Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 603-620

  Sellenthin, Mark O ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

Author keywords

Patent rights regimes; Technology transfer; TTO; University patents

Indexed keywords

PATENT APPLICATIONS; PATENT RIGHTS; PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURES; RESEARCH RESULTS; ROLE OF TECHNOLOGIES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES; TTO; UNIVERSITY PATENTS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 70349902953     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9108-4     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397-422. doi: 10.1016/ S0048-7333(98)00126-7.
2. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21-35. doi: 10.1023/A:1007828026904.
3. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627-655. doi: 10.1016/ S0048-7333(99)00093-1.
4. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). (2001). Knowledge creates markets - action scheme of the German Goverment, Bonn.
5. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199-232. doi: 10.1007/s00191-002-0105-0.
6. Cohausz, Hannig, Dawidowicz, & Partner. (1998). Untersuchung zum Verwertungsprivileg - Relevanz des sog. Hochschullehrerprivilegs nach § 42 ArbNErfG. Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Düsseldorf (Investigation of the relevance of the university teachers' privilege).
7. Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2000). Interaktion zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage bei Hochschulen und öffentlichen Forschungseinrichtungen. Mannheim: ZEW-Dokumentation Nr. 00-14, ZEW.
8. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. R. Feiwel (Ed.), Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory. New York: New York University Press.
9. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.
10. European Commission. (2001). Benchmarking industry-science relations - the role of framework conditions. Final Report, Vienna/Mannheim.
11. Gering, T., & Schmoch, U. (2003). Management of intellectual assets by German public research organisations, in OECD, turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at Public Research Organisations. Paris: OECD.
12. Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153-161. doi: 10.2307/1912352.
14. Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2000). Akademiskt entreprenörskap. SNS Förlag.
15. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, W. P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 7(Special Issue), 24-52.
16. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, W. P. (1994). The firm as an incentive system. The American Economic Review, 84, 972-991.
17. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.
18. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. The American Economic Review, 91, 240-259.
19. Kienbaum. (2006). Abschlussbericht: "Weiterentwicklung von Kriterien sowie Datenerhebung auf der Basis der Kriterien und Datenauswertung bezüglich der Kompetenz und Leistungsfähigkeit der Patent- und Verwertungsagenturen". Düsseldorf: Kienbaum Management.
20. Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A., Zucker, L. G., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7, 428-443. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.4.428.
21. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11, 169-182. doi: 10.1080/1351847042000254211.
22. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641-655. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtm020.
23. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 55-65. doi: 10.2307/2109992.
24. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773-776. doi: 10.1016/ S0048-7333(97)00043-7.
25. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29-36. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2007.912813.
26. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (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. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6.
27. OECD. (1999). University research in transition. Paris: OECD.
28. OECD. (2002). Benchmarking industry-science relationships. Paris: OECD.
29. OECD. (2003a). Governance of public research. Paris: OECD.
30. OECD. (2003b). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.
31. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99-114. doi: 10.1023/A:1007892413701.
32. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695-1711. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00045-3.
33. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
34. RRV. (2001). Från forskning till tillväxt - statligt stöd till samverkan mellan högskola och näringsliv. Stockholm: Riksrevisionsverket.
35. Sandven, T., & Smith, K. (1998). Using Community Innovation Survey data for empirical analysis - data reliability and issues for analysts. IDEA Paper Series No. 4, STEP, Oslo.
36. Schild, I. (1999). A regional patent study to investigate inventive activity in East Gothia. Working Paper No. 207. Linköping: Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University.
37. Schmoch, U., Licht, G., & Reinhard, M. (Eds.). (2000). Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer.
38. Sellenthin, M. O. (2006). Beyond the Ivory Tower: A comparison of patent rights regimes in Sweden and Germany. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping.
39. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.
40. SOU. (1996). Samverkan mellan högskolan och näringslivet. Huvudbetänkande av NYFOR. Stockholm: Fritzes.
41. SOU. (2005). Nyttiggörande av högskoleuppfinningar. Utredningen om rätten till resultaten av högskoleforskningen. Stockholm: Fritzes.
42. VINNOVA. (2003). VINNFORSK - VINNOVAs förslag till förbättrad kommersialisering och ökad avkastning i tillväxt på forskningsinvesteringar vid högskolor. Stockholm: VINNOVA.
43. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.