Universities' trademark patterns and possible determinants

Economics of Innovation and New Technology

Volumn 21, Issue 5-6, 2012, Pages 473-504

  Squicciarini, Mariagrazia ^a   Millot, Valentine ^a,b   Dernis, Hélène ^a  

^a OECD   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LOUIS PASTEUR   (France)

Author keywords

Academic entrepreneurship; Patents; Trademarks; Universities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864347752     PISSN: 10438599     EISSN: 14768364     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2012.656526     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Åstebro, T., and N. Bazzazian. 2010. Universities, entrepreneurship and local economic development. In Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development, ed. M. Fritsch, 252-333. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
2. Bercovitz, J., M. Feldman, I. Feller, and R. Burton. 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, no. 1-2: 21-35.
3. Cefis, E. 2003. Is there any persistence in innovative activities? International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, no. 4: 489-515.
4. Corrado, C., C. Hulten, and D. Sichel. 2009. Intangible capital and U.S. economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth 55: 661-85.
5. Crespi, G., A. Geuna, Ö. Nomaler, and B. Verspagen. 2010. University IPRs and knowledge transfer: Is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19: 627-48.
6. Davis, L. 2009. Leveraging trademarks to capture innovation returns. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2009, June, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=5655&cf=32 (last accessed August 8, 2011).
7. Etzkowitz, H. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive efforts of the new university industry linkages. Research Policy 27: 823-33.
8. Etzkowitz, H. 2003. Research groups as quasi-firms: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32: 109-21.
9. Greene, W. 2008. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Greenhalgh, C., and M. Rogers. 2007. The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23, no. 4: 541-67.
11. Hall, B.H., Z. Griliches, and J.A. Hausman. 1986. Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review 27: 265-83.
12. Hipp, C., and H. Grupp. 2005. Innovation in the service sector: The demand for service-specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies. Research Policy 34, no. 4: 517-35.
13. Kutinlahti, P. 2005. Universities approaching market. Intertwining scientific and entrepreneurial goals. Espoo: VTT Publications 589.
14. Leydesdorff, L., and M. Meyer. 2010. The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics 83, no. 2: 355-62.
15. Lom, H. 2004. Branding: How to use intellectual property to create value for your business? World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/branding.htm (last accessed August 8, 2011).
16. Long, J.S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Long, J.S., and J. Freese. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
18. Malmberg, C. 2005. Trademark statistics as innovation indicators? - A micro study. Working Paper No. 2005/17, Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University. http://www.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/200517_Malmberg.pdf.
19. Mendonça, S., T. Santos Pereira, and M.M. Godinho. 2004. Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy 33, no. 9: 1385-404.
20. Millot, V., and M. Squicciarini. 2011. Patent and trademark use by firms: An empirical investigation. Mimeo.
21. Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. 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.
22. Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23. OECD. 2011. Science, technology and industry scoreboard. Paris: OECD.
24. OECD and Eurostat. 2005. Oslo manual: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. 3rd ed. Paris: OECD.
25. Sandner, P. 2009. The valuation of intangible assets: An exploration of patent and trademark portfolios. Wesbaden: Gabler.
26. Schmoch, U. 2003. Service marks as novel innovation indicator. Research Evaluation 12, no. 2: 149-56.
27. Shane S.A. 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
28. Thursby, J.G., and M.C. Thursby. 2003. University licensing and the Bayh-Dole act. Science 301, no. 5636: 1052.
29. Thursby, J.G., and M.C. Thursby. 2007. University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23, no. 4: 620-39.
30. Van Looy, B., M. Du Plessis, and T. Magerman. 2006. Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics: Patentee sector allocation. Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; urn:hdl:123456789/228565, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
31. Verspagen, B. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20, no. 4: 607-32.