Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 120, Issue , 2017, Pages 271-283

  Barirani, Ahmad ^a   Beaudry, Catherine ^b   Agard, Bruno ^b  

^a Copenhagen Business School ^*  (Denmark)

^b ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Complementary assets; General purpose technologies; Markets for technology; Nanotechnology; Technology transfer; University industry linkages

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

COMPLEMENTARY ASSETS; GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGIES; MARKETS FOR TECHNOLOGY; PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY LINKAGES;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; MARKETING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIVATE SECTOR; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

CANADA;

EID: 85015849033     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.021     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos 42:2 (1989), 171–180.
2. Alcácer, J., Gittelman, M., Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: the influence of examiner citations. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88:4 (2006), 774–779.
3. Alcácer, J., Gittelman, M., Sampat, B., Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: an overview and analysis. Res. Policy 38:2 (2009), 415–427.
4. Alencar, M., Porter, A., Antunes, A., Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74:9 (2007), 1661–1680.
5. Allison, J., Lemley, M., Moore, K., Trunkey, R., Valuable patents. Georgetown Law J. 92:3 (2004), 435–479.
6. Archibugi, D., Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: a review. Sci. Public Policy 19:6 (1992), 357–368.
7. Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M., Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Manag. Sci. 52:2 (2006), 293–308.
8. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Licensing the market for technology. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 52:2 (2003), 277–295.
9. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A., Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Ind. Corp. Chang. 10:2 (2001), 419–451.
10. Arora, A., Gambardella, A., The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Res. Policy 23:5 (1994), 523–532.
11. AUTM. Association of University Technology Managers Activity Survey. 2015, Association of University Technology Managers.
12. Azagra-Caro, J., Mattsson, P., Perruchas, F., Smoothing the lies: the distinctive effects of patent characteristics on examiner and applicant citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62:9 (2011), 1727–1740.
13. Barirani, A., Agard, B., Beaudry, C., Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective. Scientometrics 94:3 (2013), 1111–1136.
14. Basberg, B., Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature. Res. Policy 16:2-4 (1987), 131–141.
15. Baye, M.R., Crocker, K.J., Ju, J., Divisionalization, franchising, and divestiture incentives in oligopoly. Am. Econ. Rev., 1996, 223–236.
16. Bercovitz, J.E., Feldman, M.P., Fishing upstream: firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Res. Policy 36:7 (2007), 930–948.
17. Bessen, J., The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 37:5 (2008), 932–945.
18. Bonanno, G., Vickers, J., Vertical separation. J. Ind. Econ., 1988, 257–265.
19. Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., 10 the division of inventive labor and the extent of the market. General purpose technologies and economic growth, 1998, 253.
20. Bresnahan, T.F., Trajtenberg, M., General purpose technologies ‘engines of growth’?. J. Econ. 65:1 (1995), 83–108.
21. Cassiman, B., Valentini, G., Strategic organization of R&D: the choice of basicness and openness. Strateg. Organ. 7:1 (2009), 43–73.
22. Caviggioli, F., Ughetto, E., The drivers of patent transactions: corporate views on the market for patents. R&D Manag. 43:4 (2013), 318–332.
23. Ceccagnoli, M., Jiang, L., The cost of integrating external technologies: supply and demand drivers of value creation in the markets for technology. Strateg. Manag. J. 34:4 (2013), 404–425.
24. Cockburn, I.M., Kortum, S., Stern, S., Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of examiner characteristics. Working Paper 8980, 2002, National Bureau of Economic Research.
25. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Papers 7552, 2000, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
26. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N., Sampat, B., How do university inventions get into practice?. Manag. Sci. 48:1 (2002), 61–72.
27. Coupe, T., Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. J. Technol. Transf. 28:1 (2003), 31–46.
28. Criscuolo, P., Verspagen, B., Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Res. Policy 37:10 (2008), 1892–1908.
29. Dasgupta, P., David, P., Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23:5 (1994), 487–521.
30. Debackere, K., Veugelers, R., The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Res. Policy 34:3 (2005), 321–342.
31. Etzkowitz, H., The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Res. Policy 27:8 (1998), 823–833.
32. Fischer, T., Leidinger, J., Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—an empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Res. Policy, 43(3), 2014.
33. Fitzgibbons, K., McNiven, C., Towards a nanotechnology statistical framework. Blue sky indicators conference II, 2006.
34. Fleming, L., Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Manag. Sci. 47:1 (2001), 117–132.
35. Foray, D., Lissoni, F., University research and public–private interaction. Hall, B.H., Rosenberg, N., (eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2010, Elsevier, 275–314.
36. Gallini, N., The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. J. Econ. Perspect. 16:2 (2002), 131–154.
37. Gambardella, A., ‘Successes’ and ‘failures’ in the markets for technology. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 18:1 (2002), 52–62.
38. Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., Luzzi, A., The market for patents in Europe. Res. Policy 36:8 (2007), 1163–1183.
39. Gambardella, A., McGahan, A.M., Business-model innovation: general purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Plan. 43:2 (2010), 262–271.
40. Gans, J.S., Hsu, D.H., Stern, S., When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?. RAND J. Econ. 33:4 (2002), 571–586.
41. Gaur, A.S., Malhotra, S., Zhu, P., Acquisition announcements and stock market valuations of acquiring firms’ rivals: a test of the growth probability hypothesis in China. Strateg. Manag. J. 34:2 (2013), 215–232.
