University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature

Research Evaluation

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 197-207

  Baldini, Nicola ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b Nicola Baldinia   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847202925     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154406781775878     Document Type: Review

References (126)

1. Agrawal, A and R Henderson 2002. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48, 44-60.
2. Allan, M F 2001. A review of best practices in university technology licensing offices. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 13, 57-69.
3. Argyres, N S and J P Liebeskind 1998. Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35, 427-454.
4. Arrow, K J 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, ed. R R Nelson, pp. 609-625. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Azagra Caro, J M, I F de Lucio and A G Gracia 2003. University patents: output and input indicators ... of what? Research Evaluation, 12, 5-16.
6. Balconi, M, S Breschi and F Lissoni 2003. II trasferimento di conoscenze tecnologiche dall'università all'industria in Italia: nuova evidenza sui brevetti di paternità dei docenti. In II sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia, ed. A Bonaccorsi, pp. 58-100. Milan: Franco Angeli.
7. Balconi, M, S Breschi and F Lissoni 2004. Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33, 127-145.
8. Baldini, N 2006. The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity. Scientometrics, 69, 387-407.
9. Baldini, N, R Grimaldi and M Sobrero 2005. Motivations and incentives for patenting within universities: a survey of Italian inventors. In Best Paper Proceedings of the Sixty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD), ed. K M Weaver. Honolulu, 5-10 August (ISSN 1543-8643).
10. Baldini, N, R Grimaldi and M Sobrero 2006. Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: a study of Italian universities' patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35, 518-532.
11. Barré, R 2001. The Agora model of innovation systems: S&T indicators for a democratic knowledge society. Research Evaluation, 10, 13-18.
12. Behrens, T R and D O Gray 2001. Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30, 179-199.
13. Benner, M and U Sandström 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29, 291-301.
14. Blumenthal, D, E G Campbell, M S Anderson, N Causino and K S Louis 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of American Medicine Association, 277, 1224-1228.
15. Bozeman, B 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627-655.
16. Branscomb, L M, F Kodama and R Florida 1999. Industrializing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Bush, V 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
18. Calderini, M, P Garrone and M Sobrero 2003. Corporate Governance, Market Structure and Innovation. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
19. Campbell, E G and D Blumenthal 1999. Perils of universityindustry collaboration. Issues in Science and Technology, 16(1), 15.
20. Campbell, E G, J S Weissman, N Causino and D Blumenthal 2000. Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29, 303-312.
21. Carayol, N and M Matt 2004. Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081-1102.
22. Cohen, J 1995. Share and share alike isn't always the rule in science. Science, 268(5218), 1715-1718.
23. Cohen, W M, R R Nelson and J P Walsh 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1-23.
24. Colombo M G and M Delmastro 2002. How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103-1122.
25. Colyvas, J, M Crow, A Gelijns, R Mazzoleni, R R Nelson, N Rosenberg and B N Sampat 2002. How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48, 61-72.
26. Conceição, P, M V Heitor and P Oliveira 1998. University-based technology licensing in the knowledge based economy. Technovation, 18, 615-625.
27. Coriat, B and F Orsi 2002. Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: origins, content and problems. Research Policy, 31, 1491-1507.
28. Coupé, T 2003. Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 31-46.
29. Coutinho, M, E Balbachevsky, D O Holzhacker, D Da Costa Patrão, R N Zorzetto Vencio, R L M Da Silva, M L G Lucatelli, L F Dos Reis and M A Marina 2003. Intellectual property and public research in biotechnology: the scientists opinion. Scientometrics, 58, 641-656.
30. Dasgupta, P and P A David 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-521.
31. Dechenaux, E, B Goldfarb, S Shane and M C Thursby 2003. Appropriability and the Timing of Innovation: Evidence from MIT Inventions, working paper 9735. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
32. De Juan, V 2002. Comparative study of technology transfer practices in Europe and the United States. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 14, 31-58.
33. Etzkowitz, H 1998. The norm of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-833.
34. Etzkowitz, H 2002. The Triple Helix: MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London: Gordon & Breach.
35. Etzkowitz, H 2003. Research group as 'quasi-firms': the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-121.
36. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 1997. Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Govemment Relations. London: Cassell Academic.
37. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 1999. The future location of research and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 111-123.
38. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of UniversityIndustryGovernment relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
