University Research, Intellectual Property Rights and European Innovation Systems

This paper surveys the literature on university patenting. From the point of view of the economic theory of patents, it is argued that patenting knowledge developed by university researchers is paradoxical: patents are normally intended to stimulate knowledge development by providing property rights, but universities operate also under a different incentive scheme, i.e. they receive public funds to perform socially useful knowledge. In the debate surrounding the so-called Bayh- Dole Act in the USA, it has, however, been argued that patents on university inventions may be necessary to stimulate technology transfer from universities to private firms. The first part of the paper addresses two major questions. First, what is the economic logic of Bayh-Dole, and, second, what were the effects on universities and the knowledge they develop? In the second part, the paper addresses the issue of whether 'Bayh-Dole-like' legislation would be beneficial for European countries. In a number of European countries, a suggestion has been made that this could enhance knowledge transfer from the public to the private sector. Using a new database resulting from a survey among patent inventors in six European countries, an assessment is given of the degree of university patenting in Europe. Because university researchers are often involved in patented inventions without the university being listed as a patent applicant, statistics based on the patent office databases alone often underestimate university patenting in Europe. The paper ends with a discussion of how this 'European practice' of university patenting affects public-private knowledge transfer in Europe, and how this compares to the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act in the USA.

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

[2]  R. Nelson National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

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

[4]  R. Nelson The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  J. Tirole,et al.  The Management of Innovation , 1994 .

[6]  Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie,et al.  What Patent Data Reveal about Universities: The Case of Belgium , 2003 .

[7]  Bart Verspagen,et al.  Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor versus examiner citations in European patents , 2005 .

[8]  K. Arrow Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[9]  Kenneth I. Carlaw,et al.  Beyond the Hype: Intellectual Property and the Knowledge Society/Knowledge Economy , 2005 .

[10]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

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

[12]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992 , 2002 .

[13]  G. Ramello What's in a Sign? Trademark Law and Economic Theory , 2005 .

[14]  S. Breschi,et al.  Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data , 2004 .

[15]  David C. Mowery,et al.  University Patents and Patent Policy Debates in the USA, 1925–1980 , 2001 .

[16]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  AS A SOURCE OF COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY : A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY PATENTING , 1965 – 1988 , 1995 .

[17]  M. Trevor Technology Policy and Economic Performance. Lessons from Japan , 1989 .

[18]  Rebecca S. Eisenberg,et al.  Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research , 1996 .

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

[20]  Richard Watt,et al.  How to Best Ensure Remuneration for Creators in the Market for Music? Copyright and its Alternatives , 2006 .

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

[22]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials , 2000 .

[23]  Bart Verspagen,et al.  Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Inventors (But Never Asked): Evidence from the Patval-Eu Survey , 2006 .

[24]  Hristian,et al.  Everything you Always Wanted to Know About Inventors (But Never Asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU Survey , 2006 .

[25]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention , 1997 .

[26]  Gustavo Crespi,et al.  University IPRs and Knowledge Transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient , 2007 .

[27]  Daniel E. Massing,et al.  AUTM Licensing Survey , 1996 .

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

[29]  Rudi Bekkers,et al.  The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer : empirical evidence from biomedical engineering , 2006 .

[30]  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 .

[31]  Roberto Mazzoleni,et al.  How Do University Inventions Get into Practice ? , 2000 .

[32]  Geert Duysters,et al.  On the termination of strategic technology alliances : an exploratory study , 2005 .

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

[34]  R. Towse Copyright and Artists: A View from Cultural Economics , 2006 .

[35]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D , 2002, Manag. Sci..