Innovation Ecosystems and Networks

WIPO’s global report on IP filings is out and records are being broken. 2024 saw the highest ever patent filings – 3.7 million worldwide. Design filings also peaked at a record 1.6 mln, while trademark filings stabilized after two years of decline. But within this rich trove of data from nearly 150 IP offices, a few deeper insights stand out. First, emerging and developing countries continue to embrace IP-driven growth and transformation, whether driven by the need to diversify engines of growth, support increasing aspirations of local innovators and entrepreneurs, create more attractive investment environments, or simply seek new sources of growth. For the sixth consecutive year, India posts double-digit growth in patent filings, with Türkiye also up some 15%. Among the top 20 countries of origin, 12 saw increases in trademark filings, led by Argentina, Brazil and Indonesia, and with strong growth in upper middle-income economies like Colombia, South Africa, Thailand and Viet Nam. Design filings tell a similar story, with the fastest growth in India, Morocco and Indonesia. What this means is that many emerging economies are following the path of the world’s established innovation powerhouses in using IP as a strategic lever for economic growth, diversification, development and resilience. The next challenge is commercializing more of these filings, so they become real-world products and services. Second, we’re seeing more domestic, or “resident” filings. In areas like trademarks and designs, resident filings have traditionally made up the vast majority (+70%) as local businesses often register IP to protect brands and designs serving domestic markets. Now, we’re seeing the same dynamics in patents. Resident patent filings grew almost 7% last year, the fastest rise since 2016, to 72% of the total. This growth in domestic filings suggests that innovation ecosystems are maturing (even for high-tech discoveries, inventors typically file at home first before expanding abroad). It may also reflect shifts in global trade flows, with some industries becoming more localized. Third, many of the major trends in recent years continue to accelerate. Just as AI and digital innovation dominate the headlines, computer technology remains the top field for patent activity, with its growth outpacing all others. The gender balance in innovation is also improving. The proportion of women inventors in international patent applications has increased from 11.6% in 2010 to 18% last year. Beyond the individual data points, the value of this report lies in what it reveals about the global state of innovation and the direction it’s heading. This year’s WIPI shows that people everywhere continue to believe in the power of IP to protect ideas and incentivize innovation, and it gives WIPO the energy to continue strengthening IP ecosystems everywhere to give these innovators and creators the tools to protect and commercialize their ideas. 🔗 https://ow.ly/gub150XqnE7

Wheel for Sustainable Business Innovation 🌎 The sustainability landscape is evolving rapidly, and businesses are increasingly expected to integrate environmental and social considerations into their innovation processes. However, traditional innovation frameworks often fall short by focusing solely on customer needs, financial returns, and technical feasibility, leaving critical planetary challenges unaddressed. A more comprehensive approach is needed—one that embeds sustainability at the core of value creation. The 130+ Value Proposition Types Wheel is a practical tool that helps organizations frame innovation efforts across four key dimensions: People, Planet, Profit, and Progress. It provides over 130 value types that businesses can leverage to ensure their projects contribute meaningful solutions to global challenges such as climate action, resource efficiency, social inclusion, and technological advancement. This approach shifts the focus beyond immediate customer needs to include long-term sustainability impacts across entire ecosystems. By using structured frameworks like this, companies can link their innovation projects directly to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), addressing critical issues such as climate resilience, biodiversity, and social equity. The tool also encourages the use of metrics to track progress, making sustainability-driven innovation more actionable and measurable across industries. It helps businesses unlock new forms of value while addressing both environmental risks and opportunities. The tool is adaptable to different phases of the innovation process, from identifying unmet needs to scaling solutions in the market. It guides organizations in understanding how their innovations create value in areas such as climate action, circularity, supply chain management, and stakeholder engagement. This makes it relevant for both B2B and B2C companies aiming to enhance their impact while future-proofing their operations. Originally developed by Explorer Labs, this tool has been referenced in the past and continues to remain highly useful as businesses advance their sustainability journeys. As 2025 begins, leveraging tools like this can help organizations move from incremental improvements to transformative solutions, embedding sustainability into innovation processes that deliver lasting value. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #innovation #SDGs

