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

Earlier today the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves outlined her growth strategy for the UK, presenting a vision for turning the country into "Europe's Silicon Valley." But to create genuine innovation ecosystems, we need to understand what made Silicon Valley successful in the first place. It wasn't just about reducing barriers - it was about decades of strategic (entrepreneurial) public investments actively shaping and creating markets. The UK has historically underinvested compared to its peers. Public investment has averaged just 2.6% of GDP over the last 25 years versus the G7 average of 3.5% and OECD average of 3.7%. While the UK has now reached the OECD average of 2.7% for gross domestic expenditure on R&D, the UK can and must do better to emulate Silicon Valley’s success. Tax breaks alone aren't enough - currently, the UK provides about twice as much tax relief as direct funding for business R&D. Recent lessons from the US demonstrate that public funding can be made conditional on business investment in areas like R&D, helping to de-financialize businesses that attempt to reap profits without real investment. But without the right institutions, it will be hard for the UK to compete with the US and China. We have relatively weak public financial institutions - nowhere near the scale of Brazil's BNDES or Germany's KfW (see my paper with Laurie Macfarlane below). Compare Germany's Fraunhofer system (€3.4bn/year, 32,000 staff, 76 centers) with the UK Catapult network (£1.6bn over 5 years). Real innovation ecosystems need sustained funding and institutional networks that connect research to markets. An entrepreneurial state isn't about top-down direction - it's about dynamic networks catalyzing innovation across entire value chains. ---- 🔗 The Entrepreneurial State: https://lnkd.in/eR_8pxiH 🔗 Industrial Policy with Conditionalities: https://lnkd.in/e-PrNF47 🔗 Mission-oriented development banks: https://lnkd.in/eEKrNcSC 🔗 Mission-oriented Industrial Strategy: https://lnkd.in/eHDNeiNu 🔗 Mission-oriented Policy Hub: https://lnkd.in/ePZtUTKg

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.

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.

🌿🌍 Sustainable innovation is coming at the forefront of business discussions lately, and I'd like to share some thoughts. I propose defining sustainable innovation as “a type of innovation process that deliberately integrates environmental and social considerations into the development of new products, services, or business models, with the explicit goal of creating long-term positive impact at both organizational and systemic levels.” Importantly, it should help companies and entire systems function within our planet's boundaries. However, the path to sustainable innovation is fraught with challenges. In my experience, there are four significant hurdles: 1. 🧠 Lack of relevant human capital: Many organizations simply don't have the specialized expertise needed to address complex sustainability challenges. This knowledge gap can severely hamper innovation efforts. 2. 🏗️ Underdeveloped organizational capabilities: Even with the right people, companies often lack the structures, processes, incentives, and cultures necessary to foster sustainable innovation. Developing these capabilities requires significant time and investment. 3. 🔍 Insufficient absorptive capacity: Many firms struggle to identify, assimilate, and apply existing sustainable technologies. This is about having the internal capacity to understand and implement these innovations effectively. 4. 🤝 Dearth of stakeholder-oriented mindsets: For decades, business education has focused on shareholder primacy. Shifting to a more holistic, stakeholder-centric approach is not just a matter of policy change; it requires a fundamental rewiring of how business leaders think and operate. When it comes to measuring sustainable innovation, we're in a period of profound experimentation. 🧪 Companies are actively testing various initiatives, products, and business models in pursuit of sustainability. We're in the early stages of this journey, and failure is an inherent part of the process. This state of flux makes measurement challenging, as there's no established playbook or universal metrics. Given this complexity, we should embrace diverse measurement approaches as we learn from both successes and failures. 📊 Ultimately, we must remember that sustainable innovation isn't just about individual companies or technologies – it's about systemic change. 🔄 This change occurs at multiple levels: individual, organizational, regulatory, governmental, and institutional. The challenge lies in the fact that our systems can only evolve as quickly as their slowest components. As we continue to innovate for sustainability, we must keep this broader context in mind, striving for solutions that can accelerate change across all levels of our global systems. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. What examples have you seen of sustainable innovation that you believe have had positive systemic impacts? Please share your experiences and insights below! 💬 #ESG #Innovation #SustainableInnovation #Climate

