University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 318-345

  Fisch, Christian O ^a   Hassel, Tobias M ^b   Sandner, Philipp G ^b   Block, Joern H ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRIER   (Germany)

^b TUM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (Germany)

^c ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Patents; Publishing and patenting; Ranking; University patenting

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES; INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON; INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE; MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; PATENTS; RANKING; UNIVERSITY PATENTING;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 84925289595     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-014-9355-x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, M. D., & Martínez, M. Á. (2009). Production of university technological knowledge in European regions: Evidence from patent data. Regional Studies,43, 1167–1181.
2. Agrawal, A. K., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science,48, 44–60.
3. Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy,38, 1217–1224.
4. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (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.
5. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). From publishing to patenting: Do productive scientists turn into academi inventors? Revue d’économie industrielle,110, 75–102.
6. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008). University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review,5, 91–109.
7. Bulut, H., & Moschini, G. (2009). US universities’ net returns from patenting and licensing: A quantile regression analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,18, 123–137.
8. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,12, 199–232.
9. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science,48, 1–23.
10. Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy,40, 123–135.
11. Coupé, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer,28, 31–46.
12. Crespi, G. A., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy,40, 55–68.
13. Crespi, G.A., Geuna, A., & Verspagen, B. (2006). University IPRs and knowledge transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient? SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, No. 154, University of Sussex.
14. Criscuolo, P. (2006). The “home advantage” effect and patent families: A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO. Scientometrics,66, 23–41.
15. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy,37, 1892–1908.
16. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy,32, 209–227.
17. Etzkowitz, H. (1994). Knowledge as property: The Massachusetts Institute of technology and the debate over academic patent policy. Minerva,32, 383–421.
18. 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, 109–123.
19. Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy,37, 914–931.
20. Fisch, C., Block, J., Sandner, P. (2014). Chinese university patents: Quantity, quality, and the role of subsidy programs. SSRN Working Paper.
21. Foltz, J., Barham, B., & Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness,16, 82–95.
22. Fritsch, M., & Slavtchev, V. (2007). Universities and innovation in space. Industry and Innovation,14, 201–218.
23. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy,31, 899–933.
24. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy,35, 790–807.
25. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy,40, 1068–1076.
26. Godinho, M. M., & Ferreira, V. (2012). Analyzing the evidence of an IPR take-off in China and India. Research Policy,41, 499–511.
27. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy,32, 1343–1363.
28. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics,80, 119–127.
29. Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy,41, 262–275.
30. Hinze, S., Reiß, T., & Schmoch, U. (1997). Statistical analysis on the distance between fields of technology. Report for European Commission TSER Project.
31. Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2005). National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research Policy,34, 1322–1349.
32. Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2008). China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy,37, 1465–1479.
33. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. The Rand Journal of Economics,39, 403–433.
34. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2006). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer,32, 561–592.
35. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics,83, 355–362.
36. Li, X. (2012). Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: An institutional view. Research Policy,41, 236–249.
37. Liegsalz, J., & Wagner, S. (2013). Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China. Research Policy,42, 552–563.
38. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation,17, 87–102.
39. Luan, C., Zhou, C., & Liu, A. (2010). Patent strategy in Chinese universities: A comparative perspective. Scientometrics,84, 53–63.
40. Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? Research Policy,35, 1646–1662.
41. 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.
42. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005a). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer,30, 115–127.
43. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005b). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy,31, 399–418.
45. National Science Foundation. (2013). Higher education research and development: Fiscal year 2011. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13325/pdf/nsf13325.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2014.
46. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy,34, 994–1009.
47. 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.
48. Park, W. G. (2008). International patent protection: 1960–2005. Research Policy,37, 761–766.
49. Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy,40, 539–552.
50. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy,23, 323–348.
51. Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2003). Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization,21, 1371–1390.
52. Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Navon, R. (2006). Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy,35, 1631–1645.
53. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing,19, 127–151.
54. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. (2014). Academic ranking of world universities. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html. Accessed April 23, 2014.
55. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,14, 111–133.
56. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy,32, 27–48.
57. Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,16, 71–99.
58. Sun, Y. (2003). Determinants of foreign patents in China. World Patent Information,25, 27–37.
59. Thursby, J., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 59–72.
60. University of California (2012). Technology Transfer Annual Report 2011. http://ucop.edu/innovation-alliances-services/_files/ott/genresources/documents/IASRptFY11.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2014.
61. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy,40, 553–564.
62. Van Zeebroeck, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Guellec, D. (2008). Patents and academic research: A state of the art. Journal of Intellectual Capital,9, 246–263.
63. Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics,83, 271–294.
64. Wu, W., & Zhou, Y. (2012). The third mission stalled? Universities in China’s technological progress. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 812–827.
65. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,93, 12709–12716.
66. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review,88, 290–306.