Are we realising the potential of our networks to make change happen? Most innovation emerges from collaborative projects where teams openly “borrow” & adapt each other’s (often small but powerful) ideas. Many networks & communities of practice could achieve so much more by experimenting together around collective priorities to generate & share new solutions. This is beyond spreading known “best” or “good” practices. It is about innovating to design new solutions collectively. So I appreciated this piece from Ed Morrison about three different kinds of networks: - Advocacy networks are communities that seek to mobilise people, creating pressure to shift policies, priorities or messages in a particular direction. Their aim is to connect & influence rather than to change how they themselves work. - Learning networks are communities of practice. They share knowledge, compare practice & build shared capability. Learning networks often excel at spread & improvement of existing practice, but only sometimes move into structured innovation work. - Innovating (or transforming) networks are communities that combine their assets - ideas, relationships, data, capabilities - to create new value that none could produce alone. They manage collaboration as a process of experimentation: agreeing a shared outcome, running multiple connected tests of change, learning by doing & amplifying what works across the network. https://lnkd.in/edbbexiG. Every learning network has the potential to become an innovating/transforming network. Some actions to enable this: 1. Build a foundation of strong, trusting relationships within the network, understanding each member’s starting point & motivation for change 2. Focus on helping each other to succeed; listen to each others’ stories & plans, co-coach, give advice to each other & build shared inquiry 3. Move from “sharing” or “raising awareness” to some concrete outcomes the network want to change together through collective experimentation 4. Agree some simple norms for the network so that members help each other to make progress, make it safe to try things, fail fast & share incomplete work 5. Encourage multiple, parallel tests of change around similar outcome so projects can “steal with pride” from one another & quickly refine promising ideas 6. Put simple routines in place for noticing patterns (what is shifting where & why), capturing these insights & amplifying them across the network 7. Add additional success metrics including innovations tested, adapted & adopted in multiple places Graphic by Ed Morrison. Content with added inspiration from June Holley.

Architects don't just draw boxes. They make change safer and faster When strategic priorities change, new regulation hits, a merger lands, or AI hype enters the roadmap, there is always a risk of misalignment across business, technology and what you deliver to your customers; that misalignment is a major driver of failed transformation. That is what architecture exists to reduce and contain. An Enterprise Architect designs the organisation as a system: operating model, capabilities, information, the technology landscape that enables them and the architectural integration of the enterprise and its environment; customers, partners, vendors. They map the current state, articulate the target state and more importantly, define options. Then create a transformation path built on clear principles and apply governance to realise value usually under pressure. Enterprises exist to create value, which is why ‘architect’ is not just one job. The specialisation reflects which part of the system you are designing: Solution architects translate business needs into end‑to‑end solution designs across domains, working closely with enterprise architects and technical architects. Technical architects design the technical foundations: guardrails, platforms, and engineering standards so teams can build quickly and safely. Understanding this matters because architecture creates coherence that shows up later as: - Better decisions: Leaders see dependencies and trade-offs before committing spend. - Business agility: Clearer interfaces, fewer reworks, and fewer delivery surprises. - Lower risk and cost: Less duplication with security and compliance designed in. - Managed innovation: New models and tech adopted while protecting and stabilising core operations. If you want one test: When your ‘transformation’ roadmap is just a disconnected list of projects; you need architecture. When it is a transformation path with principles, options, and dependencies made explicit; architecture is doing its job. Where is misalignment costing you most: strategy, operating model, or technology? As a leader, make room for your architect to architect. Source: Related Areas adapted from SFIA v9

