number of 2.6, and Toyota with 0.8.

n
[Patent Application Cases (2006~2010)]
[Hyundai’s patent application cases]
[Toyota’s patent application cases]
The patent family analysis was performed to figure out Hyundai and Toyota’s power in global
market, and the result showed that Toyota was more dominant in the number of family
application and the applied countries, but Hyundai was more dominant in family patent ratio.
Hyundai holds average of 1.4 families with 1.3 countries per patent. Toyota holds average of 1.6
families with 1.5 countries per patent. Regarding the percentage of family application, Hyundai’s
patent applications have continuously decreased until 2009 but patent family applications have
increased about 20% every year, showing dramatic growth. In other words, the percentage of
patent family application has increased from 7% in 2006 to 27% in 2010. This growth rate of 40%
shows that Hyundai has been putting efforts in patent families for the expansion of share in
global market. On the other hand, Toyota has shown a decrease in the total number of patent
applications and family applications. Family application was up to 20% in 2006 but it has
decreased to 15% in 2010.

[Hyundai’s Annual Patent Family Application Status] [Toyota’s Annual Patent Family Application Status]
The research showed that Hyundai concentrated on patents for technologies in motor
vehicles/trailers, vehicle fittings/parts, and vehicle propulsion systems and Toyota concentrated on
batteries for the direct conversion of chemical energy into electrical energy (fuel cell), combustion
engine controls, and controlling systems (hybrid). Distinctively, the technology in batteries for the
direct conversion of chemical energy into electrical energy takes up the highest percentage of
patent applications for Toyota (12%), whereas it takes up smaller proportion for Hyundai with 4%.
Also, Hyundai’s most concentrated area of technology in motor vehicles/trailers (10%) only takes
up 4% of total patent applications for Toyota.
[Hyundai and Toyota’s major area of technology (IPC)]

n
Hyundai and Toyota seem to be sharing common open innovation strategies. Both companies
are more active in open innovation through joint applications rather than patent acquisitions. The
current joint application status shows that Hyundai filed 3,407 joint applications equivalent to 23%
of total patents. The joint applications proportion was only 3% in 2006, but it increased
dramatically in a short period of time to 47% in 2009. A major partner of the joint applications
was the subsidiary company, Kia Motors, which corresponds to 86% of total joint patent
applications. On the other hand, Toyota filed 8,584 joint applications equivalent to 20% of total
patents. Every year except 2007, the company has been filing about 20% of patents jointly. Most
of the joint applications were carried out with subsidiary companies, Toyota Central R&D Labs
(19%) and DENSO automobile parts corporation (17%).
[Number of Joint Patent Applications] [Annual Status of Joint Patent Application]
5. Patent Strategy Comparison Analysis for LG Chemicals and Mitsubishi Chemicals.
5-1. Current Status of LG Chemicals and Mitsubishi Chemicals
LG Chemicals, founded in 1947, is the number one chemical substance manufacturer in South
Korea and ranks 15th
in the world based on sales according to the “ICIS top 100 Chemical
Companies 2012” 3
. The company is strengthening its growth power with its foundation on
traditional petrochemical industry along with business portfolios such as IT & electronic materials
and secondary batteries.
Mitsubishi is the leading general chemical company of Japan founded in 1934. It is 8th
ranking
chemical industry in the world based on sales according to ICIS. Mitsubishi’s 2011 total revenue
was 3.208 trillion yen (22.7 trillion won), about twice the sales of LG Chem.
3
http://www.icis.com/pages/top-100-2012/
3,407
23%
8,584
20%
HYUNDAI TOYOTA

