Trends in and factors influencing PCT applications by Japanese universities

To promote the creation of innovations, it is imperative that new technologies by universities are patented and transferred to private companies. This study aims to reveal the trends in and factors influencing PCT applications by Japanese universities. Data on 4,158 applications for 2008-2012 were collected from the J-PlatPat database and those for university performance, research activities, and industry-academia collaboration were compiled from documents of universities and the Japanese government. The results revealed that PCT applications are mainly filed in the engineering and medicine fields, of which 45.4% are joint applications with private companies. In addition, we perform a multiple regression analysis to obtain the number of PCT applications per professor using five explanatory variable (R2 = 70.7%). The results elucidated that PCT applications were influenced by industry-academia collaboration and faculty structure. In conclusion, it is conceivable that PCT applications by Japanese universities have the potentialities for technology transfers from universities to private companies.

[1]  Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro,et al.  In which regions do universities patent and publish more? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[2]  Margarida Fontes,et al.  Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations , 2007, Scientometrics.

[3]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  The patenting activity of German Universities , 2015 .

[4]  Mark O. Sellenthin.  Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany , 2009 .

[5]  Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro.  Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities , 2012 .

[6]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States , 2002 .

[7]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A reply to Etzkowitz’ comments to Leydesdorff and Martin (2010): technology transfer and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect , 2013, Scientometrics.

[8]  Philipp G. Sandner,et al.  University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide , 2014 .

[9]  Devrim Göktepe-Hultén,et al.  Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? , 2010 .

[10]  Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro,et al.  What do university patent routes indicate at regional level? , 2004, Scientometrics.

[11]  H. Grimm,et al.  Testing the causal relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Germany: Crowding-out or reinforcement? , 2014, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[12]  Cornelia Lawson.  Academic patenting: the importance of industry support , 2013 .

[13]  Manuel Acosta,et al.  Does technological diversification spur university patenting? , 2018 .

[14]  H. Grimm,et al.  What drives patenting and commerzialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge , 2012 .

[15]  Christian Fisch,et al.  Chinese university patents: quantity, quality, and the role of subsidy programs , 2013 .

[16]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Patent Production at a European Research University: Exploratory Evidence at the Laboratory Level , 2006 .

[17]  Lee N. Davis,et al.  Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences , 2011 .

[18]  Poh Kam Wong,et al.  University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications , 2010, Scientometrics.

[19]  N. Baldini.  Implementing Bayh-Dole-Like Laws: Faculty Problems and Their Impact on University Patenting Activity , 2009 .

[20]  Ampere A. Tseng,et al.  Assessments of technology transfer activities of US universities and associated impact of Bayh–Dole Act , 2014, Scientometrics.

[21]  Rosa Grimaldi,et al.  To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting , 2007, Scientometrics.

[22]  Kazuyuki Motohashi,et al.  Examining the University Industry Collaboration Policy in Japan: Patent analysis , 2012 .

[23]  Sameeksha Desai,et al.  A new industry creation and originality: Insight from the funding sources of university patents , 2014 .

[24]  B. Sampat.  Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole , 2006 .

[25]  Nicola Baldini,et al.  The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity , 2006, Scientometrics.

[26]  A. Geuna,et al.  University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence , 2006 .

[27]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect , 2009, Scientometrics.

[28]  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 .

[29]  Tom Coupé,et al.  Science Is Golden: Academic R&D and University Patents , 2003 .

[30]  J. Lee,et al.  University reputation and technology commercialization: evidence from nanoscale science , 2016 .

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