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

Abstract

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.

The Impact of University Collaboration With Stakeholders On Employment and Turnover of University New Ventures

“…With respect to codified knowledge, intellectual property rights (patents in our case) also facilitate new ventures creation [25] through the support of technology transfer offices (i. e., TTOs help to evaluate the invention and provide a platform to develop skills and be connected with businesses in the industry) [6].…”

The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science

“…It is thus unsurprising that the literature suggests that the move to university-owned and controlled patents, accelerated, in part, through the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act ( Mowery et al., 2001 ), did not demonstrably achieve either of the two overarching goals of the practice: to increase the level of innovation in the economy and to increase revenue gains for universities ( Eisenberg and Cook-Deegan, 2018 ; Ouellette and Tutt, 2020 ; Corredoira et al., 2019 ). There are several reasons put forward to explain why a university patenting strategy has not had the desired results, including decreased downstream development and upstream duplication ( Egelie et al., 2019 ), increased difficulty and delays in establishing contractual relationships with university technology transfer offices ( Dahlborg et al., 2017 ; Hertzfeld et al., 2006 ; Kira R. Fabrizio, 2006 ), lack of university expertise and market knowledge ( Swamidass and Vulasa, 2009 ), delayed dissemination and uptake of results ( Williams, 2013 ; Fabrizio, 2009 ; Kira, 2006 ; West, 2006 ), perverse university incentive structures ( Ouellette and Tutt, 2020 ; Eisenberg and Cook-Deegan, 2018 ) and the use of university patents to sue firms that have developed products without the aid of university patents ( Eisenberg and Cook-Deegan, 2018 , 82; Rooksby, 2011 ).…”

“…OSPs create an environment that remove barriers to ensure that teams are diverse. They do so by reducing or removing transaction costs involved in establishing teams, particularly when universities are involved, through the elimination of protracted negotiations, principally with respect to intellectual property ( Hertzfeld et al., 2006 , 826; Dahlborg et al., 2017 ), and the use of standard form agreements that set out general terms of the collaboration ( Rai et al., 2009 ; Kieff, 2005 ; Roskams-Edris and Gold, 2019 ). The reduction of these costs creates conditions under which it becomes viable for smaller firms, firms that are more tangential to the core project (e.g., an artificial intelligence firm in drug discovery), and user or patient organizations, to participate in the partnerships.…”

The interaction between knowledge management and technology transfer: a current literature review between 2013 and 2018

“…The tendency of the topic addressed in this research leads to the assertion that the most recent studies (2016-2018) are focused on the study of the industries, through applied case studies, innovation generation (Brescia et al 2016) and partnerships between companies and universities (Duffield and Whitty 2016;Gerbin and Drnovsek, 2016;Dahlborg et al 2017).…”

“…In 2017, Dahlborg et al (2017) point out that small and medium-sized enterprises are the largest investors in academic patents, allowing the benchmarking of universities for the generation of knowledge and innovation. In the same year the study by Battaglia et al (2017) corroborates that the transfer of technology comes from organizational structures that involve the management and transfer of knowledge.…”