A Study on the Use of TRIZ for Generating High Value Patents: Focusing on the US Granted Patents of Samsung Electronics Company

가치가 높은 특허 창출을 위한 TRIZ 활용방안 연구: 삼성전자 미국등록 특허를 중심으로

  • Song, MyungWon (Department of Management of Technology, Sungkyungkwan University) ;
  • Park, Young Taek (Department of Management of Technology, Sungkyungkwan University)
  • 송명원 (성균관대학교 기술경영전문대학원) ;
  • 박영택 (성균관대학교 기술경영전문대학원)
  • Received : 2018.10.10
  • Accepted : 2018.11.21
  • Published : 2018.11.30


Patents have been recognized as a core knowledge asset which are closely related with company's technological competitiveness. However, only a small portion of patents are actually contributing to the profit of the company. In addition, it costs a lot of money continuously to maintain the patent rights regardless of their values. Thus, effective methodologies are required to create patents with high values. It is examined what kind of differences exist between high value patents and the others in the use of TRIZ methodologies. For the purpose, we analyzed the US granted patents of Samsung Electronics. The analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the use of inventive principles, but high value patents utilize 'separation by condition' the most where as the others 'separation by space' the most frequently in the use of separation principles. In the use of standard solutions, high value patents use the 'class 2' principles frequently than the others.


  1. 김중현.여형석.박영택(2017). 트리즈 도구별 활용도 분석: S사의 적용사례를 중심으로. 공학교육연구, 20(4), 3-11.
  2. 김효준(2004). 생각의 창의성 TRIZ :Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. 서울: 지혜.
  3. 박강 외(2005). 창의공학: 공학 문제 해결의 길잡이. 인터비전.
  4. 박선영, 박현우, 조만형 2006. 특허분석을 통한 기술혁신과 기업성과의 관계분석. 기술혁신학회지, 9(1), 1-25.
  5. 박영택(2016). 창의발상론. 서울: 한국표준협회미디어.
  6. 박정규.허은녕(2010). 가산자료 회귀모형을 활용한 연료전지 및 태양전지 분야 특허의 질적 수준 결정요인 분석. 기술혁신학회지, 13, 365-378.
  7. 신승후.현병환(2008). 특허 및 논문분석을 이용한 연구생산성 분석 기법에 관한 연구. 기술혁신학회지, 11, 400-429.
  8. 안연식(2010). 기업의 특허 역량이 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증 분석: 우수 벤처기업을 중심으로. 지식경영연구, 11(1), 83-96.
  9. 유경동(2018). 유경동의 특허토커, 조선IT, http://it.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/04/12/2018041285030.html/ (4 Oct 2018).
  10. 이용규.이경원(2003). 트리즈 (러시아의 창의적 문제해결 이론)의 창의적 지식경영에서의 응용, 지식경영연구 4(1), 79-92.
  11. 이원영, 박용태, 윤병운, 신준석, 최창우, 한유진, 김은희(2005). 특허 데이터베이스를 활용한 기술-산업간 연계구조 분석과 한국기업의 특허전략 평가. 과학기술정책연구원.
  12. 임철일, 홍미영, 이선희(2011). 공학교육에서의 창의성 증진을 위한 학습환경 설계모형. 교육공학연구, 14(4), 3-10.
  13. 정찬식(2015). 특허(등록)료로 보는 기업의 특허관리 현황. 지식재산정책, 22, 174-179.
  14. 하정출(2005). 지식경영론, 서울:두남
  15. Albert, M. B. and Narin, F. and McAllister, P. and Avery, D. (1991). Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of Industrially Important Patents. Research Policy, 20 (3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U
  16. Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A., Moore, K.A. and Trunkey, R.D.(2003). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435-480.
  17. Altshuller, G. S.(1984). Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of Solution of Inventive Problems. New York: Gordon and Breach.
  18. Altshuller, G. S.(2007). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Worcester: Technical Innovation Center.
  19. Archibugi, D. and Pianta, M.(1996). Measuring Technological Change through Patents and Innovation Surveys, Technovation, 16 (9), 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(96)00031-4
  20. Arundel, A. and Kabla, I.(1998). What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research policy, 27 (2), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00033-X
  21. Bessen, J.(2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37 (5), 932-945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.005
  22. Borgianni, Y. and Matt, D. T.(2016). Applications of TRIZ and axiomatic design: a comparison to deduce best practices in industry. Procedia CIRP, 39, 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.171
  23. Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht A.(1989) Innovative Output, and a Firm's Propensity to Patent:An Exploration of CIS Micro Data. Research Policy, 28 (6), 615-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00003-7
  24. Cohen, J.(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Drucker, P. F.(1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York : HarperBusiness.
  26. Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D.(2002). Creativity in product innovation. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Griliches, Z. 1991. The search for R&D spillovers (No.w3768), National Bureau of Economic Research.
  28. Harhoff, D. and Narin, F. and Scherer, F. M. and Vopel, K. (1999). Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81 (3), 511-515 https://doi.org/10.1162/003465399558265
  29. Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R.(2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33 (2-3), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.003
  30. Karki, M. M. S.(1997). Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool. World Patent Information 19 (4), 269-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0172-2190(97)00033-1
  31. LENS, https://www.lens.org/ (16 Feb 2018)
  32. Moehrle, M.G.(2005). How Combinations of TRIZ Tools Are Used in Companies - Results of a Cluster Analysis, R&D Management, 35 (3), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00390.x
  33. nARCHITECTS, http://narchitects.com/ (16 Nov 2018)
  34. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R.(1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16 (2-4), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X
  35. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A.(1959). The Processes of Creative Thinking. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
  36. NSF (National Science Foundation, USA) 2018. Science & Engineering Indicators 2018, National Science Board.
  37. Oakley, http://www.oakley.co.kr/ (16 Nov 2018)
  38. Shaughnessy, H.(2013). "What Makes Samsung Such An Innovative Company?," Fobes Online, https://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/03/07/why-is-samsung-such-an-innovative-company/ (1 Mar 2018).
  39. Sohn, S. Y. and Jung, C. S.(2010). Effect of creativity on innovation: do creativity initiatives have significant impact on innovative performance in Korean firms?, Creativity Research Journal, 22 (3), 320-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503542
  40. Spreafico, C., Russo, D.(2016). TRIZ industrial case studies: a critical survey. Procedia CIRP, 39, 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.165
  41. Swann, P. 1993. Inference from Mixed Bags: The Economic Value of Patent Counts, Innovation Counts and the Lake, London Business School:Mimeo
  42. USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office, USA), https://10millionpatents.uspto.gov/ (1 May 2018).
  43. Weisberg, R. W. (2003). Case Studies of Innovation: Ordinary Thinking, Extraordinary Outcomes. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation. Oxford: Pergamon.