IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/indinn/v20y2013i3p241-260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Follow the (Industry) Money -- The Impact of Science Networks and Industry-to-University Contracts on Academic Patenting in Nanotechnology and Biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Beaudry
  • Ramine Kananian

Abstract

We investigated the factors influencing an academic's propensity to patent and the quality of patenting in nanotechnology and biotechnology. We found that a university researcher is more likely to be listed as an inventor of a patented innovation, regardless of the assignee, if he receives private funding, has a fairly high level of cliquishness in the scientific network and has shown a prior capacity to successfully collaborate with industry, a concept that we named innovation loops. Furthermore, citation rate and number of claims, which are used to represent patent quality, are influenced by factors similar to those explaining patent quantity.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Beaudry & Ramine Kananian, 2013. "Follow the (Industry) Money -- The Impact of Science Networks and Industry-to-University Contracts on Academic Patenting in Nanotechnology and Biotechnology," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 241-260, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:indinn:v:20:y:2013:i:3:p:241-260
    DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2013.791125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13662716.2013.791125
    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. Richard Jensen & Jerry Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2010. "University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting," NBER Working Papers 15732, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Michael L. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2010. "Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 143-164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2006. "The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research Output," NBER Working Papers 11917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    2. Nuha Zamzami & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2017. "The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1385-1413, June.
    3. Claudia Werker & Vladimir Korzinov & Scott Cunningham, 2019. "Formation and output of collaborations: the role of proximity in German nanotechnology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 697-719, April.

    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. Julien Penin, 2010. "On the Consequences of Patenting University Research: Lessons from a Survey of French Academic Inventors," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 445-468.
    2. Andrea Fernández‐Ribas, 2010. "International Patent Strategies of Small and Large Firms: An Empirical Study of Nanotechnology," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 457-473, July.
    3. Jegoo Lee & Sang-Joon Kim, 2017. "Curvilinear Relationship between Corporate Innovation and Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(7), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Jeongsik Lee & Eric Stuen, 2016. "University reputation and technology commercialization: evidence from nanoscale science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 586-609, June.
    5. Matthew Ainurul Rosli & Federica Rossi, 2015. "Monitoring the knowledge transfer performance of universities: An international comparison of models and indicators," Working Papers 24, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Jul 2015.
    6. Julien Pénin, 2009. "On the consequences of university patenting: What can we learn by asking directly to academic inventors?," Working Papers of BETA 2009-04, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    8. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    9. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    10. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    11. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    12. 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.
    13. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Etienne Pfister & Bruno Deffains & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Stéphane Saussier, 2006. "Institutions and contracts: Franchising," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-78, January.
    15. Luintel, Kul B. & Khan, Mosahid, 2017. "Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1738-1754.
    16. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    17. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    18. Ponce, Carlos J., 2011. "Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 418-434.
    19. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    20. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Post-Print halshs-00193398, HAL.

    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:indinn:v:20:y:2013:i:3:p:241-260. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIAI20 .

    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.