IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v31y2006i4p443-450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk Libaers
  • Martin Meyer
  • Aldo Geuna

Abstract

This study examines the role of university spin-out (USO) companies in the emergence of a new technology, in our case nanotechnology. Three unique data-sets based on patents, co-publications, and firm data pertaining to the unfolding field of nanotechnology in the UK were developed. Subsequent analysis suggests that USOs play an important though not a dominant role. Furthermore, the results indicate that USOs in certain subfields of nanotechnology do not have a strong and growing proprietary technology base, raising questions about the commercial sustainability of these ventures. Overall, we observed that USOs are important contributors to technological change in specific subfields of nanotechnology, but that other actors, notably, large firms and (non-university affiliated) new technology-based firms are even more significant agents of technological change. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Dirk Libaers & Martin Meyer & Aldo Geuna, 2006. "The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 443-450, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:31:y:2006:i:4:p:443-450
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-006-0005-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-006-0005-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-006-0005-9?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. James Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 93-110, February.
    2. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    3. Christopher Palmberg, 2008. "The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 631-652, December.
    4. Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    5. David P. Leech & John T. Scott, 2017. "Nanotechnology documentary standards," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 78-97, February.
    6. James Cunningham & Paul O'Reilly & Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects," Post-Print hal-00756228, HAL.
    7. Pinaki Nandan Pattnaik & Satyendra C. Pandey, 2016. "Revisiting University Spinoffs: Conceptual Advancements and Theoretical Underpinnings," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(01), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Theologou, Kostas & Michaelides, Panayotis G., 2008. "Technology Transfer in Academia : The Case of National Technical University of Athens (A Brief Sketch)," MPRA Paper 74476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Mario Coccia & Ugo Finardi & Diego Margon, 2010. "Research trends in nanotechnology studies across geo-economic areas," CERIS Working Paper 201005, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    10. So Sohn & Mooyeob Lee, 2012. "Conjoint analysis of R&D contract agreements for industry-funded university research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 532-549, August.
    11. James Cunningham & Paul O'Reilly & Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00756228, HAL.
    12. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00756228 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    15. repec:hal:gemwpa:hal-00756228 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Markus A. Kirchberger & Larissa Pohl, 2016. "Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 1077-1112, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University technology commercialization; Nanotechnology; University Spinout (USO); technological change; O31; O34;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:jtecht:v:31:y:2006:i:4:p:443-450. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.