University Patenting Activity Research Articles

Organisational Change and the Institutionalisation of University Patenting Activity in Italy

As universities are increasingly called by their national governments for a more entrepreneurial management of public research results, they started to develop internal structures and policies to take a proactive role in the commercialisation of university research. For the first time, this paper presents a detailed chronicle of how country-level reforms on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) were translated into organisation-level mechanisms to regulate university-patenting activity. The analysis is based on the complete list of patent policies issued between 1993 and 2009 by the population of Italian universities. Our evidence suggests that universities first dealt with legislative changes on IPRs by enacting isomorphic behaviours, then by creating a community of practices, and finally by leveraging on such community to influence government reforms on IP-related matters. We discuss our results in the light of institutional theory and public policy.

Organisational Change and the Institutionalisation of University Patenting Activity in Italy

In this paper, using a neo-institutional perspective, we model inter-temporal organisational responses applied to the diffusion and evolution of regulations and practices in university patenting activities. Our study is located in Italy, and it is based on the complete list of patent regulations issued by the population of Italian universities, between 1993 and 2009. We show that in environments characterised by high levels of centralization (i.e. Italy), once each university was allowed to define modes and rules for its own activities, they searched locally, adopting mimetic behaviours, replicating the practices of the most prestigious and visible academic institutions. We also show that, once legislatively re-constrained, the organisational solutions identified by universities were legitimated by the emergence of a community of practice that, developing a set of norms and routines, formed the basis for the occurrence of normative isomorphism. This sequence of different isomorphic behaviours generated severe constraints to the effectiveness of new regulatory policies. Cohercive isomorphism induced by state legislation, therefore, not only became unable to reach the targeted goals, but also indirectly reinforced the dynamics generated by normative isomorphism. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.

Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy

Even though universities routinely share revenues with the inventors and their departments to foster patenting activities, royalties’ incentive effect is largely unexplored, especially using panel data. Using a unique dataset of Italian universities’ patents between 1988 and 2002, I fill this gap, using estimators that account for the potential endogeneity in the data. Both the royalties shared with the inventors and their departments are associated with greater patenting activity. Several other organisational arrangements have significant positive impact, from the use of prompt administrative procedures, to the university’s commitment to exploit the inventions, to the availability of a technology transfer office.

Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity

The implementation of a Bayh–Dole-like legislation outside the US is still a major concern that needs to be addressed. I fill this gap in two ways. First, I report the results of a faculty survey on obstacles to patenting activity in Italian universities, targeted both to inventors and to those non-inventors which reported to engage in university patenting activity and to give up before any patents could be filed. Second, I investigate their effect in a regression model using universities’ patent counts as the dependent variable. Results show that obstacles to university patenting activity reduce to four dimensions: lack of support mechanisms (including insufficient reward for researchers, lack of a TTO, lack of funds to cover patenting costs), commercialisation problems, too heavy teaching and administrative duties, and personal/cultural problems (related to the scarce knowledge of institutional-level patent regulations and to the “open science” mentality of the university). Among them, however, only the lack of support by the university administration reduces the patent counts. Publication productivity has an inverted U-shaped relation with patent counts, but the overall effect is still largely positive, given the current publication levels.

University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications

Integrating data from three independent data sources––USPTO patenting data, Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education Supplement’s World University Ranking (WUR), we examine the possible link between patenting output and the quantity and quality of scientific publications among 281 leading universities world-wide. We found that patenting by these universities, as measured by patents granted by the USPTO, has grown consistently faster than overall US patenting over 1977–2000, although it has grown more slowly over the last 5 years (2000–2005). Moreover, since the mid-1990s, patenting growth has been faster among universities outside North America than among those within North America. We also found that the patenting output of the universities over 2003–2005 is significantly correlated with the quantity and quality of their scientific publications. However, significant regional variations are found: for universities in North America, both the quantity and quality of scientific publications matter, but for European and Australian/NZ universities, only the quantity of publications matter, while for other universities outside North America and Europe/Australia/NZ, only quality of publications matter. We found similar findings when using EPO patenting data instead of USPTO data. Additionally, for USPTO data only, the degree of internationalization of faculty members is found to reduce patenting performance among North American universities, but to increase that of universities outside North America. Plausible explanations for these empirical observations and implications for future research are discussed.

ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY, TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY AND FUNDING: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

Universities are now responsible for economic and social development. This new mission is transforming the traditional university into an entrepreneurial university. This entrepreneurial activity has mainly been carried out by transferring technology to industry, in particular, by patenting.The objective of this paper is to understand why some Spanish universities are more successful than others at patenting. In order to determine the factors that influence the patenting activity, we used a sample made up of 47 Spanish Public On-Campus Universities existing in 2003. Firstly, we applied the Poisson model. Secondly, after finding overdispersion in the data, the two approximations of the binomial negative were estimated (NEGBIN I and NEGBIN II). Lastly, we compared the results obtained with the three regression models.The results show that university patents are significantly positively associated with research funding, university size, technology transfer experience and resources and scientific areas with a greater market orientation. On the contrary, our results support the idea that university's research quality has a negative effect on the patent outputs.This study contributes to the literature on university patenting activity. First, there are no similar empirical studies about Spanish universities. Second, our findings provide quantitative evidence of the importance of funding research and university support policies in patent production. As a consequence, we can set out several policies to improve the dissemination of scientific knowledge and technology transfer activities.

The Entrepreneurial University: A Debate

This paper reviews the literature on benefits and (potential) problems from university patenting and licensing activity, based on 109 papers published between 1980 to 2004. Reasons for university patenting activities include positive influence on researchers' careers, prestige and earnings; additional research funds, access to other proprietary technology, equipment, or other opportunities; exchange of knowledge with industrial researchers, a test of the practical application of a theory. Main possible negative effects include undermining the culture of open science, diverting resources from long term fundamental research; diverting resources from teaching activity and reducing its quality. Policy implications and suggestions for further research conclude the paper.

To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting

This paper reports results from a survey of 208 Italian faculty members, inventors of university-owned patents, on their motivation to get involved in university patenting activities, the obstacles that they faced, and their suggestions to foster the commercialization of academic knowledge through patents. Findings show that respondents get involved in patenting activities to enhance their prestige and reputation, and look for new stimuli for their research; personal earnings do not represent a main incentive. University-level patent regulations reduce the obstacles perceived by inventors, as far as they signal universities’ commitment to legitimate patenting activities. Implications for innovation policies are discussed.

The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity

This paper focuses on the Danish Act No. 347 of 1999, which granted IPRs on inventions at public research institutions to the institutions themselves. After summarizing the situation in Denmark prior to the new law, I describe the Act's main features and then I turn my attention to the solutions adopted by Danish academia to face the opportunities and challenges posed by the new situation. Finally, using a unique dataset including all patents filed by Danish universities from 1982 to 2003, I describe university patenting activity.

MOTIVATIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR PATENTING WITHIN UNIVERSITIES: A SURVEY OF ITALIAN INVENTORS.

Most of the literature on university patenting activity has focused on institutional and organizational change and on mechanisms to overcome market inefficiencies and spur academics to patent their...

Motivations and Incentives for Patenting Within Universities: A Survey of Italian Inventors

Most of the literature on university patenting activity has focused on institutional and organizational change and on mechanisms to overcome market inefficiencies and spur academics to patent their research results. There is little evidence on the incentives for faculty members to get involved in patenting processes, of the obstacles, and of their perceptions of actions to be taken to successfully support the commercialization of academic knowledge through patents. In this paper we present such an assessment based on Italian faculty members. Our analysis is based on a sample of 208 faculty members who appeared to be inventors of Italian academic patents. Our findings show that Italian professors get involved in patenting activities to enhance their prestige and reputation and to look for new stimuli for their research; personal earnings do not represent an important incentive. Respondents appreciate university-level support mechanisms and the availability of an outside fertile local context (firms, scientific parks, incubators, venture capitalists, etc.). Implications are discussed with regard to the diffusion patenting policies within universities and the implementation of effective mechanisms supporting academic patenting processes.

University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research

The paper explores the possible consequences for academic research of increased patenting in European universities. It underlines that most of the policy literature refers to the advantages of university patenting without balancing them against the costs or the risks involved in the activities. We provide a brief description of university patenting activity in Europe examining both university-owned patents and university-invented patents. The review of the literature reveals that unlike the United States, little is known in Europe about the changes taking place in public research as a result of increased patenting and increased institutionalisation of patents. We discuss possible analytical approaches to identify both short-term and long-term effects. Concluding remarks addressing the key issues for future empirical assessments are presented in the last section.