Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest

Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 1-102

  Merrill, Stephen A ^a   Mazza, Anne Marie ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013175017     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.17226/13001     Document Type: Book

References (92)

1. For a discussion of these mechanisms, see W.M. Cohen, R.R. Nelson, and J.P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48:1-23;
2. L. Branstetter and K.H. Ug. 2004. The restructuring of Japanese research and development: The increasing impact of science on Japanese R&D. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 04-E-021;
3. R.K. Lester. 2005. Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies. MIT Industrial Performance Center Working Paper MIT-IPC-05-0101.
4. National Science Board. 2008. Science and Engineering Indicators. See Table 4-1, U.S. R&D expenditures, by funding and performing sectors: 2006. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c4/tt04-01.htm.
5. A. Agrawal and R. Henderson. 2002. Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48:44-60.
6. D. Mowery and B. Sampat. 2001. University patents, patent policies, and patent policy debates: 1925-1980. Industrial and Corporate Change 10:781-814.
7. D.C. Mowery and B.N. Sampat. 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer 30(1):115-127.
8. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2008. Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2007. Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 09-303. Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09303/.
9. A.J. Stevens. 2004. The enactment of Bayh-Dole. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29(1):93-99;
10. H.G. Rickover. 1978. Government patent policy. Journal of the Patent Office Society 60(1):14-26.
11. J. Boyle. 2008. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12. S. Krimsky. 2004. Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
13. AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey, FY2007. R. Tieckelmann, R. Kordal, and D. Bostrom (eds.). Available at: http://www.autm.net/Content/NavigationMenu/Surveys/ LicensingSurveysAUTM/FY2007LicensingActivitySurvey/AUTMUSLS07FINAL.pdf.
14. M. Feldman and J. Bercovitz. 2010. Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: A Survey of American Research Universities. Report to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Management of University Intellectual Property: Lessons from a Generation of Experience, Research, and Dialogue, pp. 4-5. Available at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/STEP.
15. B. Wright, K. Drivas, and Z. Lei. 2009. A Preliminary View of UC Data on Disclosures, Licensing, and Patenting. Available at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/STEP.
16. R. Kordal and L.K. Guice. 2008. Assessing technology transfer performance. Research Management Review 16(1):45-56.
17. P.M. Swamidass and V. Vulasa. 2009. Why University Inventions Rarely Produce Income? Bottlenecks in University Technology Transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer 34(4):343-363.
18. H. Bulut and G. Moschini. 2006. U.S. Universities' Net Returns from Patenting and Licensing: A Quantile Regression Analysis. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University Working Paper 06-WP 432. Available at: www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/ PDFFiles/06wp432.pdf.
19. B.N. Sampat. 2006. Patenting and U.S. academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy 35(6):772-789.
20. P. Azoulay, R. Michigan, and B.N. Sampat. 2007. The anatomy of medical school patenting. New England Journal of Medicine 15:357(20):2049-2056.
21. J.G. Thursby and M.C. Thursby. 2007. University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4):620-639.
22. NIH Response to the Conference Report Request for a Plan to Ensure Taxpayers' Interests are Protected. 2001. Available at: http://www.nih.gov/news/070101wyden.htm #execsum.
23. F.T. Rothermael, S.D. Agung, and L. Jiang. 2007. University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16:691-791.
24. M.J. Bray and J.N. Lee. 2000. University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing 15(5-6):385-392;
25. M. Feldman, I. Feller, J. Bercovitz, and R. Burton. 2002. Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science 48(1):105-121.
26. S. Shane. 2004. Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing 19(1):127-151.
27. D.B. Audretsch, T. Aldridge, and A. Oettl. 2006. The Knowledge Filter and Economic Growth: The Role of Scientist Entrepreneurship. Prepared for the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. March 29, 2006. p.7.