39. Etzkowitz, H, A Webster and P Healey 1998. Capitalizing Knowledge: University Intersections of Industry and Academia. Albany: State University of New York Press.
40. Etzkowitz, H, W Webster, C Gebhardt and B R Cantisano Terra 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313-330.
41. Feller, I 1990. Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: they think they can. Research Policy, 19, 335-348.
42. Florida, R 1999. The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science and Technology, 15(4), 67-73.
43. Friedman, J and J Silberman 2003. University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17-30.
44. Geuna, A 1998. The internationalization of European universities: a return to medieval roots. Minerva, 36, 253-270.
45. Geuna, A 1999. The Economics of Knowledge Production: Fund-ing and the Structure of University Research. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
46. Geuna, A 2001. The changing rationale for university research funding: are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 607-632.
47. Geuna, A and L Nesta 2003. University Patenting and Its Effects on Academic Research, working paper 99. Brighton, UK: Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.
48. Gibbons, M, C Limoges, H Novotny, S Schwartzman, P Scott and M Trow 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
49. Gluck, M, D Blumenthal and M A Stoto 1987. University-industry relationships in the life sciences: implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Research Policy, 16, 327-336.
50. Godin, B and Y Gingras 2000. The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy, 29, 273-278.
51. Goldfarb, B and M R Henrekson 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639-658.
52. Griliches, Z 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicator: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661-1707.
53. Heller, M A and R S Eisenberg 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in bio-medical research. Science, 280, 698-701.
54. Henderson, R, A B Jaffe and M Trajitenberg 1995. Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965-88, working paper 5068. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
55. Henderson, R, A B Jaffe and M Trajitenberg 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-88. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-132.
56. Henrekson, M and N Rosenberg 2001. Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lesson from U.S. and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 207-231.
57. Jacob, M, M Lundqvist and H Hellsmark 2003. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32, 1555-1568.
58. Jaffe, A B 2000. The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 29, 531-557.
59. Jankowski, J E 1999. Trends in academic research spending, alliances and commercialization. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 55-68.
60. Jansen, C and H F Dillon 1999. Where do the leads for licenses come from? Source data from six institutions. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 11, 51-66.
61. Jensen, R and M C Thursby 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing. American Economic Review, 91, 240-259.
62. Jensen, R and M C Thursby 2004. Patent Licensing and the Research University, working paper 10758. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
63. Jensen, R, J G Thursby and M C Thursby 2003. Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with'. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1271-1300.
64. Jones-Evans, D, M Klofsten, E Andersson and D Pandya 1999. Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office. R&D Management, 29, 47-56.
65. Kenney, M and W R Goe 2004. The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at U.C. Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691-707.
66. Kortum, S and J Lerner 1999. What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy, 28, 1-22.
67. Lach, S and M Schankerman 2003. Incentives and Invention in Universities, working paper 9727. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
68. Lee, Y S 1996. Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843-863.
69. Lee, Y S 2000. The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111-133.
70. Leydesdorff, L 2003. The mutual information of university-industry- government relations: an indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58, 445-467.
71. Link, A N 1999. A suggested method for assessing the economic impacts of university R&D: including identifying roles for technology transfer officers. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 11, 1-17.
72. Löfsten, H and P Lindelöf 2002. Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms: academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859-876.
73. Louis, K S, D Blumenthal, M E Gluck and M A Stoto 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110-131.
74. Louis, K S, L M Jones, M S Anderson, D Blumenthal and E G Campbell 2001. Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 233-245.
75. Mansfield, E 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20, 1-12.
76. Markman, G D, P T Gianiodis, P H Phan and D B Balkin 2004. Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 353-364.
77. Matkin, G W 1994. Technology transfer and public policy: lessons from a case study. Policy Studies Journal, 22, 371-383.
78. Merton, R K 1968. Matthew effect. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
79. Meyer, M 2003. Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12, 17-27.
80. Meyer, M, T Siniläinen and J T Utecht 2003. Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: a study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics, 58, 321-350.
81. Meyer-Krahmer, F and U Schmoch 1998. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835-851.
