Universities as patent- and licensing income-generating institutions: a survey in Taiwan

Abstract

This study examines the preliminary results of patenting and licensing activities in Taiwanese Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) from 1997 to 2001. We propose a framework to analyse the influence of a university's internal Intellectual Property Right (IPR) management and external research partnerships on creating income through patenting and licensing. Through a postal questionnaire survey, all 122 HEIs in Taiwan were surveyed. The empirical results demonstrate that internalised IPR management capability and external research partnerships have substantially increased the amount of academic patents and licensing income. The paper reveals that the relation between external research partnership and patterns of academic licensing is moderated by industry research funding, towards more domestic and partner-oriented licensing. This has crucial policy implications for enhancing effective national triple-helix interactions

An exploratory study of Principal Investigator roles in UK university Proof-of-Concept processes: an Absorptive Capacity perspective

“…Since 1997, the UK government has invested over d50mn in university technology transfer including the development of early-stage technology (Wright et al, 2004). Although the revenue from these activities is still relatively small for most universities, in comparison with the traditional university activities (Shane, 2004), it is an emergent and growing area of activity that has led to changes in the role of academic staff (Chang et al, 2008). Moreover, Rothaermel et al's review and critique (2007) identifies the entrepreneurial university and the role of the academic staff as a key area of research within the technology transfer literature.…”

“…Chang et al (2008: p. 292) states the need to facilitate the knowledge flow at this stage. Shane (2004: p. 113) suggests that technology at this stage of development is unproven in terms of licensing or spin-off potential and that development is usually initially limited to invention disclosure (Chang et al, 2008). This process, often ill-defined and tacit in nature, and its associated routines, have emerged or have been designed to probe the initial promise of basic science or embryonic technology generated by academics or Principal Investigators (PIs) by allocating limited resources with specified targets (Wright et al, 2004;Mosey et al, 2006).…”

“…As shown by Baum and Silverman (2004) and Shane (2004), very few ventures originating from university commercialisation of research yield any significant revenue. The demands and conditions set by investors are exacting, which makes for a difficult negotiation process, especially in situations where the PI lacks business and market experience (Lerner, 2005;Chang et al, 2008). This situation has resulted in support initiatives such as the PoC process within USIs, where embryonic technologies are evaluated in relation to both technology and market developments, before spin-off formation or licensing, while simultaneously attracting funding from stakeholders and investors (Mosey et al, 2006;Renault, 2006).…”