Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999

Malva, Antonio Della; Lissoni, Francesco; Llerena, Patrick

doi:10.1007/s00191-011-0243-3

Cited by 42 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Very few studies consider other types of legislative or institutional reforms (e.g., Jacob et al 2003;Lissoni et al 2013;Mustar and Wright 2010). In a similar development, among studies investigating public financial measures, we find that the primary emphasis has been on describing different types of financial measures (Della Malva et al 2008;Mustar 2002;Rasmussen 2008;Rasmussen and Sorheim 2012;Wright et al 2006), but insufficient research evaluates the impacts of such support measures (Borlaug et al 2009;Rasmussen and Rice 2012). Finally, we note considerable gaps in research related to the third group of public policy measures, aimed at funding competence-building initiatives or training programs (e.g., Mustar and Wright 2010;Rasmussen 2008).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Additional empirical evidence also indicates that though the amount of universityinvented patents increased (Baldini 2006;Baldini et al 2006;Della Malva et al 2008;Tang 2008), the effect of the reforms on the rate of patents with university ownership remains controversial. In studying trends of both university-owned and university-invented patents, Lissoni et al (2013) find positive trends in university ownership of academic patents at Italian universities during 1996-2007, when important reforms took place.…”

Section: Reforms To University Ipr Regimesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…To pursue such objectives, governments have intervened by enforcing legislative acts and other regulations related to intellectual property (IP) ownership and exploitation of research results (Baldini 2006;Della Malva et al 2008;Geuna and Rossi 2011;Lissoni et al 2013), as well as establishing publicly funded structures and programs to support universities in their commercialization activities (Rasmussen 2008;Rasmussen and Rice 2012;Wright et al 2006). According to economic literature, the main justifications for public interventions that support universities' ''third mission'' activities cite the persistence of barriers, in the form of market inefficiencies (e.g., Salmenkaita and Salo 2002).…”

Section: Rationales For Public Intervention In Support Of Technology mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the wealth of academic studies that analyze different policy measures and initiatives implemented by national or regional governments to support knowledge transfer from academia to industry, scant systematization efforts seek to integrate these disparate lines of research. The systematic review of academic studies on public policy measures in support of technology transfer presented by this article suggests a literature classification based on two dimensions: the type of policy measure analyzed, and the focus of the study (i.e., policy design vs. impact assessment). On the basis of this comprehensive review, we summarize the lessons learned thus far, identify research gaps that continue to limit insights into public policy measures for technology transfer, and highlight directions for further research.Keywords Public policy measures Á Government support of technology transfer Á Commercialization of university research Á Knowledge transfer from academia to industry JEL Classification M13 Á O31 Á O38

show abstract

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Reforms To University Ipr Regimesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Rationales For Public Intervention In Support Of Technology mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This becomes visible in a very 6 Examples of studies on the effects of the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act are Henderson et al (1998), , , and Sampat et al (2003). 7 Similar changes in legislation took place in the UK and Belgium (van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007) and France (della Malva et al, 2008). low share of academic patents being assigned to European universities Nesta, 2006, Verspagen, 2006).…”

Section: Institutional Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OR 0909 Non-technical summaryIt is largely documented that public science has a positive impact on industrial innovation. Previous studies, for instance, provide evidence for enhanced corporate patenting and improved new product and process development in the corporate sector through scientific research results. However, most of these empirical studies focus on the U.S.For the European Economic Area, scholars and policy makers are rather sceptical with respect to emphasizing a large impact of science on corporate innovation: it has been claimed for about a decade that a so-called "European Paradox" exists. It describes the phenomenon that EU countries play a leading global role in terms of top-level scientific output, but lag behind in the ability of converting this strength into wealthgenerating innovations in the business sector.In this paper, we investigate the nexus between science and industry in order to identify potential problems of technology transfer from academia to industry in the European area. Focusing on the "paper trail" from academia to industry in terms of patent applications, we compare academic inventions that are patented in the scientific domain with those that are directly transferred to industry and hence, although invented by an academic patented by a firm.Our analysis of a sample of more than 4000 academic inventions by German professors suggests that there is indeed potential for improving science-industry interactions in Europe. Concretely, our results show that academic inventions assigned to corporations are rather applied and associated with short-run profits, while academic inventions patented by the academic sector are rather complex and exhibit a higher long-term value. This suggests that firms miss the opportunity to invest in basic technologies that promise higher returns in the long run. We interpret this finding as a lack of absorptive capacity by corporations that do not succeed in identifying and exploiting basic university inventions. April 2009 Abstract Against the background of the so-called "European paradox", i.e. the conjecture that EU countries lack the capability to transfer science into commercial innovations, knowledge transfer from academia to industry has been a central issue in policy debates recently. Based on a sample of German scientists we investigate which academic inventions are patented by a scientific assignee and which are owned by corporate entities. Our findings suggest that faculty patents assigned to corporations exhibit a higher short-term value in terms of forward citations and a higher potential to block property rights of competitors. Faculty patents assigned to academic inventors or to public research institutions, in contrast, are more complex, more basic and have stronger links to science. These results may suggest that European firms lack the absorptive capacity to identify and exploit academic inventions that are further away from market applications. The Nexus Between

show abstract

“…As a conclusion, the broad picture shows that private companies are the main owners of academic patents in Europe, while universities take that role in the US. Variations in patent ownership distribution at a country level, as pointed out above, can be explained mainly by factors such as differences in legislations, industry dynamics, and university policies both nationally and locally (Della Malva et al 2013;Giuri et al 2013;Goldfarb and Henrekson 2003;Kenney and Patton 2011;Lissoni et al 2013).…”

Section: Patent Ownership Distribution Among Intermediariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous papers on university patenting and commercialisation have mapped the patent ownership landscape at a variety of academic institutions. Despite these efforts, there is still a scarcity in empirical evidence in terms of how patented academic inventions are commercialised over time. This paper extends previous work on academic commercialisation by tracing patent ownership transfers longitudinally. We develop a conceptual framework of academic patent transfer modes that distinguishes between patents transferred through the efforts of the researchers themselves (autonomous mode), through university support intermediaries (bridge mode) or via companies (corporate mode). The framework makes it possible to record knowledge transfer between academic inventors and external innovators at the time of invention (t0), patent filing (t1), and any subsequent time point (tn). Our results indicate that a majority of the patented inventions are transferred from the inventors to outside-of-academe entities. The results show that small and medium-sized companies are the largest absorbers of academic patents. The findings have potential implications for benchmarking of universities and development of more targeted internal innovation support.

show abstract

Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999

Cited by 42 publications

References 24 publications

Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature

Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature

The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions

To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About