IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i3p813-829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Many hands: The effect of the prior inventor-intermediaries relationship on academic licensing

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Young-Choon
  • Rhee, Mooweon
  • Kotha, Reddi

Abstract

We study the role of the relationship among inventors and intermediaries in the licensing of university inventions. We suggest that a prior inventor-intermediaries relationship positively influences licensing rates through selective retention of higher quality relationships and mutual learning in the relationship, enabling intermediaries to reduce both information asymmetry and search costs between inventors and potential licensees. We argue that the influence of a prior inventor-intermediaries relationship on licensing is especially important before intellectual property protection is attained and can be substituted by the buyer-side contacts of inventors and intermediaries. We test these predictions using 919 inventions from the technology transfer office at Stanford University. This study has implications for the policies and design of university technology licensing organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Young-Choon & Rhee, Mooweon & Kotha, Reddi, 2019. "Many hands: The effect of the prior inventor-intermediaries relationship on academic licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 813-829.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:3:p:813-829
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318302865
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    2. Popp David & Juhl Ted & Johnson Daniel K.N., 2004. "Time In Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-45, November.
    3. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2006. "Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 772-789, July.
    4. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 2002. "Intermediaries in the U.S. Market for Technology, 1870-1920," NBER Working Papers 9017, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Markus Reitzig & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 765-789, July.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. De Silva, Muthu & Howells, Jeremy & Meyer, Martin, 2018. "Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 70-87.
    8. Buenstorf, Guido, 2009. "Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 281-292, March.
    9. Lamoreaux, Naomi R. & Sokoloff, Kenneth L. & Sutthiphisal, Dhanoos, 2013. "Patent Alchemy: The Market for Technology in US History," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 3-38, April.
    10. Donald S. Siegel & Reinhilde Veugelers & Mike Wright, 2007. "Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 640-660, Winter.
    11. Daniel Elfenbein, 2007. "Publications, Patents, and the Market for University Inventions," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    13. Scott Shane, 2002. "Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 122-137, January.
    14. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    15. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    16. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Brent Goldfarb & Scott Shane & Marie Thursby, 2008. "Appropriability and Commercialization: Evidence from MIT Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 893-906, May.
    17. Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2005. "University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 583-594, June.
    18. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    19. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    20. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    21. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    22. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    23. Jasjit Singh & Ajay Agrawal, 2011. "Recruiting for Ideas: How Firms Exploit the Prior Inventions of New Hires," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 129-150, January.
    24. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    25. Iacus, Stefano & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2009. "cem: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 30(i09).
    26. Mitchell, Will, 1991. "Using academic technology: Transfer methods and licensing incidence in the commercialization of American diagnostic imaging equipment research, 1954-1988," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 203-216, June.
    27. Matthew Blackwell & Stefano Iacus & Gary King & Giuseppe Porro, 2009. "cem: Coarsened exact matching in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(4), pages 524-546, December.
    28. Thomas Hellmann, 2007. "The Role of Patents for Bridging the Science to Market Gap," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    30. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    31. Elfenbein, Daniel W., 2007. "Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 688-715, August.
    32. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2007. "University licensing," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 620-639, Winter.
    33. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    34. Tartari, Valentina & Perkmann, Markus & Salter, Ammon, 2014. "In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1189-1203.
    35. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike (ed.), 2015. "The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226178349, October.
    36. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1999. "Inventors, Firms, and the Market for Technology in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," NBER Chapters, in: Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries, pages 19-60, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    37. Donald Siegel & Mike Wright & Wendy Chapple & Andy Lockett, 2008. "Assessing The Relative Performance Of University Technology Transfer In The Us And Uk: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 717-729.
