I work as a consultant in industrial automation, so I've had a chance to see a fairly wide range of different corporate cultures. Among those with PhDs on staff, I've noticed a tendency for the PhDs and BS/MS engineers to group up into separate political factions. Amongst the engineers, there is a stereotyped perception that the PhDs (especially fresh PhDs) are oblivious to the practical considerations of building a product.
Many companies talk about wanting to encourage innovation in principle but, in practice, they generally favor lower-risk tried-and-true methods that complete the projects as efficiently as possible, in order to maximize profits. Research is inherently a high-risk endeavor; it appears as a red line item on the company ledger, with a return on investment that is tricky to quantify.
Since PhDs are trained as researchers, I suspect they will often approach projects from a research perspective, in order to study the problem and find good solutions. Engineers are more likely to dig through an existing box of solutions, find the ones that are 'good enough' for the requirements, then design/implement accordingly. There is some crossover of course, especially in the companies with healthy cross-culture dynamics, but this 'gap' does create some challenges.
If I were a hiring manager for a non-research position, I'd generally have a few concerns when interviewing a PhD candidate. a) How much more will they want to be paid? b) How much work experience do they have outside research? c) Will they want to stay in this position or will they move on as soon as a research opportunity pops up?
Basically, if applying for an entry-level technical position in industry, expect to face the same biases as any other 'green' candidate looking for their first job, but amplified by the perception that a PhD is going to want to earn more and possibly won't stick around. If applying for a research position, you'll likely have fewer hurdles to overcome, but I don't have much experience in this area to say for certain.