IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v22y2013i4p373-391.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent sharing by US universities: an examination of university joint patenting

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Funk

Abstract

This paper examines the quantity and quality of patents assigned jointly to US universities. The proportion of US university patents with assignment shared with other entities has grown rapidly. The data show the practice of universities sharing patent assignment spans technology classes, universities, and types of co-assignees. Our findings reveal that the quality of university joint patents differs across types of co-assignees when compared to patents assigned solely to a single university or to a single non-university entity. University--corporate joint patents appear to be particularly important, while patents co-assigned to universities and non-profit research institutes and hospitals appear particularly basic in nature. Patents jointly assigned to universities and US government agencies are of lower quality than similar patents assigned to a university or a US government agency alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Funk, 2013. "Patent sharing by US universities: an examination of university joint patenting," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 373-391, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:22:y:2013:i:4:p:373-391
    DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2012.757033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10438599.2012.757033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10438599.2012.757033?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. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2003. "Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1371-1390, November.
    2. David B. Audretsch & Dennis P. Leyden & Albert N. Link, 2013. "Universities as research partners in publicly supported entrepreneurial firms," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 12, pages 175-192, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    4. Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna & Onder Nomaler & Bart Verspagen, 2010. "University IPRs and knowledge transfer: is university ownership more efficient?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 627-648.
    5. Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2011. "Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1077-1083, October.
    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. 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.
    8. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    9. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    10. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. John Hagedoorn, 2003. "Sharing intellectual property rights--an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(5), pages 1035-1050, October.
    14. Reinhilde Veugelers & Julie Callaert & Xiaoyan Song & Bart Van Looy, 2012. "The participation of universities in technology development: do creation and use coincide? An empirical investigation on the level of national innovation systems," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5-6), pages 445-472, December.
    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. Gianluca Murgia, 2021. "The impact of collaboration diversity and joint experience on the reiteration of university co-patents," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1108-1143, August.
    2. Briggs, Kristie, 2015. "Co-owner relationships conducive to high quality joint patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1566-1573.

    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. Francesco Lissoni & Fabio Montobbio, 2015. "The Ownership of Academic Patents and Their Impact. Evidence from Five European Countries," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(1), pages 143-171.
    2. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    3. 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).
    4. Sterzi, Valerio, 2011. "Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?," MPRA Paper 34955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    6. Guerzoni, Marco & Aldridge, Taylor & Audretsch, David B & Sameeksha, Desai, 2012. "University Knowledge, Originality of Patents and the Creation of New Industries," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201219, University of Turin.
    7. Guerzoni, Marco & Taylor Aldridge, T. & Audretsch, David B. & Desai, Sameeksha, 2014. "A new industry creation and originality: Insight from the funding sources of university patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1697-1706.
    8. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    9. Francesco Lissoni, 2013. "Intellectual property and university–industry technology transfer," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 7, pages 164-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Nicola Baldini, 2008. "Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 289-311, May.
    13. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2009. "Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 26-34, February.
    14. Dornbusch, Friedrich & Neuhäusler, Peter, 2015. "Composition of inventor teams and technological progress – The role of collaboration between academia and industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1360-1375.
    15. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Antonio Della Malva & Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena, 2013. "Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 211-239, January.
    17. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    18. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    19. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    20. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    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:taf:ecinnt:v:22:y:2013:i:4:p:373-391. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GEIN20 .

    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.