Public Science and Public Innovation: Assessing the Relationship between Patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act

Most studies of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act have focused on universities. In contrast, we analyze patenting activity at two prominent national laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories and the National Institute of Standards and Technology before and after the enactment of this legislation and the Stevenson-Wydler Act. It appears as though the enactment of Bayh-Dole and the Stevenson-Wydler Act were not sufficient to induce an increase in patenting at these labs. However, the establishment of financial incentive systems, embodied in passage of the Federal Technology Transfer Act, as well as the allocation of internal resources to support technology transfer, stimulated an increase in such activity.

[1]  Michael Fisher,et al.  The national labs , 2003 .

[2]  Harold Metcalf.  Lessons from history: Origins of the federal laboratory consortium for technology transfer , 1994 .

[3]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies , 2001 .

[4]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of Nasa and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation , 1997 .

[5]  John E. Jankowski.  Do we need a price index for industrial R&D? , 1993 .

[6]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination , 2003 .

[7]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[8]  Rebecca Ullrich.  A History of Building 828, Sandia National Laboratories , 1999 .

[9]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Government as Entrepreneur , 2009 .

[10]  M. Wright,et al.  Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom , 2003 .

[11]  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 .

[12]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[13]  A. Link,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage In Informal University Technology Transfer , 2007 .

[14]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Ivory tower and industrial innovation : university-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States , 2004 .

[15]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[16]  Lillian Hoddeson,et al.  The National Labs: Science in an American System, 1947–1974 , 2004 .

[17]  Wendy H. Schacht.  Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded Research and Development [February 10, 2006] , 2006 .

[18]  M. Wright,et al.  Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications , 2007 .

[19]  A. Stevens.  The Enactment of Bayh–Dole , 2004 .

[20]  Charles W Wessner.  Industry-Laboratory Partnerships: A Review of the Sandia Science and Technology Park Initiative , 1998 .

[21]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities , 1998 .

[22]  J. Lerner,et al.  The University and the Start-Up:Lessons from the Past Two Decades , 2004 .