42. Giummo, J., An examination of the intertemporal returns of patented inventions. Res. Policy 43:8 (2014), 1312–1319.
43. Griliches, Z., Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 28:4 (1990), 1661–1707.
44. Gulati, R., Singh, H., The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Adm. Sci. Q., 1998, 781–814.
45. Hall, B., Ziedonis, R., The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econ. 32:1 (2001), 101–128.
46. Hegde, D., Sampat, B., Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Econ. Lett. 105:3 (2009), 287–289.
47. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q. J. Econ. 108:3 (1993), 577–598.
48. Jensen, R., Thursby, M., Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am. Econ. Rev. 91:1 (2001), 240–259.
49. Lach, S., Schankerman, M., Incentives and invention in universities. RAND J. Econ. 39:2 (2008), 403–433.
50. Lanjouw, J., Schankerman, M., Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econ. J. 114:495 (2004), 441–465.
51. Lemley, M., Shapiro, C., Probabilistic patents. J. Econ. Perspect. 19:2 (2005), 75–98.
52. Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 18:3 (1987), 783–832.
53. Liu, K., Human capital, social collaboration, and patent renewal within us pharmaceutical firms. J. Manag. 40:2 (2014), 616–636.
54. Maine, E., Garnsey, E., Commercializing generic technology: the case of advanced materials ventures. Res. Policy 35:3 (2006), 375–393.
55. Maurseth, P.B., Lovely but dangerous: the impact of patent citations on patent renewal. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 14:5 (2005), 351–374.
56. Mayer, K.J., Nickerson, J.A., Antecedents and performance implications of contracting for knowledge workers: evidence from information technology services. Organ. Sci. 16:3 (2005), 225–242.
57. McGahan, A.M., Silverman, B.S., Profiting from technological innovation by others: the effect of competitor patenting on firm value. Res. Policy 35:8 (2006), 1222–1242.
58. Merges, R., Nelson, R., On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Rev. 90:4 (1990), 839–916.
59. Meyer, M., Patent citations in a novel field of technology — what can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology?. Scientometrics 48:2 (2000), 151–178.
60. Mogoutov, A., Kahane, B., Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: a scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Res. Policy 36:6 (2007), 893–903.
61. Moore, K.A., Worthless patents. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 20:4 (2005), 1521–1552.
62. Mowery, D., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, A., Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole act, 1981–1992. Manag. Sci. 48:1 (2002), 73–89.
63. Noyons, E. for Science, L. U. C., Studies, T. ISI., F., Commission, E., Mapping Excellence in Science and Technology Across Europe: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Final Report. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, 2003, Leiden University.
64. Pakes, A., Schankerman, M., The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. R & D, Patents, and Productivity, 1984, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 73–88.
65. Palomeras, N., An analysis of pure-revenue technology licensing. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 16:4 (2007), 971–994.
66. Porter, A., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., Schoeneck, D., Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle Res. 10:5 (2008), 715–728.
67. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., Heath, C., On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey-unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed”. Res. Policy 36:1 (2007), 134–154.
68. Rosenkopf, L., Nerkar, A., Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 22:4 (2001), 287–306.
69. Rothaermel, F., Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Res. Policy 30:8 (2001), 1235–1251.
70. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., Jiang, L., University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind. Corp. Chang. 16:4 (2007), 691–791.
71. Sakakibara, M., An empirical analysis of pricing in patent licensing contracts. Ind. Corp. Chang. 19:3 (2010), 927–945.
72. Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., Navon, R., Academic versus industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Res. Policy 35:10 (2006), 1631–1645.
73. Serrano, C.J., The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents. RAND J. Econ. 41:4 (2010), 686–708.
74. Shane, S., Academic Entrepreneurship. 2004, Edward Elgar Publishing.
75. Shane, S., Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole act on university patenting in the United States. J. Bus. Ventur. 19:1 (2004), 127–151.
76. Stephan, P.E., The economics of science. J. Econ. Lit. 34:3 (1996), 1199–1235.
77. Svensson, R., Commercialization, renewal, and quality of patents. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 21:2 (2012), 175–201.
78. Teece, D., Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15:6 (1986), 285–305.
79. Thoma, G., Striving for a large market: evidence from a general purpose technology in action. Ind. Corp. Chang. 18:1 (2009), 107–138.
80. Thursby, J., Jensen, R., Thursby, M., Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J. Technol. Transf. 26:1–2 (2001), 59–72.
81. Tong, X., Frame, J., Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Res. Policy 23:2 (1994), 133–141.
82. Trajtenberg, M.R., Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., University versus corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 5:19 (1997), 19–50.
83. Tripsas, M., Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability: evidence from the typesetter industry. Ind. Corp. Chang. 6:2 (1997), 341–377.
84. US Patent & Trademark Office U. D. o. C. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. 2001.
85. Van Zeebroeck, N., Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., Filing strategies and patent value. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 20:6 (2011), 539–561.
86. Von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., Rost, K., Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Res. Policy 34:10 (2005), 1591–1607.
87. Wuchty, S., Jones, B., Uzzi, B., The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:5827 (2007), 1036–1039.
88. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Inf. Process. Manag. 42:6 (2006), 1513–1531.