Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value

Research Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1631-1645

  Sapsalis, Elefthérios ^a   van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno ^a,b   Navon, Ran ^a  

^a SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT   (Belgium)

^b CEPR   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Academic patent; Biotechnology; Citations; Patent value

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DATA REDUCTION; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ACADEMIC PATENTS; CITATIONS; PATENT VALUE;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 33751232350     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.014     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T., 2005. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. Research Paper. Columbia University.
2. Breschi S., Lissoni F., and Montobbio F. Open science and university patenting: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian case, Chapter 4. In: Peeters C., and Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. (Eds). Economic and Management Perspectives on Intellectual Property Rights (2005), Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, UK 83-103
3. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F. The scientific productivity of academic inventors: new evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, in press.
4. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., Walsh, J., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper, No. 7552.
5. Dernis H., Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. OECD, STI Review 27 (2001) 129-146
6. Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effect of the new university-industry linkage. Research Policy 27 8 (1998) 823-833
7. Glänzel W., Meyer M., Schlemmer B., Du Plessis M., Thijs B., Magerman B., Debackere K., and Veuglers R. Biotechnology: An Analysis Based on Publications and Patents (2003), Steunput O&O Statistieken, Leuven, Belgium
8. Geuna, A., Nesta, L., 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35 (6), 790-807.
9. Grandstrand O. The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property (1999), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA
10. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28 4 (1990) 1661-1707
11. Griliches, Z., Pakes, A., Hall, B.H., 1986. The value of patents as indicators of inventive activity. NBER Working Paper, No. 2083.
12. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Applications, grants and the value of patents. Economics Letters 69 1 (2000) 109-114
13. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. The value of patents and patenting strategies: countries and technology areas patterns. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11 2 (2002) 133-148
14. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. From R&D to productivity growth: do the sources of funds and institutional settings matter?. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 66 3 (2004) 353-376
15. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2000. Market value and patent citations: a first look. NBER Working Paper, No. 7741.
16. Hall B., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics 36 1 (2005) 16-38
17. Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F.M., and Vopel K. Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics 81 3 (1999) 511-515
18. Harhoff D., and Reitzig M. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22 4 (2004) 443-480
19. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., and Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights. Research Policy 32 8 (2003) 1343-1363
20. Henderson R., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. University as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80 1 (1998) 119-127
21. Jaffe A. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79 5 (1989) 957-970
22. Lanjouw J. patent protection in the shadow of infringement: simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies 65 4 (1998) 671-710
23. Lanjouw, J.O., Pakes, A., Putnam, J., 1996. How to count patents and value intellectual property: uses of patent renewal and application data. NBER Working Paper, No. 5741.
24. Lanjouw, J., Schankerman, M., 1997. Stylised facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership. NBER Working Paper, No. 6297.
25. Lanjouw, J., Schankerman, M., 1999. The quality of ideas: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working Paper, No. 7345.
26. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics 25 2 (1994) 319-332
27. Liebeskind J., and Oliver A. From handshake to contract: Trust, intellectual property, and the social structure of academic research. In: Lane C., and Bachman R. (Eds). Trust With and Between Organizations (1999), Oxford University Press, NY, USA
28. Liebeskind J. Risky business universities and intellectual. Academe On Line 87 5 (2001). http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2001/01SO/so01lie.htm
29. Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 20 1 (1991) 1-12
30. Mansfield E. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics 77 1 (1995) 55-65
31. Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings. Research Policy 26 (1998) 773-776
32. Mansfield E., and Lee J.-Y. The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy 25 7 (1996) 1047-1058
33. McMillan G., Narin F., and Deeds D. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Research Policy 29 1 (2000) 1-8
34. Meyer M., Siniläinen T., and Utecht J. Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: a study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics 58 2 (2003) 321-350
35. Mowery D., Nelson R.R., Sampat B., and Ziedonis A. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy 30 1 (2001) 99-119
36. Mowery D., Sampat B., and Ziedonis A. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of the U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole act, 1981-1992. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 73-89
37. Mowery D., and Ziedonis A. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy 31 3 (2002) 399-418
38. Narin F., Hamilton K., and Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy 26 3 (1997) 317-330
39. OECD. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook (2002), OECD, Paris, France
40. Owen-Smith J., and Powell W. The expending role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy (2003) 1695-1711
41. Pakes A., and Simpson M. Patent renewal data. Brookings papers on economic activity. Microeconomics (1989) 331-401
42. Peeters C., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Innovation strategy and the patenting performances of large firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 66 3 (2006) 353-378
43. Powell W., and Owen-Smith J. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17 (1998) 253-277
44. Reitzig M. What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy 32 1 (2003) 13-26
45. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy 33 6-7 (2004) 939-957
46. Sampat B., Mowery D., and Ziedonis A. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 9 (2003) 371-1390
47. Sapsalis E., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Insight into the patenting performance of Belgian universities. Brussels Economic Review 46 3 (2003) 37-58
48. Sapsalis E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, in press. Available also on CEB Working Papers, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Solvay Business School, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB), WP-CEB 04-003.
49. Saragossi S., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. What patent data reveals about universities-the case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 1 (2003) 47-51
50. Schankerman M., and Pakes A. Estimations of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. The Economic Journal 96 384. (1986) 1052-1076
51. Scherer F., and Harhoff D. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 29 4-5 (2000) 559-566
52. Shane S. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science 47 2 (2001) 205-220
53. Stevens G.A., and Burley J. 3,000 raw ideas equals 1 commercial success!. Research Technology Management 40 3 (1997) 16-27
54. Teece D. Managing Intellectual Capital (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
55. Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., and Jaffe A. University versus corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 5 (1997) 19-50
56. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., 2006. Publication and patent behaviour of academic researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=874905.
57. Zucker L., Darby M., and Brewer M. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US technology enterprises. American Economic Review 88 (1998) 290-306
58. Zucker L., Darby M., and Armstrong J. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 138-153