Country leaders are too obsessed with unicorns. Months back, Malaysia said it would invest $211 million, To build their local startup ecosystem. “Capital market needs to be “more lively” for more local unicorns” - Malaysia PM, Anwar. To be clear, this is not an isolated focus. Many other countries like Singapore, Indonesia in the region have had similar goals. As though unicorns alone are the be-all-end-all result. I don’t get it. It could be a poor choice of words... # of unicorns shouldn’t be the ultimate measure of the success of a startup ecosystem. My take: ✳️ There are many more factors that are leading indicators of a healthy ecosystem. Measuring it by the success of a select few unicorns is a flawed approach. The impact is muted and limited to a few successes, but you could still see the ecosystem flounder. This doesn’t only apply to Malaysia, but to other countries as well. Prioritising only unicorn creation can lead to rapid yet unstable growth, rather than long-term viability. Consider these indicators instead: 1️⃣ GDP impact How does the entrepreneurial landscape influence economic growth? 2️⃣ Founder quality Are they innovative, driven, and capable of creating lasting impact? 3️⃣ Talent attraction and retention Is the current ecosystem a hub for skilled professionals who would join startups? 4️⃣ Capital redeployment How effectively is capital being channeled to fuel innovation? 5️⃣ The ecosystem’s entrepreneurial appeal Are aspiring entrepreneurs inspired to take the leap in this ecosystem? 5️⃣ Is there creation of value which are recycled? Are investors being compensated for their risk and are they reinvesting their capital? A few mega-successes alone are not enough to propel local startups. We need to lift and enable founders with ambitions to thrive, Whether or not they turn out to be unicorns. What do you think?

In 15 years, I have never dived into the politics of this space, but this article has prompted me to do so. The move to increase thresholds to $4.5 million in assets could severely impact the funding of Innovation in Australia. It could set Australia's funding of innovation back 5 to 10 years, as well as take away opportunities from investors to build their own wealth from this space. As the founder of Wholesale Investor, I've witnessed firsthand how current thresholds empower a diverse range of investors to participate in transformative ventures, especially in sectors like tech, renewable energy, and life sciences. This ecosystem has been significantly empowered by HNW Investors, far beyond what is reported in the media or acknowledged in this current proposal. From a media perspective, this space is funded by VCs and Crowdfunding because their models go hand in hand with self-promotion in the media. Your average HNW is not paying PR firms to get visibility in the media, and they are not building relationships with journalists to cover their investments. In fact, many of them like to remain private about their own dealings. It is for this reason that they will not get a voice in this issue. In reality, go and ask every Australian success story where they would be without the early stage High Net worth investment they received. Survey the High Net Worth's and ask them how they feel about not being able to access or participate in the companies they are passionate about and want to support their stories. Private Market funding is vital right now for many innovative companies! HNW investors are a cornerstone part of this funding. Raising the bar will not only restrict these opportunities for many but will also drive our innovators to seek funding overseas earlier or simply not be able to raise the capital they require. This stifles Australian innovation at a time when we should be nurturing it the most. While protecting investors is crucial, there must be a balance. The proposed changes could inadvertently harm the very ecosystem that's driving our future growth. Let's find solutions that protect without hindering progress. https://lnkd.in/ghkUa6pZ Campbell Newman AO #Investment #Innovation #PolicyChange"

I’ve put together this visual map of the Data and AI Engineering tech stack for 2025. It’s not just a collection of logos — it’s a window into how quickly this space is evolving!!!! Here’s why we felt this was important to create: - Data and AI Are Converging -- Once, data engineering and AI engineering were separate disciplines. Now, they’re overlapping more than ever. Teams are using the same tools to build pipelines, train models, and deliver analytics products. - Modern Orchestration and Observability -- Today, orchestration isn’t just about scheduling jobs. It’s about managing complex dependencies, data quality, lineage, and integrating with modern compute environments. Observability has become essential for trust, compliance, and reliability. - A Surge in MLOps and Practitioner Tools -- The ecosystem of tools supporting machine learning practitioners has exploded. It’s not just model training anymore — it’s about reproducibility, monitoring, fairness, and deploying models safely into production. The rise of vector databases and new analytics engines reflects how AI workloads are changing infrastructure demands. - Metadata and Governance Take Center Stage -- As data volumes grow, the need to manage metadata, ensure governance, and maintain data quality has become a top priority. The number of solutions focused on catalogs, lineage, and privacy is rapidly expanding. - Architectures Are Evolving for New Workloads -- Generative AI, real-time analytics, and low-latency applications are putting pressure on traditional batch-oriented systems. We’re seeing significant shifts in compute engines, storage formats, and streaming technologies to keep pace. The takeaway is simple: this ecosystem is in constant motion. New categories emerge. Existing ones blur. Enterprises and practitioners alike have more choices than ever before. We created this visual to help make sense of it all — and to spark discussion. I’m curious: - Which parts of this stack do you see transforming the fastest? - Are there any categories where innovation feels especially urgent or overdue? - Which tools have changed how you work over the past year? Let’s discuss where this fast-moving world is headed next.

