To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 538-563

  Dahlborg, Charlotta ^a   Lewensohn, Danielle ^a   Danell, Rickard ^b   Sundberg, Carl Johan ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Academic patenting; Innovation; Patent ownership transfer; Technology transfer; University benchmarking

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; EDUCATION; INNOVATION; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS; ACADEMIC PATENTING; COMMERCIALISATION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; PATENT OWNERSHIP; PATENTED INVENTION; SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMPANIES;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 84979233758     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-016-9490-7     Document Type: Article

References (115)

1. Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T. T., & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship. Kauffman Foundation Large Research Projects Research. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1456458.
2. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), 63–79.
3. Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Does policy influence the commercialization route? Evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists. Research Policy, 39(5), 583–588.
4. Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. (2011). The Bayh-Dole act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1058–1067.
5. Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190.
6. Azagra-Caro, J. (2014). Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 898–914.
7. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.
8. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.
9. Baraldi, E., & Waluszewski, A. (2011). Betting on science or muddling through the network: Two universities and one innovation commission. The IMP Journal, 5(3), 172–192.
10. Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853.
11. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.
12. Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930–948.
13. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
14. 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(1–2), 21–35.
15. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.
16. Breznitz, S. M., O’Shea, R. P., & Allen, T. J. (2008). University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 129–142.
17. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.
18. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
19. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
20. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.
21. Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of technology transfer centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 943–966.
22. Craig Boardman, P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153.
23. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.
24. De Prato, G., Nepelski, D., Piroli, G., & O’Neill, E. (2015). Book innovation radar: Identifying innovations and innovators with high potential in ICT FP7, CIP & H2020 Projects. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC96339/jrc96339.pdf.
25. Dechenaux, E., Goldfarb, B., Shane, S., & Thursby, M. (2008). Appropriability and commercialization: Evidence from MIT inventions. Management Science, 54(5), 893–906.
26. Della Malva, A., Lissoni, F., & Llerena, P. (2013). Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the innovation act of 1999. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(1), 211–239.
27. DiMasi, J. A. (2002). The value of improving the productivity of the drug development process: Faster times and better decisions. PharmacoEconomics, 20, 1–10.
28. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.
29. Edwards, M. G., Murray, F., & Yu, R. (2003). Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nature Biotechnology, 21(6), 618–624.
30. Elfenbein, D. W. (2007). Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 688–715.
31. Etzkowitz, H., & Goktepe-Hulten, D. (2010). Maybe they can? University technology transfer offices as regional growth engines. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9(1), 166–181.
32. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
33. European Patent Office, The extended INPADOC family definition according to the EPO., at http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/inpadoc.html.
34. European patent office, Priority date according to EPO. European patent office—Espacenet at http://ep.espacenet.com/help?locale=en_EP&method=handleHelpTopic&topic=prioritydate.
35. Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931.
36. Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39(8), 1060–1069.
37. Fischer, T., & Henkel, J. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology—An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9), 1519–1533.
38. Gartner, W. B., & Shane, S. A. (1995). Measuring entrepreneurship over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4), 283–301.
39. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.
40. Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 488–502.
41. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.
42. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(December), 1661–1707.
43. Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.
44. Göktepe, D. (2008). Inside the ivory tower: Inventors & patents at Lund University. Lund: Lund University.
45. Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423.
46. Hicks, D., & Hegde, D. (2005). Highly innovative small firms in the markets for technology. Research Policy, 34(5), 703–716.
47. Hoye, K., & Pries, F. (2009). ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation, 29(10), 682–689.
48. Hoye, K., Pries, F., Guild, P., & Roe, P. (2006). Investigating the role of inventors in technology transfer activities: An exploratory study. EuroMOT 2006: Second European Conference on Management of Technology.
49. Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2013). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307.
50. Hülsbeck, M., Lehmann, E., & Starnecker, A. (2013). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 199–215.
51. Iversen, E., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 393–414.
52. Jacobsson, S., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å., & Elg, L. (2013). Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses. Research Policy, 42(4), 874–885.
53. Karolinska Institutet. http://ki.se/en/about/innovation-system.
54. Karolinska Institutet. http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=20141&l=sv.
55. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422.
56. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, 40(8), 1100–1112.
57. Kneller, R. (2010). The importance of new companies for drug discovery: Origins of a decade of new drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 9(11), 867–882.
58. Lamoreaux, N. R., & Sokoloff, K. L. (1999). Inventive activity and the market for technology in the United States, 1840–1920. NBER working paper 7107. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economics Research, Inc.
59. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.
60. Lawson, C. (2013). Academic inventions outside the university: Investigating patent ownership in the UK. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 385–398.
61. Lecocq, C., & Van Looy, B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the technological performance of regions: time invariant or driven by life cycle dynamics? Scientometrics, 80(3), 845–865.
62. Lendel, I. (2010). The impact of research universities on regional economies: The concept of university products. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(3), 210–230.
63. Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–831.
64. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Triple Helix of innovation: Introduction. Science and Public Policy, 25(6), 358–364.
65. 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.
66. Lipsky, M. S., & Sharp, L. K. (2001). From idea to market: The drug approval process. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 14(5), 362–367.
67. Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information, 34(3), 197–205.
68. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.
69. Lissoni, F., Lotz, P., Schovsbo, J., & Treccani, A. (2009). Academic patenting and the professor’s privilege: Evidence on Denmark from the KEINS database. Science and Public Policy, 36(8), 595–607.
70. Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2015). The ownership of academic patents and their impact. Evidence from five European countries. Revue économique, 66(1), 143–171.
71. Lissoni, F., Pezzoni, M., Poti, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2013). University autonomy, the professor privilege and academic patenting: Italy, 1996–2007. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 399–421.
72. Lissoni, F., Sanditov, B., & Tarasconi, G. (2006). The Keins database on academic inventors: Methodology and contents. Rosana: CESPRI.
73. Ljungberg, D., Bourelos, E., & McKelvey, M. (2013). Academic inventors, technological profiles and patent value: An analysis of academic patents owned by Swedish-based firms. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 473–487.
74. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1. Research Policy, 26(7–8), 773–776.
75. Marion, T. J., Dunlap, D. R., & Friar, J. H. (2012). The university entrepreneur: A census and survey of attributes and outcomes. R&D Management, 42(5), 401–419.
76. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008a). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.
77. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.
78. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008b). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423.
79. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17–27.
80. Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321–330.
81. Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 909–935.
82. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171108.
83. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.
84. Nicol, D. (2008). Strategies for dissemination of university knowledge. Health Law Journal, 16, 207.
85. OECD. (2015). OECD Innovation Strategy 2015 An Agenda for Policy Action. Paris: Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level.
86. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.
87. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.
88. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European University-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.
89. O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421–437.
90. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
91. Powell, W. W. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 152(1), 197–215.
92. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
93. von Proff, S., Buenstorf, G., & Hummel, M. (2012). University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What role did the professors’ privilege play? Industry and Innovation, 19(1), 23–44.
94. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
95. Saragossi, S., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.
96. Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 435–453.
97. Serrano, C. J. (2010). The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents. The Rand Journal of Economics, 41(4), 686–708.
98. Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 122–137.
99. Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
100. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.
101. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., 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(1), 111–133.
102. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
103. Srivastava, M. K., & Wang, T. (2014). When does selling make you wiser? Impact of licensing on Chinese firms’ patenting propensity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(4), 602–628.
104. Statistics Sweden, SCB. http://www.scb.se/.
105. Steffensen, M., Rogers, E. M., & Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 93–111.
106. Sterzi, V. (2013). Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting. Research Policy, 42(2), 564–576.
107. Stuart, T. E., Ozdemir, S. Z., & Ding, W. W. (2007). Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy, 36(4), 477–498.
108. Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14–25.
109. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–72.
110. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.
111. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.
112. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.
113. USPTO. (2011). Request for comments on eliciting more complete patent assignment information. New York: Federal Register.
114. WIPO. (2012). Protecting your inventions abroad: FAQs about the PCT. City: World Intellectual Property Organization. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/basic_facts/faqs_about_the_pct.pdf.
115. 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, 93(23), 12709–12716.