What lessons can Singapore can learn from the experiences of regulating #AI in the EU, the People's Republic of China, and South Korea? This is the focus of today's #sundAIreads: "A Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Implications for Singapore" by Kit Pang 彭靖洁. In the article, the author addresses the following questions: 1️⃣ What tools are available in the regulatory toolkit? These range from soft regulation (e.g., non-binding guidelines and recommendations) and co-regulation (e.g., self-regulation with some obligations and oversight) to hard regulation (e.g., binding laws and enforcement). 2️⃣ What regulatory tool is appropriate in what context? Here the author draws attention to the so-called Collingridge dilemma, whereby imposing regulation early is difficult due to insufficient information, but implementing regulation at a later stage is equally challenging because a technology and the norms surrounding its use may have already become entrenched. 3️⃣ What particular challenges are associated with AI regulation? These include conceptual ambiguity around the definition of AI, as well as the discreetness, diffuseness, and opacity of AI R&D. 4️⃣ How have different jurisdictions responded to these challenges? With the #AIAct, the EU has opted for horizontal hard regulation, which provides robust protections for fundamental rights, but may hinder innovation and make it more difficult to respond to unforeseen AI developments in the future. China's approach, by contrast, comprises both soft regulation, e.g., the New Generation AI Development Plan (#AIDP), and hard regulation, e.g., the Algorithm Recommendation Regulation, Deep Synthesis Regulation, and Generative AI Regulation. The goal in each case is to make China a world leader in AI, while maintaining political and social stability. China's approach is agile and iterative, allowing the regulatory landscape to adapt. At the same time, strategic ambiguity encourages a culture of over-compliance. Finally, South Korea so far does not impose onerous obligations on AI. The main legal instrument intended to govern AI is the AI Basic Act, which, in comparison to the AI Act, is a scaled-down risk-based regulation focused on protecting society against emerging threats, while also promoting the local AI industry. 5️⃣ What lessons can Singapore draw from these experiences? Singapore aspires to become a global AI hub. Toward that end, it has adopted a "masterly inactivity" approach, monitoring and engaging with local industry and international regulatory bodies, before deciding if and how to regulate AI. A shift toward hard regulation may, however, occur, as soon as Singapore decides it can make an informed decision. Ultimately, Singapore is likely to adopt a best-of-both-worlds approach to regulating AI: focused on enabling innovation, while maintaining regulatory interoperability. The full article, well worth reading, is available here: https://bit.ly/43MdAP9.

When I started building my brand ecosystem publicly, everything shifted. The traditional advice says, "build it and they will come." But after studying founder brands, I've learned that most founders are stuck choosing between getting attention and maintaining integrity. Last year, I watched a brilliant entrepreneur struggle with this exact paradox. When I shared my Brand Trust Equation with her, something beautiful happened. Here's what I learned about building in public through systematic brand development: 1. Identity System Transparency Share your core messaging, positioning, and values openly. Building your identity in public creates accountability for authentic choices. Your audience connects with the journey, not just the destination. 2. Content System Broadcasting Document your strategic output across all platforms transparently. Sharing your content framework helps others while establishing your authority. Your systematic approach demonstrates professionalism and intentionality. 3. Experience System Documentation Show how people interact with your brand at every touchpoint. Building your customer journey in public creates better experiences for everyone. Your process transparency helps prospects know exactly what to expect. 4. Conversion System Sharing Reveal how attention becomes revenue in your business model. Building your funnel in public demonstrates the value of systematic thinking. Your transparent approach shows prospects the clear path forward. 5. Lighthouse Content Strategy Create cornerstone pieces that attract your ideal audience while repelling everyone else. Building your manifesto, methodology, case studies, and vision in public establishes authority. Your transparent philosophy becomes a filter for quality connections. This approach builds long-term brand equity instead of short-term attention. 6. Platform Synergy Framework Show how different platforms serve different purposes in your ecosystem. Building your multi-platform strategy in public creates strategic alignment. Other founders learn how to maximize impact across channels. This isn't just about building brands, it's about creating beautiful, systemized, and authentic businesses that serve both founders and their communities. When you build your brand ecosystem in public, you're not just attracting attention. You're building trust through the Brand Trust Equation: (Consistency × Authenticity × Value) ÷ Self-Promotion. The solution isn't choosing between integrity and attention, it's building systems that deliver both simultaneously through transparent, value-first brand development. The future belongs to those brave enough to build their brand systems in public. __ Enjoy this? ♻️ Repost it to your network and follow Matt Gray for more. Curious how this could look inside your business? DM me ‘System’ and I’ll walk you through how we help clients make it happen. This is for high-commitment founders only.

