Knowledge creation and exploitation in Italian universities: the role of internal policies for patent activity

Purpose – This paper aims at identifying factors that might affect academic patent activities. It investigates the characteristics of universities acting on the number of academic patents, thus classifying elements of differentiation among universities able to determine the level of patent activity. Design/methodology/approach – Three hypotheses are tested through a regression analysis, considering various academic variables. Findings – Results demonstrate that the patent activity is mainly influenced by the presence of universities’ internal policies that regulate such a field. The adoption of a regulation is a signal for academics of the university inclination and attempt to develop an environment conducive to patent activities, and to offer structured support to inventors in the different phases of the patenting process. Research limitations – The study, as it focuses on a single country, Italy, may reflect some peculiarities of the national system. Future research may extend it to different geographic...

[1]  B. Lundvall.  National Systems of Innovation , 1992 .

[2]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities , 2001 .

[3]  Y. Gingras,et al.  The place of universities in the system of knowledge production , 2000 .

[4]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future Location of Research and Technology Transfer , 1999 .

[5]  Sean M. Hackett,et al.  A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research , 2004 .

[6]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[7]  N. Rosenberg.  Science, Invention and Economic Growth , 1974 .

[8]  C. Freeman.  Technology policy and economic performance : lessons from Japan , 1987 .

[9]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time. , 1993 .

[10]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[11]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[12]  Melita Nicotra,et al.  Territory’s Absorptive Capacity , 2013 .

[13]  S. Marginson,et al.  The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia , 2000 .

[14]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences? , 2001 .

[15]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[16]  David Riesman,et al.  The Academic Revolution. , 1969 .

[17]  Richard Ferguson,et al.  Science Parks and the Development of NTBFs— Location, Survival and Growth , 2004 .

[18]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research , 2003 .

[19]  B. Laperche.  How to Coordinate the Networked Enterprise in a Context of Open Innovation? A New Function for Intellectual Property Rights , 2011, Journal of the Knowledge Economy.

[20]  Joanne Roberts,et al.  University-Industry Collaboration: A CoPs Approach to KTPs , 2011, J. Knowl. Manag..

[21]  U. Varblane,et al.  Governmental Support Measures for University–Industry Cooperation—Comparative View in Europe , 2014 .

[22]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Knowledge and the Family Business: The Governance and Management of Family Firms in the New Knowledge Economy , 2010 .

[23]  Deborah Blackman,et al.  Knowledge management and effective university governance , 2009, J. Knowl. Manag..

[24]  H. Etzkowitz.  The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages , 1998 .

[25]  A. Piccaluga.  La valorizzazione della ricerca scientifica. , 2001 .

[26]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[27]  Mark Harvey,et al.  Analysing distributed processes of provision and innovation , 2003 .

[28]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Culture and Cooperative Strategies: Knowledge Management Perspectives , 2012 .

[29]  B. Clark.  Creating entrepreneurial universities : organizational pathways of transformation , 1998 .

[30]  H. M. Collins,et al.  The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks , 1974 .

[31]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  IT and Entrepreneurism: An On-Again, Off-Again Love Affair or a Marriage? , 2011 .

[32]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Entrepreneurship, Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-Clinical Life Sciences Faculty , 2001 .

[33]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .

[34]  Marco Romano,et al.  The Evolution Dynamic of a Cluster Knowledge Network: The Role of Firms’ Absorptive Capacity , 2013 .

[35]  Georg Krücken.  Mission impossible? Institutional barriers to the diffusion of the "third academic mission" at German universities , 2003, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[36]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[37]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System , 2011 .

[38]  Reza Kiani Mavi,et al.  Indicators of Entrepreneurial University: Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach , 2014 .

[39]  J. Wallmark,et al.  Inventions and patents at universities: the case of Chalmers University of Technology , 1997 .

[40]  R. Nelson,et al.  National Innovation Systems , 1993 .

[41]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities , 2001 .

[42]  C. Freeman.  Technology, policy, and economic performance , 1987 .

[43]  A. Panagopoulos.  The Effect of IP Protection on Radical and Incremental Innovation , 2011 .

[44]  B. Clark.  Creating entrepreneurial universities , 1998 .

[45]  D. P. Leyden,et al.  Research Risk and Public Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy: the Relative Research Efficiency of Government Versus University Labs , 2014 .

[46]  Rosa Grimaldi,et al.  Institutional Changes and the Commercialization of Academic Knowledge: A Study of Italian Universities' Patenting Activities Between 1965 and 2002 , 2006 .

[47]  Andrzej P. Wierzbicki,et al.  Knowledge management and knowledge creation in academia: a study based on surveys in a Japanese research university , 2010, J. Knowl. Manag..

[48]  Andrea Bonaccorsi.  Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia , 2003 .

[49]  Malin Lindberg,et al.  Women Resource Centres—A Creative Knowledge Environment of Quadruple Helix , 2012 .

[50]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  National Systems of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning London: Pint , 1995 .

[51]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  An Overview of Innovation , 2009 .

[52]  Magnus Henrekson,et al.  Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property , 2003 .

[53]  Marc Dressler.  Assessing the Economic Effects of Patents , 2012 .

[54]  B. Verspagen,et al.  Systems of Innovation , 2009 .

[55]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[56]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[57]  Peter van der Sijde,et al.  A Script-Based Approach to Spin-Off: Some First Issues on Innovative Pathways of Knowledge Transfer and Academic Knowledge's Reproducibility , 2007 .

[58]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .

[59]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[60]  M. Hashem Pesaran,et al.  Working with Microfit 4.0 : interactive econometric analysis , 1997 .