Management of Technology and Innovation in Japan

382 Y. Mori
Therefore, I think that the IP reports that we have actually prepared are not always
so concerned about IP details. Our format uses more of an awareness of how
intellectual capital is being created, or how intangible assets are being produced as
a whole.”
This concludes the discussion of recent trends at Japanese companies relating to
IP information disclosure. Simply put, companies have finally taken an interest in
IP in recent years, and are beginning to inquire about methods and concepts for
disclosure. Although there is still no single answer to the question of IP information
disclosure, it seems that every company will have to distinguish its own
stance on IP information disclosure in its own way.
System for Workplace Invention Compensation
In Article 35 of the Japanese Patent Law there is a unique regulation concerning
workplace inventions. It states that, “In the case that an employee has rights to receive
a patent for a workplace invention based on a contract, employment regulations,
or other stipulation, or if the patent rights were transferred to the employer,
or if exclusive implementation rights were established, the employee has the right
to receive a reasonable compensation payment.” The Supreme Court has indicated
that the employee may seek the payment of a shortfall amount, when the compensation
amount paid by the employer to the employee, according to the employment
regulations, does not constitute a reasonable compensation.
Based on this “reasonable compensation” matter, there has been a recent sharp
rise in lawsuits for achievement compensation based on a workplace invention.
One famous case involved Shuji Nakamura, a professor at the University of California
at Santa Barbara, who sued his former employer, Nichia Corporation. Initially
the district court awarded him 20 billion yen. However, afterwards there
were cases before the Tokyo High Court where the parties were advised to settle
out of court and both sides agreed upon an amount of about 600 million yen. In
addition, lawsuits have been launched by employees of Olympus, Hitachi, Hitachi
Metals, Ajinomoto, Canon, Mitsubishi Electric, Toshiba, and other companies
against their employers, seeking “reasonable compensation.” All of these cases are
still pending.
The Patent Law was revised due to this reason. However, there is the additional
matter of the stipulation that “the compensation amount agreed upon by both parties
should be respected.” To this the stipulation that “it is important to respect the
procedures for compensation determination and to ensure that this is rationally secured”
was added. Therefore, we still have the argument of whether or not there is
rationality, and the matter of “reasonable compensation” remains.
Various arguments have been raised concerning this issue. For example, the inventor
technology specialist has an employment relationship with the company,
and that person is responsible for producing knowledge in the form of inventions
under consignment to the company. The companies argue that, since the company
bears the risk for the equipment, funds, and the passing on of past skills and expertise
for technology development, and the employee inventor is producing knowl-