The relationships between university IP regimes, scientists' motivations and their engagement with research commercialisation in Europe

Many policy makers regard Technology Transfer Offices as a vehicle for Intellectual Property regimes and a main driver for research commercialisation. The involvement of scientists in the process of research commercialisation is often taken for granted.  National regulations can determine the IP regimes at universities and their decisions about the ownership of scientific research results. This paper describes the relationships between four university IP regimes and identifies three driving forces, which motivate individual scientists to engage with the commercialisation of their own research, and the real involvement of scientists with research commercialisation. A representative survey of approximately 2,660 scientists working in all disciplines at some 150 universities in 30 European countries, covering a time frame from 2010 till 2015, shows that around 32% of the scientists are engaged in various pathways of research commercialisation. We found significantly higher percentages of scientists who are involved in research commercialisation at universities that hold IP ownership on research results and that have obligatory Technology Transfer Office services. The individual driving forces are positively associated with significantly higher levels of engagement with research commercialisation, double the amount of patenting and a threefold higher involvement with spin-off companies. Involvement with a spin-off formation was only positively correlated with scientists-related driving forces, not with the intellectual property regime of the university where they work. We conclude that the driving forces of scientists and university IP regimes are both factors that can contribute to increased levels of research commercialisation. Our data suggest that the former factor is by far the more important.  Keywords:  Intellectual property regimes; individual motivation; research commercialisation; patents; spin-offs

[1]  Thomas Zwick,et al.  Individual Determinants of Inventor Productivity: Report and Preliminary Results with Evidence from Linked Human Capital and Patent Data , 2015 .

[2]  Andrew A. Toole,et al.  Individual versus Institutional Ownership of University-Discovered Inventions , 2015 .

[3]  A. Geuna,et al.  The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature , 2009 .

[4]  Luis Sanz Menéndez,et al.  Funding and ownership of academic inventions: Evidence from a patent-level survey , 2015 .

[5]  F. Lissoni.  Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives , 2012 .

[6]  A. Salter,et al.  Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations , 2012 .

[7]  David B. Balkin,et al.  Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter? , 2004 .

[8]  M. Perkmann,et al.  Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations , 2009 .

[9]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists , 2014 .

[10]  Francesco Lissoni,et al.  Academic patenting and the professor's privilege: evidence on Denmark from the KEINS database , 2009 .

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

[12]  Denise R. Dunlap,et al.  The University Entrepreneur: A Census and Survey of Attributes and Outcomes , 2012 .

[13]  S. Jenkins,et al.  Regression Analysis of Country Effects Using Multilevel Data: A Cautionary Tale , 2013, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[14]  Christoph Grimpe,et al.  Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany , 2010 .

[15]  D. Engel,et al.  Legal Frameworks and Public Support in the Biotechnology Industry , 2008 .

[16]  Martin Hummel,et al.  University Patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What Role Did the Professors' Privilege Play? , 2009 .

[17]  Chapter 5: Regulatory Framework Regarding Ownership of Inventions Conceived at Universities , 2005 .

[18]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  A policy for enhancing the disclosure of university faculty invention , 2013 .

[19]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes , 2012 .

[20]  Thomas B. Astebro,et al.  Startups by Recent University Graduates and their Faculty - Implications for University Entrepreneurship Policy , 2011 .

[21]  H. Smith.  Reconsidering the Professor ' s Privilege : University Technology Transfer in Sweden and the UK , 2013 .

[22]  M. Wright,et al.  University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe , 2008 .

[23]  Karin Hoisl,et al.  Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey , 2007 .

[24]  Sadao Nagaoka,et al.  Commercialization and Other Uses of Patents in Japan and the U.S.: Major findings from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey , 2009 .