Part 2: 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀: 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (Part 1: see https://lnkd.in/eNP8ih5Y) (Part 3: see https://lnkd.in/eYAnkeVS) Michael Porter’s Five Forces framework has shaped how managers and academics analyze industries. It remains an elegant way to map the external environment at the industry level. Porter’s view of strategy, however, was forged in an era when industries were stable, boundaries were clear, and competitive advantage was largely internal. The external environment was portrayed as hostile: every force around the firm—suppliers, buyers, new entrants, rivals, and substitutes—was a potential threat to profitability. Strategy was about defending margins, erecting barriers, and capturing value. But today’s reality is far more fluid. Industries blend into one another, technologies converge, and value is co-created across networks. The same actors that once appeared only as adversaries have become indispensable partners for innovation, agility, and growth. Competitors may share platforms; suppliers co-develop technologies; customers co-create solutions; and substitutes may reveal entirely new markets. If we look at the business world through this new lens, Porter’s five “forces” can also be five “sources” of advantage. Collaboration doesn’t replace competition—it complements it. The real challenge for managers is to find the balance point along a continuum that runs from pure competition to deep collaboration. * Competitors remain rivals, but also potential partners in standard-setting, data sharing, or open-source development. * New entrants are disruptors, but also agile innovators with whom incumbents can partner, invest, or co-develop. * Suppliers can squeeze margins—but when engaged early in design, they become co-innovators. Toyota’s keiretsu model and Unilever’s annual innovation summits with strategic suppliers both show how collaboration can yield efficiency and renewal. * Customers may demand more, but their insights and data now drive innovation. Co-creation platforms—from LEGO Ideas to Tesla’s user forums—turn buyers into creative partners. * Substitutes, once seen only as threats, can signal new opportunities. Netflix, for instance, transformed from a DVD substitute to a platform that redefined how entertainment is consumed. The comparative table below contrasts Porter’s competitive interpretation of each force with a collaborative perspective—a framework better suited when success depends as much on connection as on protection. #Strategy #Innovation #Ecosystems #Collaboration #OpenInnovation #DigitalTransformation #Leadership #BusinessStrategy #MichaelPorter #BlueOceanStrategy #Coopetition #Agility #ValueCreation #Management

AI is no longer just about smarter models, it’s about building entire ecosystems of intelligence. This year we’ve seeing a wave of new ideas that go beyond simple automation. We have autonomous agents that can reason and work together, as well as AI governance frameworks that ensure trust and accountability. These concepts are laying the groundwork for how AI will be developed, used, and integrated into our daily lives. This year is less about asking “what can AI do?” and more about “how do we shape AI responsibly, collaboratively, and at scale?” Here’s a closer look at the most important trends : 🔹 Agentic AI & Multi-Agent Collaboration, AI agents now work together, coordinate tasks, and act with autonomy. 🔹 Protocols & Frameworks (A2A, MCP, LLMOps), these are standards for agent communication, universal context-sharing, and operations frameworks for managing large language models. 🔹 Generative & Research Agents, these self-directed agents create, code, and even conduct research, acting as AI scientists. 🔹 Memory & Tool-Using Agents, persistent memory provides long-term context, while tool-using models can call APIs and external functions on demand. 🔹 Advanced Orchestration, this involves coordinating multiple agents, retrieval 2.0 pipelines, and autonomous coding agents that build software without human help. 🔹 Governance & Responsible AI, AI governance frameworks ensure ethics, compliance, and explainability stay important as adoption increases. 🔹 Next-Gen AI Capabilities, these include goal-driven reasoning, multi-modal LLMs, emotional context AI, and real-time adaptive systems that learn continuously. 🔹 Infrastructure & Ecosystems, featuring AI-native clouds, simulation training, synthetic data ecosystems, and self-updating knowledge graphs. 🔹 AI in Action, applications range from robotics and swarm intelligence to personalized AI companions, negotiators, and compliance engines, making possibilities endless. This is the year when AI shifts from tools to ecosystems, forming a network of intelligent, autonomous, and adaptive systems. Wonder what’s coming next. #GenAI