While both companies manage industries in petrochemicals, IT & electronic materials, and
batteries, petrochemicals hold 75% of LG’s total revenue and 53% of Mitsubishi’s total revenue.
Distinctive to LG Chemicals, Mitsubishi is advancing into other businesses than the ones
mentioned above, such as pharmaceutical intermediates, clinical and diagnostic experiments, and
development of new pharmaceuticals.
LG Chemicals have invested 2% of 2011 revenue amounting to 348.1 billion won into R&D
expenditures whereas Mitsubishi invested 4% of their revenue amounting to 139 billion yen (2.678
trillion won), which is 7.8 times more than LG.
[Current Status of LG Chemicals and Mitsubishi Chemicals]
5-2. Patent Portfolio Analysis Result of LG Chemicals and Mitsubishi Chemicals
For the last five years, LG Chemicals filed 4,215 patent applications and Mitsubishi Chemicals
filed 2,771 patent applications in their national patent offices. Quantitatively, LG holds 1.5 more
patents than Mitsubishi. For both companies, number of patent applications has decreased
whereas R&D expenditures have increased. Also, LG showed higher ratio of the number of patent
applications per million. The number of patent applications per million was 3.7 for LG and 0.4 for
Mitsubishi.

n
[Number of Patent Applications
(2006~2010)]
[Number of Patent Applications for LG Chemicals]
[Number of Patent Applications for Mitsubishi Chemicals]
The patent family analysis was performed to compare LG and Mitsubishi’s power in global
markets, and the results showed that the number of family applications was higher for Mitsubishi
Chemicals but the ratio of patent family countries per number of application is higher for LG
Chemicals. LG possesses a number of family patents mainly from Japan, United States, and China,
averaging 3.2 families and 2.5 countries per patent. Mitsubishi possesses a number of family
patents mainly from United States, China, and Europe, averaging 3.4 families and 2.1 countries per
patent. Out of total patent applications, LG holds 35% patent families and Mitsubishi holds 26%
patent families. LG declined in number of patent families for the last five years then showed
recent expansion but Mitsubishi has been showing continuous decline since 2007.

[Average Number of Families and Family Countries]
[Status of Annual Patent Family Application for LG
Chemicals]
[Status of Annual Patent Family Application for
Mitsubishi Chemicals]
Commonly concentrated areas of technology for patents that both companies share were fuel
cells, highly polymerized compounds, carbocyclic compounds, optical elements, and
semiconductors. Especially, 41% of LG’s entire patents were related to fuel cells, indicating the
company’s great interest in particular technological area. Other than that, LG is also processing
patent applications regarding adhesives and macromolecular compound mixtures, whereas
Mitsubishi is working on developing technological areas of electrography and catalysis, colloid
chemistry.

n
[Major Technological Areas of LG Chemistry and Mitsubishi Chemistry (IPC)]
Open innovation strategy of LG and Mitsubishi is contrary to each other. LG is pursuing open
innovation through patent acquisitions, and Mitsubishi is pursuing through joint application
strategy.
Result of joint application analysis showed that 3% (114 cases) of LG’s patent applications were
joint patents, and 17% (469 cases) of Mitsubishi’s patent applications were joint patents.
Mitsubishi’s joint application ratio was 6 times more than LG. LG’s major joint companies were
KAIST, LG Electronics, Seoul University, and Hyundai Motors; Mitsubishi’s major joint companies
were Pioneer, ROM, Kyoto University, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, and Hitachi.
[Number of Joint Applications] [Annual Joint Application Status]
114
3%
469
17%
LG Chemical Mitsubishi Chemical
5.0% 2.1% 1.2% 2.9% 1.9%
19% 17% 18% 18%
12%
-80%
-55%
-30%
-5%
20%
0
40
80
120
160
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
LG Chemical Mitsubishi Chemical
NumberofJointApplicantion
JointApplicantionRatio

According to USPTO Assignment (ownership transfer) Recordation, LG acquired 521 assigned
patents and Mitsubishi acquired 277 assigned patents. The records show that both companies
acquired a number of technologies related with fuel cells and semiconductors. Other than the
major areas of technology, LG acquired technologies in LCD, layered products, and inorganic or
non-macromolecular organic substances as compounding ingredients; and Mitsubishi acquired
technologies in macromolecular compounds, preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes,
information storage, and layered products.
[Major Technology Areas of USPTO Patent Acquisition]
6. Conclusion
The analysis of representative companies from Korea and Japan’s
electronic/automotive/chemical area showed that Korean companies concentrate on patent
applications more than Japanese companies, considering the global market. With the case of
Samsung and Panasonic, Panasonic possessed 30% of patents as family patents whereas Samsung
showed an increase in the proportion of family patents for the last five years, taking up to 88% of
total patents by 2010. Although Toyota exceeds Hyundai in patent family proportion in the
automotive, recently Toyota has been showing reductions; Hyundai, with the 4% in 2006, showed
increase in its proportion to 27% in 2010. Also in the chemical area, LG Chemicals had a higher
percentage of patent families with 35.4% and Mitsubishi with 25.8%.

