IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v14y2023i2d10.1007_s13132-022-00915-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) IP Policies: Comparison of Indian HEIs’ IP Policies from a Global Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Vijay Sattiraju

    (Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education)

  • Virendra S. Ligade

    (Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education)

  • Pradeep Muragundi

    (Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education)

  • Ravi Pandey

    (Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur)

  • Manthan D. Janodia

    (Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education)

Abstract

Until the end of the eighteenth century, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) were restricted to generate knowledge for free access to industries which they use for making commercial products. Though HEIs have the potential to contribute to the national economy from their creative and commercially viable R&D output through commercialization of research and Intellectual Property Rights, it was not given the needed importance due to lack of supportive policies. In many developed countries, innovation strategies, Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) and national Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policies provided opportunities to HEIs to own and commercialize knowledge they generate. National IPR policy and formulation and implementation of HEI IP policies became crucial for effective implementation, promotion of innovation, generation, and protection of IP in the HEIs. Efficiency of HEI in commercializing research is dependent on national IP policy framework aligning vision and goals of HEI IP policy with national IP policy, objectives, ownership, and revenue sharing mechanism. These are the key indicators for comparing the institutions’ innovation and IP capacity. This paper uses these indicators to discuss the impact of different countries’ (developed, developing, and least developed) national IPR policy frameworks on top-performing HEIs of those countries and to address the research question, how national and HEI IP policies have worked in achieving envisaged economic growth by improving innovation output of the HEIs. It further compares Indian HEI IP policies with global HEIs. We found that there is a greater need for local governments and HEIs to make their incentive strategies and policies in line with their corresponding national frameworks for facilitating the collaboration and commercialization of innovations. Implementing a robust IP policy framework at state/region and HEI level plays a pivotal role in creating an innovation ecosystem supportive to envisaged national economic growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Vijay Sattiraju & Virendra S. Ligade & Pradeep Muragundi & Ravi Pandey & Manthan D. Janodia, 2023. "National and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) IP Policies: Comparison of Indian HEIs’ IP Policies from a Global Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(2), pages 1979-2006, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:14:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-022-00915-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-022-00915-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-022-00915-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-022-00915-0?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. Gangopadhyay, Kausik & Mondal, Debasis, 2012. "Does stronger protection of intellectual property stimulate innovation?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 80-82.
    2. 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.
    3. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2002. "Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 73-89, January.
    4. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2007. "National Innovation Systems—Analytical Concept and Development Tool," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 95-119.
    5. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Hu, Albert Guangzhou & Jefferson, Gary H., 2009. "A great wall of patents: What is behind China's recent patent explosion?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 57-68, September.
    7. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2006. "Path dependence and regional economic evolution," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 395-437, August.
    8. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    9. Keller, Wolfgang, 2010. "International Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and Technology Spillovers," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 793-829, Elsevier.
    10. Josh Lerner, 2002. "150 Years of Patent Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 221-225, May.
    11. David C. Mowery, Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2001. "The commercialisation of national laboratory technology through the formation of "spin-off" firms: evidence from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory," International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1/2), pages 106-119.
    12. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    13. Kristin Brandl & Izzet Darendeli & Ram Mudambi, 2019. "Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(5), pages 826-846, July.
    14. Furukawa, Yuichi, 2010. "Intellectual property protection and innovation: an inverted-U relationship," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 99-101, November.
    15. P.K. Ghosh & Ankur Kashyap & Rajat Agrawal, 2016. "Mapping the position of higher educational institutes in national economic advancement: a comparative analysis," International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(3), pages 283-302.
    16. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    17. Bramwell, Allison & Wolfe, David A., 2008. "Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1175-1187, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Su, Zhongfeng & Wang, Chenfeng & Peng, Mike W., 2022. "Intellectual property rights protection and total factor productivity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3).
    3. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Fang, Jing & He, Hui & Li, Nan, 2020. "China's rising IQ (Innovation Quotient) and growth: Firm-level evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2016. "Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 533-545.
    6. Kamal Saggi, 2016. "Trade, Intellectual Property Rights, and the World Trade Organization," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 16-00014, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    7. Shin, Seungryul Ryan & Lee, Jisoo & Jung, Yura Rosemary & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "The diffusion of scientific discoveries in government laboratories: The role of patents filed by government scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    8. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2023. "The Least developed countries' TRIPS Waiver and the Strength of Intellectual Property Protection," EconStor Preprints 271537, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    10. Beatrice Dumont & Peter Holmes, 2002. "The Scope Of Intellectual Property Rights and their Interface with Competition Law and Policy: Divergent Paths to the Same Goal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 149-162.
    11. de Saint-Georges, Matthis & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "A quality index for patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 704-719.
    12. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Shiri Breznitz & Douglas Noonan, 2014. "Arts districts, universities, and the rise of digital media," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 594-615, August.
    14. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041.
    15. Suma Athreye & Lucia Piscitello & Kenneth C. Shadlen, 2020. "Twenty-five years since TRIPS: Patent policy and international business," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 315-328, December.
    16. Jisun Kim & Tugrul Daim, 2014. "A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: study of U.S. academic research institutions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 748-773, October.
    17. Claude DIEBOLT & Karine PELLIER, 2018. "Patents in the Long Run: Theory, History and Statistics," Working Papers of BETA 2018-20, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Hella Bani Baghdadi & Sami Aouadi, 2018. "Does Patent Performance Promote Relative Technological Performance in Countries Bordering the Mediterranean?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(4), pages 1246-1269, December.
    19. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2013. "The Case against Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-22, Winter.

    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:spr:jknowl:v:14:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-022-00915-0. 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: 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.