82. Mowery, D C and B N Sampat 2001 a. Patenting and licensing university inventions: lessons from the history of the Research Corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 317-355.
83. Mowery, D C and B N Sampat 2001 b. University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781-814.
84. Mowery, D C and A A Ziedonis 2002. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 31, 399-418.
85. Mowery, D C, R R Nelson, B R Sampat and A A Ziedonis 2001. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99-119.
86. Mowery, D C, B N Sampat and A A Ziedonis 2002. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 19812002. Management Science, 48, 73-89.
87. Mowery, D C, R R Nelson, B R Sampat and A A Ziedonis 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
88. Narin, F and E Noma 1985. Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369-381.
89. Nelson, R R 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297-306.
90. Nelson, R R 2001. Observation on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13-19.
91. Nelson, R R 2004. The market economy, and the scientific commons, Research Policy. 33, 455-471.
92. Nowotny, H, P Scott and M Gibbons 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
93. Nowotny, H. P Scott and M Gibbons 2003. 'Mode 2' revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179-194.
94. OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 2003. Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations. Paris: OECD.
95. Owen-Smith, J and W W Powell 2001. To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99-114.
96. Packer, K and A Webster 1996. Patenting culture in science: reinventing the wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21, 427-453.
97. Pavitt, K 1998. Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities? Research Evaluation, 7, 105-111.
98. Rahm, D 1994. Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer. Policy Studies Journal, 22, 267-278.
99. Ranga, L M, K Debackere and N von Tunzelmann 2003. Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: a case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58, 301-320.
100. Roberts, E B 2001. Benchmarking global strategic management of technology, Research Technology Management, 44(2), 25-36.
101. Rogers, E M, J Yin and J Hoffmann 2000. Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at U.S. research universities. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12, 47-80.
102. Rogers, E M, S Takegami and J Yin 2001. Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21, 253-261.
103. Rosenberg, N and R R Nelson 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
104. Sampat, B N and R R Nelson 2002. The evolution of university patenting and licensing procedures: an empirical study of institutional management. New Institutionalism in Strategic Management, 19, 135-164.
105. Sampat, B N, D C Mowery and A A Ziedonis 2003. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: a reexamination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1371-1390.
106. Sanz-Menéndez, L and L Cruz-Castro 2003. Coping with environmental pressures: public research organizations responses to funding crises. Research Policy, 32, 1293-1308.
107. Saragossi, S and B van Pottelsberghe 2003. What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 47-51.
108. Schmiemann, M and J-N Durvy 2003. New approaches to technology transfer from publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 9-15.
109. Schmoch, U 1997. Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38, 103-116.
110. Shane, S 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47, 205-220.
111. Shane, S 2002. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48, 122-137.
112. Shane, S 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spin-offs and Wealth Creation. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
113. Siegel, D S, D A Waldmann and A N Link 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48.
114. Sine, W D, S Shane and D Di Gregorio 2003. The halo effect and technology licensing: the influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49, 478-496.
115. Slaughter, S and G Rhoades 1996. The emergence of competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21, 303-339.
116. Smith, B L R and D Korn 2000. Is there a crisis of accountability in the American research university? Minerva, 38, 129-145.
117. Stephan, P E 2001. Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 199-205.
118. Thursby, J G and S Kemp 2002. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109-124.
119. Thursby, J G and M C Thursby 2000. Industry perspectives on licensing university technologies: sources and problems. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12, 9-22.
120. Thursby, J G and M C Thursby 2002. Who is selling to the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 90-104.
121. Thursby, J G, R Jensen and M C Thursby 2001. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
122. Tijssen, R J W 2004. Is the commercialization of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Global trends in the output of corporate research articles. Research Policy, 33, 709-733.
123. Trune, D R and L N Goslin 1998. University technology transfer programs: a profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 197-204.
124. Van Looy, B, J Callaert, K Debackere and A Verbeek 2003. Patent related indicators for assessing knowledge-generating institutions: towards a contextualized approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 53-61.
125. Van Looy, B, M Ranga, J Callaert, K Debackere and E Zimmermann 2004. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33, 425-441.
126. Wallmark, J T 1997. Inventions and patents at universities: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation, 17(3), 127-139.