n
Korea and Japan’s representative companies’ annual revenue for the last 3 years indicate that
Korean companies are mainly targeting the global market. 83% of Samsung’s total revenue is from
the global market, but 53% of Panasonic’s total revenue is from the domestic market, higher than
their proportion of the international market.
[Samsung’s Recent 3 year Revenue] [Panasonic’s Recent 3 year Revenue]
In the automotives area, Toyota’s revenue scale is too large to compare with Hyundai Motors,
but Toyota’s proportion of revenue from the international market is similar to Hyundai Motors.
However, for the last 3 years, the percentage of Hyundai’s revenue from the international market
has increased from 66% in 2009 to 73%, but the percentage of Toyota’s revenue decreased from
71% in 2009 to 65% in 2011.
[Hyundai’s Recent 3 year Revenue]
[Toyota’s Recent 3 year Revenue]
The chemical area is the same. 57% of LG’s total revenue was from the international market
whereas only about 30% of Mitsubishi’s total revenue is from the international market.

[LG’s Recent 3 year Revenue] [Mitsubishi’s Recent 3 year Revenue]
This might be related to the economical background of Japan and Korea as mentioned in the
introduction. Unlike Korea, Japan has developed a considerable size of domestic market but Korea
could not expect growth in a company or country only depending on such a small domestic
market. The government of South Korea executed an export drive policy in 1970 in hopes to
become a rising nation with rapid growth. This policy led Korean companies to sell their products
targeting the international market.
Within two years of its foundation, Samsung Electronics succeeded in the first export of
monochrome Television to Panama in 1971, achieving 100 million dollars in export by 1978. They
established Production Corporation and Sales Corporation in US, Germany, Portugal, and all over
the world, getting into full scale international market sales. In 1983, the company developed 64K
DRAM, succeeding as the third nation after US and Japan, which became the foothold in gaining
power in the international market. Hyundai Motors developed the first independent model, Pony,
in 1974, and succeeded in exporting 6 cars to Ecuador in 1976. They also succeeded in exporting
the first Excel Sedan to United States in 1986, achieving total export of one million cars only with
Excels. With this groundwork, the company established manufacturing factories in US, China, India,
Europe, Russia, Brazil, and many other places all over the world, and has now turned into a
corporation with 6,000 sales networks in 190 countries. It is same with LG Chemicals. The
company began manufacturing the nation’s first resin casting and plastic products in 1950~60s,
establishing the foundation as a chemical corporation. Since the second CEO Ja-Kyung Koo was
appointed in 1970s, not only did the company earnestly make inroads into petro-chemistry
industry which is used as a raw material for plastic, but also began turning their eyes into
internationalization. Total export amounts of one million dollars in 1970, exceeded to 50 million
dollars in 1978, up to current sales of 2011 amounting to 11.2 billion dollars.
Although Japan possesses world-class technologies, their global marketability power seems to
weaken. The market price seems to somewhat recover lately indeed after the administration’s
exchange rate policy. It has shown improvements in some degree with yen slack lowering the
price competitiveness, and hence increasing the number of consumers demanding Japanese

n
products. However, Japanese yen policy is only a temporary solution. It would require more
fundamental solution to fully recover from current economic recession.
Innovation through various perspectives might be necessary for the fundamental solution of
economic recession, but this research may suggest Japanese companies to turn their eyes from
domestic market to more aggressive company management in the global market. In other words,
if companies establish appropriate product strategies and patent strategies in global market’s
point of view, Japan can leap up once again as a Fast Mover based on the outstanding Japanese
technology, and reorganize the change in the dynamics of the global market.

2013-10_patent_Korea_Japan-Analysis[1]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to 2013-10_patent_Korea_Japan-Analysis[1]

Similar to 2013-10_patent_Korea_Japan-Analysis[1] (20)

2013-10_patent_Korea_Japan-Analysis[1]