Technology transfer in the Americas: common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1307-1333

  Jefferson, David J ^a   Maida, Magali ^b   Farkas, Alexander ^a   Alandete Saez, Monica ^a   Bennett, Alan B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Entrepreneurship; Intellectual property management; International technology transfer practice; Start up creation; University technology transfer

Indexed keywords

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ENTREPRENEURSHIP; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS; RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EID: 84992702387     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-016-9516-1     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abrams, I., Leung, G., & Stevens, A. (2009). How are U.S. technology transfer offices tasked and motivated—Is it all about the money? Research. Management Review, 17(1), 1–34.
2. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.
3. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313.
4. Bennett, A. (2007). Conflict of interest and conflict of commitment management in technology transfer. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
5. Bennett, A., & Chi-Ham, C. L. (2012). Linking public research to innovation for regional economic development. Organization of the American States. II Inter-American Dialogue of High-Level MSME Authorities. Public policies to enhance the competitiveness, innovation, and internationalization of MSMEs, New Orleans, September 10-11, 2012.
6. 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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35.
7. Brown, A., & Soderstrom, J. (2007). Creating and developing spinouts: Experiences from Yale University and beyond. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
8. Callaert, J., Landoni, P., Van Looy, B., & Verganti, R. (2015). Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches. Research Policy, 44(4), 990–998.
9. Castillo, F., Heiman, A., Zilberman, D., & Gilless, J. K. (2016). Time of adoption and technology transfer: An institutional analysis of offices of technology transfer in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9468-5.
10. Chin, J., & Kulakowski, E. C. (Eds.). (2006). Conflict of interest in research. In research administration and management. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
11. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.
12. Giorando-Coltart, J., & Calkins, C. (2007). Best practices in patent license negotiations. Bioentrepreneur, 25(12), 1347–1349. doi:10.1038/bioe.2007.5.
13. Graff, G., Heiman, A., Zilberman, D., Castillo, F., & Parker, D. (2002). Universities, technology transfer and industrial R&D. In R. E. Evenson, V. Santianello, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Economic and social issues in agricultural biotechnology (pp. 93–117). New York: CABI Publishing.
14. Kantis, H. D., & Federico, J. S. (2012). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Latin America: The role of policies. Liverpool: International Research and Policy Roundtable (Kauffman Foundation).
15. Kantis, H. D., Moori-Koening, V., & Angelelli, P. (2004). Developing entrepreneurship. Experience in Latin America and Worldwide. Washington: Interamerican Development Bank.
16. Keiller, T. (2007). The IP sales process. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
17. Kowalski, S. (2007). Making the most of intellectual property: Developing an institutional IP policy. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
18. MacWright, R., & Ritter, J. F. (2007). Technology marketing. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
19. Mahoney, R. (Ed.). (2007). Negotiating an agreement: Skills, tactics, and best practices. In Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
20. Merrill, S., & Mazza, A. (2010). Managing university intellectual property in the public interest. Managing university intellectual property in the public interest. Washington: National Research Council.
21. Nelsen, L. (2007). Ten things heads of universities should know about setting up a technology transfer office. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
22. 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.
23. O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.
24. Page, N. (2007). The making of a licensing legend: Stanford’s University’s office of technology licensing. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
25. Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.900605.
26. Sharer, M., & Faley, T. (2008). The strategic management of the technology transfer function: Aligning goals with strategies, objectives and tactics. Les Nouvelles 2008.
27. Siegel, D., 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.
28. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115–142.
29. Stanford Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) (2012). Start-up guide. http://otl.stanford.edu/documents/OTLstartupguide.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2015.
30. Tseng, A., & Raudensky, M. (2014). Performance evaluations of technology transfer offices of major US research universities. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 9(1), 93–102.
31. University of California. (2014). University of California proposes creation of new venture fund to invest in UC innovation. http://universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-proposes-creation-new-venture-fund-invest-uc-innovation. Accessed October 30, 2015.
32. Vinig, G., & van Rijsbergen, P. (2009). Determinants of university technology transfer: Comparative study of US, Europe and Australian universities. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1324601.
33. Warren, A., Hanke, R., & Trotzer, D. (2008). Models for university technology transfer: Resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 219–232.
34. Weckowska, D. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41–42, 62–74.
35. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2015). Guidelines on developing intellectual property policy for universities and R&D organizations. Unedited, advance copy. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/uipc/en/guidelines/pdf/ip_policy.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2015.
36. Wu, Y., Welch, E., & Huang, W. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation, 36–37, 12–25.
37. Wyse, R. (2007). What the public sector should know about venture capital. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.
38. Zablocki, E. (2007). Formation of a business incubator. In A. Krattiger, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford and Davis, CA: MIHR and Davis, PIPRA.