University Licensing and the Flow of Scientific Knowledge

As university involvement in technology transfer and entrepreneurship has increased, concerns over the patenting and licensing of scientific discoveries have grown. This paper examines the effect that the licensing of academic patents has on journal citations to academic publications covering the same scientific research. We analyze data on invention disclosures, patents, and licenses from the University of California, a leading U.S. academic patenter and licensor, between 1997 and 2007. We also develop a novel “inventor-based” maximum-likelihood matching technique to automate and generalize Murray's (2002) “patent-paper pairs” methodology. We use this methodology to identify the scientific publications associated with University of California patents and licenses.

[1]  Scott Stern,et al.  Intellectual Property Rights and the Evolution of Scientific Journals as Knowledge Platforms , 2012 .

[2]  S. Morgan,et al.  Matching Estimators of Causal Effects , 2006 .

[3]  Fiona E. Murray.  Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering , 2002 .

[4]  Jasjeet S. Sekhon,et al.  Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R , 2008 .

[5]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[6]  Katherine J. Strandburg.  Sharing Research Tools and Materials: Homo Scientificus and User Innovator Community Norms , 2008 .

[7]  B. Sampat,et al.  The Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge Across Time and Space: Evidence from Professional Transitions for the Superstars of Medicine , 2011 .

[8]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[9]  D. Hopkins.  Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition , 2010, American Political Science Review.

[10]  K. McCain.  Communication, Competition, and Secrecy: The Production and Dissemination of Research-Related Information in Genetics , 1991 .

[11]  Brian D. Wright,et al.  Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

[12]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation , 1998 .

[13]  Fiona E. Murray.  The Oncomouse That Roared: Hybrid Exchange Strategies as a Source of Distinction at the Boundary of Overlapping Institutions1 , 2010, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  Ernest Sergenti,et al.  Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference , 2008 .

[15]  Material Transfer Agreements: A University Perspective , 2003, Plant Physiology.

[16]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements? , 2007 .

[17]  P. David.  Can ‘Open Science’ be Protected from the Evolving Regime of IPR Protections? , 2004 .

[18]  Gabriel S. Lenz,et al.  Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media , 2009 .

[19]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research , 2007 .

[20]  Jens Hainmueller,et al.  MPs for Sale? Returns to Office in Postwar British Politics , 2009, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Heidi L. Williams.  Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome , 2010, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  Ph. Tassi,et al.  Theorie des Probabilites en Vue des Applications Statistiques. , 1993 .

[23]  Bhaven N. Sampat,et al.  Patent Citations and the Economic Value of Patents , 2004 .

[24]  Scott Stern,et al.  Biological Resource Centers: Knowledge Hubs for the Life Sciences , 2004 .

[25]  Maria Theresa Larsen.  The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence , 2011 .

[26]  G. Casella,et al.  Statistical Inference , 2003, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[27]  R. Nelson.  The market economy, and the scientific commons , 2004 .

[28]  A. Mazza,et al.  Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. , 2011 .

[29]  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 .

[30]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. , 2002, JAMA.

[31]  Arvids A. Ziedonis.  Real Options in Technology Licensing , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[32]  D. Rubin,et al.  Using Multivariate Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Control Bias in Observational Studies , 1978 .

[33]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[34]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[35]  Kyriakos Drivas,et al.  Academic patent licenses: Roadblocks or signposts for nonlicensee cumulative innovation? , 2017 .

[36]  J. Sekhon,et al.  Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies , 2006, Review of Economics and Statistics.