One data point worth pausing on… According to the latest Sightline Climate (CTVC) analysis (https://lnkd.in/ezEChF5h), TDK Ventures was the most active corporate VC in climate tech in 2025 by deal count. In that context, being at the top of the list feels less like an accolade and more like a mirror held up to the market. At this point, the scale of what is happening in energy is no longer debatable. AI-driven power demand, grid modernization, electrification, and industrial transformation are converging fast. The need for clean, firm, and resilient energy is no longer cyclical or thematic. It’s structural. Against that backdrop, being highly active shouldn’t feel exceptional. It raises a different question: if this opportunity is so clear, who is choosing not to lean in, or not to stay the course? Most of the technologies that truly move the needle — grid infrastructure, long-duration storage, advanced materials, power electronics, and AI-enabling systems — do not fit neatly into short funding cycles or hype-driven timelines. They demand endurance paired with conviction. We see this firsthand across our 2025 investments and broader portfolio: - Grid-scale and long-duration storage with Peak Energy, including a $500M+ deployment agreement reshaping the economics of the grid - Advanced grid infrastructure and power electronics through Amperesand’s $80M raise for solid-state transformer technology - AI infrastructure at the physical layer, from photonics with Mixx Technologies Inc’ $33M Series A to inference compute with Groq’s $750M recent funding round (and $20B moment) - Electrification at scale, from industrial systems to mobility, including Ultraviolette Automotive’s electric motorcycles in India - Edge and systems intelligence, with EdgeCortix as our first investment in Japan, bringing AI closer to where energy and data meet - Data center and logistics infrastructure, from Nubis Communications’ acquisition by Ciena to Starship Technologies’ $50M Series C for autonomous delivery What is emerging across the ecosystem is a clear divide: 🔹 Plenty of capital is willing to show up early 🔹 Far less capital is willing to remain engaged when progress is nonlinear, engineering-heavy, and occasionally quiet At TDK Ventures, we invest with urgency because the transition demands action, but we approach the work with endurance, mindful that only patient capital has the chance to compound over time. Conviction without endurance fades. Endurance without conviction stalls. From that perspective, this moment is less about volume than about consistency: the responsibility to remain engaged in sectors that matter, even when they are capital-intensive, technically complex, or temporarily out of favor. The work continues. And so does the commitment.

We have just released first edition of WIPO's 𝐈𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 (ICO) - a new annual report offering data-driven insights into how countries can better develop and connect their innovation capabilities. Developed by World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO Intellectual Property Organization in partnership with Harvard's Growth Lab, the report analyzes 2.5 billion data points across 193 economies. The central message of the report is that innovation success depends not only on individual strengths, but on how science, technology, entrepreneurship and production interact as an ecosystem. Key findings include: •   The world can use the existing innovation capabilities more efficiently: By better leveraging existing capabilities, countries could generate up to 26% more technologies, 15% more entrepreneurial innovations and 12% more scientific discoveries each year. •   Most economies have not yet developed complex technological capabilities: Technological capabilities in patents are among the most demanding to develop, yet also the most rewarding. Less than 5% of the countries have succeeded in building them. •   Developing more complex innovation capabilities is critical for long-term success: Each year, only one in three countries upgrades its capabilities towards rarer and more-rewarding fields of innovation. The ICO adds a new layer to the WIPO flagship the Global Innovation Index, to understand where countries are performing well, where gaps remain and how they can build on existing strengths. In the coming months, we will release country-level data to help you better understand how individual economies are performing and how they can further improve by better leveraging and connecting the capabilities they already have to boost technological, entrepreneurial and scientific innovation. Explore the ICO to see how countries are building stronger innovation ecosystems: https://lnkd.in/ekD-GBAy Many thanks to all our WIPO colleagues and the Harvard Growth Lab led by Ricardo Hausmann for their outstanding work on this first edition. #InnovationEcosystem #InnovationPolicy #GlobalInnovation #WIPO