Exploring the "value" of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for Third-Stream indicators

Scientometrics

Volumn 70, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 415-440

  Meyer, Martin S ^a,b,c   Tang, Puay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846390642     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-0210-9     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. ALLISON, J. R., LEMLEY, M. A. (1998), Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 26 (3): 187-275.
2. ALLISON, J. R., LEMLEY, M. A., MOORE, K. A., TRUNKEY, R. D. (2003), Valuable patents. In: Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series (University of California, Berkeley).
3. BEBCHUK, L. (1994), Litigation and settlement under imperfect information, RAND Journal of Economics, 15 : 404-415.
4. HESSEN, J., HUNT, R. M. (2004), An Empirical Look at Software Patents, National Bureau of Economics Research, Working Paper No. 03-17/R.
5. BUTLER, L., (2003), Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas, Research Evaluation, 12 (1): 39-46.
6. CLARK, B., (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, Kidlington, Pergamon.
7. DEBACKERE, K., GLÄNZEL, W. (2004), Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key, Scientometrics, 59 (2): 253-276.
8. DERNIS, H., GUELLEC, D., VAN POTTELSBERGHE, B. (2001), Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output, STI Review, 27: 129-146.
9. EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENTERPRISE. (1998), First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe, Brussels.
10. EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENTERPRISE. (1998), Green Paper on Innovation, Brussels.
11. EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENTERPRISE. (2000), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy, Luxembourg.
12. ETZKOWITZ, H., LEYDESDORFF, L. (2000), The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy, 29 (2): 109-123.
13. FTC/DOJ. (2003), How to Promote Innovation Through Balancing Competition with Patent Law and Policy, Washington, D.C.
14. FLEMING, L., SORENSON, O. (2001), Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data, Research Policy, 30 (7): 1019-1039.
15. GRANSTRAND, O. (2000), The shift toward intellectual capitalism - the role of infocom technologies, Research Policy, 29 (9): 1061-1080.
16. GRAHAM, S. J. H., HALL B. H., HARHOFF, D., MOWERY, D. C. (2002), Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of U.S. Patent Re-Examinations and European Patent Oppositions. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 8807: 1-44.
17. GUELLEC, D., VAN POTTELSBERGHE DE LA POTTERIE, B. (2000), Applications, grants and the value concept, Economic Letters, 69 (1): 109-114.
18. HALL, B. H., ZIEDONIS, R. H. (2001), The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, Rand Journal of Economics, 20 (1): 101-128.
19. HARHOFF, D., SCHERER, F. M., VOPEL, K. (1997), Exploring the Tail of Patent Value Distribution [cited July 26 2004]. Available from http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/1997/iv97-27.pdf
20. HENDERSON, R., JAFFE, A. B. et al. (1998), Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of University Patenting, 1965-1988, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1): 119-127.
21. HSIEH, C. (2004), How can we identify technological opportunities ahead of time? Manuscript, Washington University, St. Louis. Paper at the Academy of Management Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 2004. Available from www.econ.upf.edu/docs/seminars/recruiting/chihmaohsieh.pdf
22. IVERSEN, E. J., KALOUDIS, A. (2003), IP Valuation as a Tool to Sustain Innovation, STEP Report 17-2003, STEP Centre for Innovation Research, Oslo.
23. JAFFE, A., TRAJTENBERG, M. (1995), Flows of knowledge from universities and federal labs: modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences Colloquium on Science, Technology, and the Economy. Cited after HSIEH (2004).
24. JAFFE, A. B., TRAJTENBERG, M. (2002), Patents, Citations, Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
25. KORTUM, S., LERNER, J. (1997), Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What Is behind the Recent Surge in Patenting? Washington, D.C., National Bureau of Economic Research.
26. LAMBERT, R. (2003), Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, Final Report, H.M. Treasury.
27. LANJOUW, J. O., PAKES, A., PUTNAM, J. (1998), How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data, The Journal of Industrial Economics, XLVI (4): 405-432.
28. LANJOUW, J. O., SCHANKERMAN, M. (1999), The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 7345.
29. LANJOUW, J. O., SCHANKERMAN, M. (2001), Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition, RAND Journal of Economics, 32 (1): 129-151.
30. LANJOUW, J. O., SCHANKERMAN, M. (2001), Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights. Available from http://sticerd/se.ac.uk/dps/ei/ ei30.pdf
31. LANJOUW, J. O., SCHANKERMAN, M. (2002), An empirical analysis of the enforcement of patent rights in the United States. Paper read at New Research on the Operation of the Patent System, at Washington, D.C.
32. LERNER, J. (2001), 150 Years of Patent Protection. National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 7428.
33. MACDONALD, S. (2004), When means becomes ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation, Journal of Information Economics and Policy, 16: 135-158.
34. MACHLUP, F. (1958), An Economic Review of the Patent System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate.
35. MEYER, M., Du PLESSIS, M., TUKEVA, T., UTECHT, J. T. (2005), Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems, Scientometrics, 63 (1): 145-161.
36. MOLAS-GALLART, J. (2004), Measuring and funding the 'Third Mission': the UK.policy debate. In: R. WINK (Ed.), Academia-Business Links, European Policy Strategies and Lessons Learnt. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp.74-89.
37. MOLAS-GALLART, J., SALTER, A., PATEL P. (2002), Measuring Third Stream Activities: Final Report, the Russell Group in the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton, SPRU, University of Sussex.
38. MOWERY, D. C., ZIEDONIS, A. A. (2002), Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States, Research Policy, 31 (3): 399-418.
39. MOWERY, D. C., NELSON, R. R., SAMPAT, B. N., ZIEDONIS, A. A. (1999), The effects of the Bayh-Dole act on US university research and technology transfer: an analysis of data from the Columbia University, the University of California, and Stanford University. In: L. BRANSCOMB, R. FLORIDA, (Eds), Industrializing Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 269-306.
40. OECD, (2003), Turning Science into Business, OECD, Paris.
41. PAKES, A., SCHANKERMAN, M. (1984), The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In: R&D, Patents and Productivity, Z. GRILICHES (Ed.), The University of Chicago Press, pp. 98-112.
42. PETRUSSON, U. (2004), Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship: Creating Wealth in the Intellectual Value Chain. CIP: Gothenburg.
43. PRIEST, G. L., KLEIN, B. (1984), The selection of disputes for litigation, Journal of Legal Studies, XIII: 1-55.
44. REITZIG, M. (2003), What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry, Research Policy, 32 (1): 13-26.
45. RIORDAN, B. (2000), What's driving patent and trade mark application filings? European Intellectual Property Review, 22 (8): 349-352.
46. SAMPAT, B. N., ZIEDONIS, A. A. (2004), Patent citations and the economic value of patents. In: H. F. MOED, W. GLÄNZEL, U. SCHMOCH (Eds), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Amsterdam, Kluwer, pp. 277-299.
47. SAPSALIS, E., VAN POTTELSBERGHE DE LA POTTERIE, B. (2003), The Sources of Knowledge and the Value of Academic Patents. Available from http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/wp03- 24bruno.pdf
48. SHATTOCK, M. (2003), Managing Successful Universities, Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
49. TANG, P., PARÉ, D. (2003), Gathering the foam: Are business method patents a deterrent to software innovation and commercialization? International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 17 (2): 127-162.
50. TRAJTENBERG, M., HENDERSON, R., JAFFE, A. B. (1997), University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of inventions, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5: 19-50.
51. TRUNE, D. R., GOSLIN, L. N. (1998), University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57 (3): 197-204.
52. YIN, R. K. (1984), Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.