Sterzi, Valerio (2011): Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?
Download (292Kb) | Preview
This paper deals with an issue which is particularly relevant in the literature on IPR and university-industry knowledge transfer: is the ownership structure of academic inventions relevant for patent quality and the efficiency of the knowledge transfer process? This question is also particularly signi�cant in Europe where some countries have followed the Bayh-Dole Act example to increase the involvement level of universities in IP management. The paper uses a novel dataset of academic inventors in the UK, which includes university patents (i.e. patents owned by universities) and corporate patents (i.e. patents signed by academic scientists but owned by private companies) in the period 1990-2001. The UK is an interesting case to study due to the tradition of university involvement in IP management as it was one of the fi�rst countries to implement the university ownership model. The main results may be summarised as follows. (1) Controlling for observable patent and scientist characteristics, corporate patents received more citations than university patents in the �first three years after fi�ling, but (2) this difference is less signi�cant when considering a longer time window. However, (3) there is no knowledge fertilisation across public (university) and private institutions: university patents mainly cite other university patents and the same reasoning applies to corporate patents. Moreover (4) knowledge fl�ows from university patents are even more geographically localised than those from corporate patents. Finally, (5) among scientists� characteristics, professor�'s scientifi�c quality and his patenting experience seem to be correlated with patent value. From a policy prospective, the results in points (1), (2) and (3) cast some doubts on the role of university ownership as an instrument to foster and facilitate knowledge transfer between academia and industry and raise serious questions about the effect of policies towards increasing the role of technology transfer offices in managing academic patents.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?|
|Keywords:||Academic patent; Patent value; Citations|
|Subjects:||O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property Rights
O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
L - Industrial Organization > L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise > L33 - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
|Depositing User:||Valerio Sterzi|
|Date Deposited:||23. Nov 2011 13:31|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 15:21|
Albert, M.B., Avery, D., Narin, F., McAllister, P., 1991. Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy 20 (3), 251-259.
Bacchiocchi, E., Montobbio, F., 2009. Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations. Journal of Technology Transfer 34 (2), 169-181.
Bacchiocchi, E., Montobbio, F., 2010. International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect. Do USPTO & EPO patent citations tell the same story? Scandinavian Journal of Economics 112(3), 441-470.
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.
Bessen, J., 2008. The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy 37 (5), 932-945.
Blind, K., Cremers, K., Mueller, E., 2009. The in�fluence of strategic patenting on companies� patent portfolio. Research Policy. 38(2), 428-436.
Crespi, G., Geuna, A., Nomaler, O., Verspagen, B., 2010. University IPRs and knowledge transfer: is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19(7), 627-648.
Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., Schneider, C., 2008. Commercializing Academic Research: The Quality of Faculty Patenting, ZEW Discussion Paper. 08-069, Mannheim. 14
Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., Schneider, C., 2011. The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.
Geuna, A., 2001. The changing rationale for European University research funding: are there negative unintended consequences?. Journal of Economic Issues 35 (3), 607�-632.
Geuna, A., Rossi, F., 2011. Changes to University IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy 40(8), 1068-1076.
Guarisco, S., Lissoni, F., Sterzi, V., 2009. Academic Patenting in the UK: Evidence from the CID-KEINS Database. Deliverable D 8.4, CID Project no. FP6 �043345, European Commission (available at http://portale.unibocconi.it/wps/allegatiCTP/D%208.4%20.pdf).
Guellec, D., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., 2000. Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economic Letters 69 (1), 109-114.
Hall, B.H., Ziedonis, R.H., 2001. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-95. RAND Journal of Economics 32 (1), 101-128.
Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., 2005. Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics 36 (1), 16-38.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K., 1999. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics 81(3), 511-515.
Harhoff, D., Reitzig, M., 2004. Determinants of opposition against the EPO patent grants �the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22 (4), 443-480.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (1), 119-127.
Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3), 577-598.
Kenney, M., Patton, D., 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy 38 (9), 1407-1422.
Lanjouw, J.O., Schankerman, M., 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics 32 (1), 129�151.
Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A., 1999. From handshake to contract: Trust, intellectual property, and the social structure of academic research, in: Lane, C., Bachman, R. (Eds.), Trust With and Between Organizations. Oxford University Press, NY, pp. 118�145.
Lissoni, F., Sanditov, B., Tarasconi, G., 2006. The Keins Database on Academic Inventors: Methodology and Contents. CESPRI Working Paper 181. Università Bocconi, Milan.
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.
Lissoni, F., 2010. Academic inventors as brokers. Research Policy 39 (7), 843-857.
Maurseth, P.B., Verspagen, B., 2002. Knowledge spillovers in Europe: A patent citations analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 104 (4), 531-545.
Meissner, C., Sterzi, V., 2011. Who are the stars? Evidence from a sample of UK academic inventors, paper presented at the �nal DIME Conference, 2011. Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Meyer, M., Tang, P., 2007. Exploring the �value�of academic patents: IP management practices 15 in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators. Scientometrics 70 (2), 415-440.
Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N., Ziedonis, A.A., 2002. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh�Dole Act, 1981�1992.Management Science 48 (1), 73�89.
Mowery, D.C., Ziedonis, A.A., 2002. Academic patent quality before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy 31 (2), 399-418.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., Olivastro, D., 1997. The increasing link between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy 26 (3), 317�330.
Orsenigo, L., Sterzi, V., 2010. Comparative Study of the Role of Patents in Di¤erent Industries. KITeS Working Paper 33, Università Bocconi, Milan.
OST, 2008. Indicateurs de sciences et de technologies �Annex A. Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris.
Pakes, A., Schankerman, M., 1984. The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In: Griliches, Zvi (Ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity. NBER, Cambridge, MA,.
Review of Research Assessment, 2003. Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK Funding Bodies.
Sampat, B.N., Mowery, D.C., Ziedonis, A.A., 2003. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1371-1390.
Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., Navon, R., 2006. Academic versus industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy 35 (10), 1631-1645.
Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe B., 2007. The institutional sources of knowledge and the value of academic patents. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 (2), 139-157.
Scott, Jeremy, R.M., 2007. When is a search not a search? The EPO approach. World Patent Information 29 (2), 108-116.
Thursby, J., Fuller A.W., Thursby M., 2009. US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy 38 (1), 14-25.
Trajtenberg, M., 1990. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1),172-187.