28. E.B. Roberts and C.E. Eesley. 2009. Entrepreneurial Impact: The Role of MIT. Available at: http://entrepreneurship.mit.edu/sites/default/files/files/Entrepreneurial_Impact_The_Role_of_MIT.p df.
29. P.M. Swamidass and V. Vulasa. 2009. Why University Inventions Rarely Produce Income? Bottlenecks in University Technology Transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer 34(4):343-363.
30. J.G Thursby and M.C. Thursby. 2009. Chapter 6 Knowledge Creation and Diffusion of Public Science with Intellectual Property Rights, in Professor Hamid Beladi, Professor E. Kwan Choi (ed.) Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade (Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, Volume 2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p.199-232.
31. F. Block and M.R. Keller. 2008. Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the U.S. National Innovation System, 1970-2006. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Available at: http://www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf. The study examined winners of the R&D Magazine "R&D 100" awards.
32. P. Dasgupta and P.A. David. 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23(5):487-521;
33. R.S. Eisenberg. 2003. Patent swords and shields. Science 299:1018-1019;
34. D. Mowery, 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. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press;
35. R.R. Nelson. 2004. The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33:455-471;
36. D. Bok. 2003. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press;
37. J. Washburn. 2005. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York: Basic Books;
38. E. Press and J. Washburn. 2000. The Kept University. The Atlantic Monthly 285(3):39-54.
39. S. Boettiger and A.B. Bennett. 2006. Bayh-Dole: If we knew then what we know now. Nature Biotechnology 24(3):320-323.
40. W.M. Cohen and J.P. Walsh. 2008. Real impediments to academic biomedical research. Innovation policy and the economy. National Bureau of Economic Research 8:1-30. P. 1.
41. D. Blumenthal, E.G. Campbell, M.S. Anderson, N. Causino, and K.S. Louis. 1997. Withholding of research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 277:1224-1228;
42. E.G. Campbell, B.R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, et al. 2002. Datawithholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. JAMA. 287:473-481.
43. J. Thursby and M. Thursby. 2007. University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4):620-639.
44. K.G. Huang and F.E. Murray. 2009. Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Academy of Management Journal 52(6): 1193-1221.
45. M.A. Bagley. 2006. Academic discourse and proprietary rights: Putting patents in their proper place. 47 B.C.L. REV. 217, 245.
46. J. Walsh, W. Cohen, and C. Cho. 2007. Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy 36:1184-1203.
47. J. Washburn. 2008. University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.
48. J. Thursby and M. Thursby. 2010. University licensing: Harnessing or tarnishing faculty research? Innovation Policy and the Economy 10(1):159-189.
49. P. Azoulay, W. Ding, and T. Stuart. 2009. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics (57)4: 637-676;
50. P. Azoulay, W. Ding, and T. Stuart. 2007. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63(4):599-623
51. J. Thursby and M. Thursby. 2010. Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research. Res. Policy. doi:10.101b/;respol.2010.09.014;
52. F. Murray. 2002. Innovation as overlapping scientific and technological trajectories: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy 31:1389-1403;
53. K. Fabrizio and A. DiMinin. 2008. Commercializing the laboratory: The relationship between faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy 37:914-931;
54. P. Stephan, S. Gurmu, A. Sumell, and G. Black. 2007. Who's patenting in universities? The Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16:71-99;
55. A. Agrawal and R. Henderson. 2002. Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48(1):44-60.
56. M. Thursby, J. Thursby, and S. Gupta-Mukherjee. 2007. Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view. International Journal of Industrial Organization 63(4):577-598.
57. H Sauermann, W Cohen, and P Stephan. February 2010. Complementing merton: The motives, incentives, and commercial activities of academic scientists and engineers. Unpublished Manuscript.
58. M. Heller and R. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698-701.
59. National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
60. R.S. Eisenberg. 2008. Noncompliance, nonenforcement, nonproblem? Rethinking the anticommons in biomedical research. Houston Law Review 45(4):1059-1099.