    38. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
    39. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Mowery, David & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "Introduction to the special section: Heterogeneity and university-industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-5, February.
    40. Phanish Puranam & Harbir Singh & Saikat Chaudhuri, 2009. "Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration Is (Un)necessary," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 313-328, April.
    41. Kate S Gaudry, 2012. "The Lone Inventor: Low Success Rates and Common Errors Associated with Pro-Se Patent Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-11, March.
    42. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    43. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, April.
    44. Ashish Arora & Robert P. Merges, 2004. "Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(3), pages 451-475, June.
    45. Yusuf, Shahid, 2008. "Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1167-1174, September.
    46. Thursby, Jerry G. & Kemp, Sukanya, 2002. "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 109-124, January.
    47. Stefan Wagner & Karin Hoisl & Grid Thoma, 2014. "Overcoming localization of knowledge — the role of professional service firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1671-1688, November.
    48. G. Derrick, 2015. "Integration versus separation: structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    49. Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Yun, Xiao, 2007. "China's innovation system reform and growing industry and science linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1251-1260, October.
    50. Baglieri, Daniela & Baldi, Francesco & Tucci, Christopher L., 2018. "University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 51-63.
    51. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Juram & Lee, Gyumin & Lee, Seungbin & Lee, Changyong, 2022. "Towards expert–machine collaborations for technology valuation: An interpretable machine learning approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Kim, Phillip H. & Kotha, Reddi & Fourné, Sebastian P.L. & Coussement, Kristof, 2019. "Taking leaps of faith: Evaluation criteria and resource commitments for early-stage inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1429-1444.
    3. Temel, Serdal & Dabić, Marina & Murat Ar, Ilker & Howells, Jeremy & Ali Mert, & Yesilay, Rustem Baris, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Ileana Palaco & Suk Kyoung Kim & Min Jae Park & Jae Jeung Rho, 2022. "Exploring capabilities of international technology transfer intermediaries between emerging and developed countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 307-352, February.
    5. Kim, Young-Choon & Kotha, Reddi & Rhee, Mooweon, 2024. "Do firms with technological capabilities rush in? Evidence from the timing of licensing of Stanford inventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Samira Yusef Araújo Falani Bezerra & Ana Lúcia Vitale Torkomian, 2024. "Technology Transfer Offices: a Systematic Review of the Literature and Future Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 4455-4488, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    3. Charlotta Dahlborg & Danielle Lewensohn & Rickard Danell & Carl Johan Sundberg, 2017. "To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 538-563, June.
    4. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    6. Soares, Thiago J. & Torkomian, Ana L.V., 2021. "TTO's staff and technology transfer: Examining the effect of employees' individual capabilities," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    8. Kim, Young-Choon & Kotha, Reddi & Rhee, Mooweon, 2024. "Do firms with technological capabilities rush in? Evidence from the timing of licensing of Stanford inventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    9. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    10. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    11. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    12. Yuandi Wang & Die Hu & Weiping Li & Yiwei Li & Qiang Li, 2015. "Collaboration strategies and effects on university research: evidence from Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 725-749, May.
    13. Alejandro Bengoa & Amaia Maseda & Txomin Iturralde & Gloria Aparicio, 2021. "A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1514-1550, October.
    14. Horner, Sam & Papageorgiadis, Nikolaos & Sofka, Wolfgang & Angelidou, Sofia, 2022. "Standing your ground: Examining the signaling effects of patent litigation in university technology licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    15. Arman Yalvac Aksoy & Catherine Beaudry, 2021. "How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2051-2121, December.
    16. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    17. Shen, Huijun & Coreynen, Wim & Huang, Can, 2022. "Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    18. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Chao & Feng, Ze & Zhang, Yi & Ning, Lutao, 2022. "Technology transfer systems and modes of national research institutes: evidence from the Chinese academy of sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    19. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    20. Lee, Kyootai & Jung, Hyun Ju, 2021. "Does TTO capability matter in commercializing university technology? Evidence from longitudinal data in South Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    21. Drivas, Kyriakos & Fafaliou, Irene & Fampiou, Elpiniki & Yannelis, Demetrius, 2014. "The Effect of Patent Grant on the Geographic Reach of Patent Sales," MPRA Paper 60099, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:3:p:813-829. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.