After mapping over 850 members of Climate Crew's Sydney network (CC.SYD), I've confirmed a key pattern: The success of our climate transition will not be defined by a single 'hero' technology. It will be defined by the speed and quality of our connections. A brilliant solution in a silo is a failed solution. A fund with no one to deploy to is just a number. The real 'work' is done by the connectors – the people who build the 'soft infrastructure' that allows capital, ideas and talent to flow. This is why I'm launching the 'Climate Catalysts' series: to spotlight the movers and shakers who are doing this critical, connective work. For this first post, I'm sharing my 'A-Team' of leaders doing the 5 essential roles required to turn an idea into real-world impact. 1. The Strategist: This is our 'why'. We need leaders like Linda Romanovska, who operate at the highest level to write the rulebook for sustainable finance (for the EU and EFRAG) that guides the entire market. (Also learn about Victoria Whitaker and Thierry Lotrian in the carousel.) 2. The Architect: This is our 'where'. We need community builders like Mark Rowland, who design the 'soft infrastructure' (like Climate Action Week Sydney) for all the other roles to connect and collide. (Also learn about Tony Gourlay and Anita Kolni in the carousel.) 3. The Funder: This is our 'how'. We need 'smart capital' from people like Priyanka K., a 'new guard' climate tech investor who finds, funds and provides commercial advice to early-stage startups. (Also learn about Geoff Sinclair and Mac Christopherson in the carousel). 4. The Ecosystem Builder: This is our 'engine'. We need program leaders like Mick Liubinskas (Climate Salad, Startmate), the 'godfather' of the startup ecosystem who builds the entire network for climate tech. (Also learn about Elisa-Marie Dumas and Dane Murray 👨🏼🚀 in the carousel.) 5. The Corporate Champion: This is our 'gateway'. We need in-house champions like Abigail Thomas, the Head of Sustainability at SBS, who leads real-world implementation and unlocks corporate scale to 'pull' innovation into the mainstream. (Also learn about Giselle N. and Nathan Robertson-Ball in the carousel). The pattern is clear: when these 5 roles are present and connected, solutions get built. When one is missing, good ideas get stuck. Who is a key 'connector' in your network? Tag a leader who you see bridging these roles. #ClimateAction #ClimateCommunity #ClimateLeadership #ClimateCrew #ClimateTech

🚀 Out today! New DemocracyNext paper I’ve co-written with Sammy McKinney about “scaling catalysts” - the organisations who are playing an important role in scaling democratic innovations in their regions. Through interviews with 22 leaders and ecosystem actors connected to nine leading deliberative democracy organisations across three continents, we identify six features of effective scaling catalysts: 1️⃣ Explicit scaling strategy 2️⃣ Relational approach to change 3️⃣ Strong commitment to quality 4️⃣ Bridging the local and the global 5️⃣ Dynamic leadership with interdisciplinary teams 6️⃣ Investment in physical space. We also examine critical tensions these organisations face as they navigate various trade-offs, such as coordination and collaboration challenges, and maintaining autonomy amid funding pressures. And we identify five frontiers for scaling democratic innovation beyond individual organisations: 1️⃣ Deliberative technologies 2️⃣ Education 3️⃣ Legal frameworks 4️⃣ Community infrastructure 5️⃣ Public communication In times when much of the focus around scaling deliberative and participatory practices revolves around deploying technology, especially AI, our findings emphasise the human, relational, social, and political dimensions that are essential for quality scaling, as well as some of the complex challenges that require navigation and attention. Our findings emphasise that scaling democratic innovations requires investing in the civic infrastructure that is necessary to grow the field’s salience and impact in times of increasing democratic decline. Have a read, and let us know what you think!