IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v32y2007i3p251-276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Author

Listed:
  • Finn Valentin

    ()

  • Rasmus Jensen

Abstract

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Finn Valentin & Rasmus Jensen, 2007. "Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 251-276, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:32:y:2007:i:3:p:251-276
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-006-9015-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-006-9015-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Saragossi, Sarina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2003. "What Patent Data Reveal about Universities: The Case of Belgium," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 47-51, January.
    2. Jason Owen-Smith & Massimo Riccaboni & Fabio Pammolli & Walter W. Powell, 2002. "A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 24-43, January.
    3. S. Breschi & F. Lissoni & F. Montobbio, 2007. "The Scientific Productivity Of Academic Inventors: New Evidence From Italian Data," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 101-118.
    4. J Calvert & P Patel, 2003. "University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 85-96, April.
    5. D'Este, P. & Patel, P., 2007. "University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    6. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    7. Hagedoorn, John & van Kranenburg, Hans, 2003. "Growth patterns in R&D partnerships: an exploratory statistical study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 517-531, April.
    8. E. Paul Durrenberger, 2005. "Labour," Chapters,in: A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    10. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne G. Zucker & Marilynn B. Brewer, 1995. "Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," NBER Working Papers 5320, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Simcha Jong, 2006. "How organizational structures in science shape spin-off firms: the biochemistry departments of Berkeley, Stanford, and UCSF and the birth of the biotech industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 251-283, April.
    12. Balconi, Margherita & Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2004. "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    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. Christoph Grimpe, 2014. "ERAWATCH Country Reports 2012: Denmark," JRC Working Papers JRC90705, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    2. Alberto Marzucchi & Davide Antonioli & Sandro Montresor, 2012. "Research cooperation within and across regional boundaries. Does innovation policy add anything?," JRC Working Papers JRC76320, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    3. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    4. Paul A. David & J. Stanley Metcalfe, 2010. "‘Only Connect’: Academic–Business Research Collaborations and the Formation of Ecologies of Innovation," Chapters,in: The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Åsa & Elg, Lennart, 2013. "Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 874-885.
    6. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    7. Thomas Åstebro & Pontus Braunerhjelm & Anders Broström, 2013. "Does academic entrepreneurship pay?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 281-311, February.
    8. Dirk Czarnitzki & Thorsten Doherr & Katrin Hussinger & Paula Schliessler & Andrew A. Toole, 2015. "Individual versus institutional ownership of university-discovered inventions," CREA Discussion Paper Series 15-05, Center for Research in Economic Analysis, University of Luxembourg.
    9. repec:spr:scient:v:83:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0075-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Antje Klitkou, 2012. "ERAWATCH Countryn reports 2011: Denmark," JRC Working Papers JRC77810, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    11. Crespi, Gustavo & D'Este, Pablo & Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo, 2011. "The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 55-68, February.
    12. Sidonia von Ledebur, 2009. "University-owned Patents in West and East Germany and the Abolition of the Professors' Privilege," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2009-02, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    13. Thursby, Jerry & Fuller, Anne W. & Thursby, Marie, 2009. "US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, February.
    14. Elena Giaretta, 2014. "The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: an Italian science park experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 675-687, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Alberto Marzucchi & Davide Antonioli & Sandro Montresor, 2015. "Industry–research co-operation within and across regional boundaries. What does innovation policy add?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 499-524, August.
    17. Elisa BARBIERI & Lauretta RUBINI & Alessandra MICOZZI, 2013. "Evaluating policies for innovation and university-firm relations. An investigation on the attitude of Italian academic entrepreneurs towards collaborations with firms," Economia Marche / Journal of Applied Economics, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I) / Fondazione Aristide Merloni (I), vol. 0(2), pages 17-45, December.
    18. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2011. "Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1100-1112, October.
    19. E. Bacchiocchi & F. Montobbio, 2009. "Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 169-181, April.
    20. repec:spr:anresc:v:59:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s00168-017-0843-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Anna Kochenkova & Rosa Grimaldi & Federico Munari, 2016. "Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 407-429, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University technology commercialization; Research collaboration; Biotechnology; I23; L65; O31; O34; O38;

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • 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
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:32:y:2007:i:3:p:251-276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.