61. J. Walsh, C. Cho, and W. Cohen. 2005. Patents, Material Transfers, and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research. Available at http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=776&cf=8.
62. J. Walsh et al. 2005. View from the bench: Patents, research, and material transfers. Science. 309(5743)
63. J. Walsh et al. 2007. Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy. 36:1184-1203.
64. The initial results are summarized in National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, pp. 100-132.
65. J. Strauss. 2002. Genetic Inventions and Patents - A German Empirical Study. Presentation to the BMBF & OECD Workshop entitled "Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices." Berlin, January 24-25, 2002. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/22/1817995.pdf.
66. D. Nicol and J. Nielsen. 2003. Patents and medical biotechnology: An empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry. Centre for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper No. 6.
67. S. Nagaoka. 2006. An empirical analysis of patenting and licensing practices of research tools from three perspectives. Paper presented May 18, 2006 to the OECD Conference on Research Use of Patented Inventions, Madrid.
68. F. Murray and S. Stern. 2007. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63(4):648-687.
69. E.G. Campbell et al. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics. JAMA 287(4):473-480.
70. Z. Lei, R. Juneja, and B.D. Wright. 2009. Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology 17:(1)36-40.
71. M.K. Cho et al. 2003. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 5(1):3-8.
72. Association for Molecular Pathology, et al., v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. 1:09-cv-04515-RWS. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. March 29, 2010.
73. See http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyrdexpenditures/.
74. D. Bostrom and R. Tieckelmann. 2006. AUTM US Licensing Activity Survey: FY 2006. Deerfield, IL.
75. D. Di Gregario and S. Shane. 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than the others? Research Policy 32(2):209-227.
76. W. Johnson (Vice President, University Relations, Hewlett-Packard). 2007. Bayh-Dole-The next 25 years. Testimony before House Committee on Science & Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, July 17.
77. D. Kramer. 2008. Universities and industry find roadblocks to R&D partnering. Physics Today 61(5):20-22.
78. J. Thursby and M. Thursby. 2006. Where is the new science in corporate R&D? Science 314:1547-1548.
79. M. Kenney and D. Patton. 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy 38(9):1407-1422.
80. R.E. Litan, L. Mitchell, and E.J. Reedy. 2007. Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper; also The University as Innovator: Bumps in the Road. Issues in Science and Technology 23(4):57-66.
81. B. Goldfarb and M. Henrekson. 2003. Bottom-up vs. top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy 32(4):639-658.
82. F. Valentin and R.L. Jensen. 2007. Effects of academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3):251-276.
83. http://ott.od.nih.gov/pdfs/64FR72090.pdf.
84. P. Arno and M. Davis. 2001. Why don't we enforce existing drug price controls? The unrecognized and unenforced reasonable pricing requirements imposed upon patents deriving in whole or in part from federally funded research. Tulane Law Review 75:631-693.
85. J. Raubitschek and N. Latker. 2005. Reasonable pricing-a new twist for march-in rights under the Bayh-Doyle Act. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 22:149-167.
86. B McGarey & A Levy. 1999. Patents, products, and public health: An analysis of the CellPro march-in petition. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14:1095-1116.
87. B. Goldfarb and M. Henrekson. 2003. Bottom-up vs. top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy 32(4):639-658.
88. M. Sharer and T.L. Faley. 2008. The strategic management of the technology transfer function - aligning goals with strategies, objectives, and tactics. Lew Nouvelles 43(3)170-179.
89. A. Poltorak. 2009. Thar's Gold in Them Thar Patents. University Business. Available at: http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1408.
90. J Sarnoff and C Holman. 2008. Recent developments affecting the enforcement, procurement, and licensing of research tool patents. Unpublished Manuscript.
91. Jon Fjeld: The Challenges of Creating New Ventures to Commercialize University Technologies, presentation to the Committee on the Management of University Intellectual Property, The National Academies, August 28, 2008.
92. National Research Council. (2009) Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research. Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.